skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is my extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/workspaces-fo...

It's a Sublime Text-inspired navigation tool for Firefox. I use it to jump around between tabs on different workspaces or different monitors.
(Yes, I know the default keybinding is bad. I'm going to change that in the post-refactor version.)

My plans are to refactor it for the new Svelte, then improve the fuzzy search, and possibly go cross-browser.
> Honestly duplicating auth APIs are perfectly fine.

You don't get to say this.
> still a huge amount of turnover at the top levels of wealth

That's so far from being true that it's hard to assume good intent.
Nvidia says they were comparing against an inferior chip
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nvidia-says-tesla-inaccura...
Ebay has been a lot more dominant relative to Amazon for awhile in UK, FR, DE, AU
SimpleTax is awesome!
Luke Stark: Facial Recognition Is the Plutonium of AI [pdf]
So you're arguing that the gold rush established that culture and it just never went away?
Movemeback – African job and entrepreneurial opportunities
NYC MetroCard Bonus Calculator
I mean, sure, if you have tens of internal users maybe (but then it could be argued that it could just as well be deployed as a desktop app -- I could buy the deployment method as an argument, mind you). But thousands? Call me sceptical. It just makes me think of `asp:UpdatePanel` all over again.
I've heard this author speak about his paper, and he would be shocked and dismayed that you are mischaracterizing it to this degree. It's about a Chicago, a place which doesn't have a housing shortage that San Francisco has been working towards since the 80s.
I remember that in the past, early 00s, this was true for Python as well.

One had to make an active effort to pick Python to be a tool for the job.

I remember being in one of big government project pitch session and the project manager asked "What this Python language? Sounds like some toy."

Times will change. However Rust sweet spot is system programming. Even though one could build e.g. websites with it, Rust loses its edge and becomes verbose, a too heavy hammer.
I think part of the problem a lot of the time, is Asia gets bundled together... I mean Indian culture by itself is varied, let alone Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, China and other Asian countries. Much more so than even intra-US variances between D and R. You need businesses that understand this, or need to stay in more localized regions and expand as one's understanding expands.

Culture is varied and in many ways everything. Competition is also biased and fierce. At least that's my understanding of things (as a white guy born and remaining in the SW USA).

I do find it funny that Amazon is pivoting to "high quality cross-border sales" considering that into the U.S. seems to be low quality, high markup sales (including high levels of counterfeits) with no end in sight.
That people drive vision is so idiotic.

Humans have far higher resolution sensors and the most advanced computer ever seen behind them. And even that fails at a far higher rate than we want self driving cars to be.
I mean, it's been on the front page of HN for 8 hours...
I haven't seen any mentions of cheaper Lidars, like single axis scanning only, to get some sort of depth map without spinning mirrors or 360 degree positions that ruin aesthetics.

I feel like this would be able to detect trees in the distance and other objects to orient the road/lane detection. And keep it cheap. Possibly add on to existing cars.
You can use Object's as name-spaces, it's somewhat common to use var global = {}; and then put all global variables in it.
But I'm a big fan of scoped imports aka. require in Node.JS. Scoped import is like a global variable, but with the complexity of a local variable.
I prefer function scope as it lets me declare variables where ever I want, but others prefer block scope, so either choose var or const and stick to it.

JavaScript was not the only contender for the browser, Microsoft tried with vbScript, and Google tried with Dart. Then there was ActionScript (flash) and Java (applets). And also ActiveX. Then there are various compile to JS languages, like CoffeeScript, yet plain old JavaScript still seem to be the most popular.

My own pain point with JavaScript is that it's getting more and more complicated. Personally I like to use the bare minimum when it comes to language features. And work with the language instead of against it, eg. I make use of null==undefined, I almost never use === unless I need to be explicit.
Learn the Equality-Table! Also learn regular expressions! (but don't over-use them). Learn how to use closures, learn how to use callbacks. Then it becomes enjoyable. Bonus: Learn how to program without global variables, then use them when it's convenient. Learn how to program with only pure functions, then use impurity for convenience. Learn test-driven-development, but only write tests where they're needed. Learn how to program without an IDE (just plain text editor and command prompt), then go back to the IDE. All the great tools that exist today make you not feel the pain when writing unmaintainable code.
> Resorting to a transpiler which adds whole new complexity dimensions and failure points to your build, and doing so while aiming to introduce a complex workflow that requires half a dozen modules to become manageable is far from the ideal solution.

What? The entire post was about comparing JavaScript to alternatives which use... compilers/transpilers:

GWT - Java-source-to-JS, server and client-side framework
TeaVM - Java-bytecode-to-JS compiler
JSweet - Java-source-to-JS (and TypeScript) compiler with library ecosystem
CheerpJ - Full JVM implementation on the browser
Vaadin Flow - Java-source-to-JS-source, server and client-side framework
Bck2Brwsr - Java-bytecode-to-JS compiler
I am curious - how old were the houses that were getting demolished in Minneapolis?

A lot of the houses that would be torn down SF are nearing 100 years old. That probably sounds comically young to people from Europe, but SF's neighborhoods are among the oldest west of the Mississippi.

You put "character" in quotes... but how far would you go with this? Would you support the right of a property owner to tear down an old building in the French Quarter of New Orleans and replace it with a modern steel and glass structure? How about an old building in the left bank of Paris?

The complicated thing about NIMBYism is that not all backyards are alike.

I say this with full acknowledgement that SF's housing policy has created a horrendous situation. But I actually do think it's possible to build substantially more density here, close to public transportation, without tearing down the older neighborhoods.
Amazon didn't pay those taxes, purchasers did.
You could, but you're not a billionaire running multiple companies that have already done a ton of things that many, many experts said could not be done.

Also note, I'm not saying Elon will do all or even half of them. I'm saying it's going to be damn exciting to watch, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that he does, because I'd like the world to get better, and I'm happy to be an optimist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
But what does that have to do with my comment? Did I say anything about making people uncomfortable?
"When most Europeans hear the word “liberal” they think of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan."

No. NO WE DO NOT.
Irrespective of your views on Maggie - nobody considers her a liberal..
hasn't delivered full self driving (yet)
It's also about a fairly restricted area rather than, say, citywide, from what I recall.
This article dates from 2017. I was hoping to see a more recent status report.

Any idea on what Adobe is currently up to in order to move this along?
Because they're indistinguishable members of the Property party: both corrupt corporate shills. In the US, for example, the Clinton doppelganger of the Southern Strategy was to the take the upper-case Liberals and shift them right. As an example, HRC didn't support gay rights until recent years.

Disclaimer: I don't subscribe to any political labels.
Because those products are unrelated to AI.

Big players will not (and are not) touching GCP's AI solutions for this exact reason: it's only a matter of time before the virtue signalers are no longer content with policing the decisions of their own company and start targeting customer workloads.
If you are thinking of Perelman and the Poincare conjecture then I don't think his career really maps to the kind of "outsider" that is described in this thread:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman#Early_life_...

He had a PhD in math with enough success to be offered faculty positions at Princeton and Stanford.

The fact that he recluded from academic life after that doesn't matter.
Do the sophisticated missiles etc. have powerful chips in them? I would assume the primary objective would be things like reliability, redundancy, etc. Beyond that, probably enough horsepower to deal with some control systems (so numerical differentiation, etc), but these I imagine would typically be microcontrollers and not full processors, right?

I imagine the design process requires a lot of high power computing, but when one gets down to implementing field devices, they typically aren't doing anything too high powered.
>It should average out.

But it didn't, unless you're saying that Lucidchart made an incorrect analysis. Is that your argument?

>Clients send larger numbers of requests at the same time, but they are done sending requests earlier so there are requests from fewer clients being processed concurrently. It should average out.

Again, it didn't average out. And you assume it 'will average out' at your peril. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Lucidchart engineers thought that too and it turns out that was wrong in a way that wasn't foreseen.

>It would only be an issue if the service was built with a small number of concurrent users in mind.

I doubt Lucidchart 'was built with a small number of concurrent users in mind'.
> This is what everyone that is not Tesla or SpaceX are doing.

I think it's very important to point out here that Elon does not run SpaceX. It's well known that he's a front man for that company, and that all day to day operations are run by an actual executive who does the job of being an executive. This is why SpaceX is doing much better than Tesla.
From the presentation they mention that Lidar is good at developing tech demos quickly, but they've found it is insufficient in reality. Which of those 10 companies you reference have moved far beyond tech demos?
It's actually a somewhat difficult thing to predict spikes.
Say you have n clients, d timeslices. When does the probability exceed 0.5 that you get more than k requests concurrently?
Unfortunately the solution is exponential in k.

People might recognise the birthday problem here; for d=365, k=2 (days a year, single share) the well known answer is 23.

Wikipedia gives a formula for a rough approximation for n for p=0.5 and k < 20.
> People drive vision only.

No we don't. We have vision which we then interpret with our _minds_. We have the ability to _understand_ what we are seeing, reason from it, and make decisions accordingly. "Deep Learning", no matter how big your dataset, fundamentally cannot possess this capability. Which goes a long way into explaining why Tesla's "self driving" tech keeps on killing people in situations that are trivially simple for humans. There's no way to rigorously test for edge cases in opaque deep learning algorithms, nor is there any way to implement redundancy as there is in ordinary deterministic systems.

This is a mad attempt to replace human cognition with "AI".
Even if I'm not responsible, it's Defensive Driving. It can save my life to be aware of the dangerous situations that other drivers are causing.
There's no 'object' involved here. First you said this requires subclassing, which it doesn't. Now you're handwaving about a feature that's specifically there to allow for things like plain global functions - a static method has no instance, there's no dynamic dispatch and it can't be overridden. People often point out the facility's utter un-OO-ness. The OO equivalent would be a class method which Java doesn't support at all.
This is basically v1 though, so it's a bit different.
When in Java you add a method call with an exception you either handle it or add the method call and the exception type to the list. In Rust when you add a method call that has a Result, you either handle it or add ? to the end of it to propagate the error, auto converting to the appropriate error type. The experience is much better than on Java, while still properly documenting where failures can happen and what isn't being handled.
That seems reasonable. However, it looks like a third-party rather than the IRS, which doesn't inspire confidence.
Getting That Summer Internship
> Does the opposite result coincide with a commonly held preconception?

Why should the result that goes against the commonly held preconception be under greater scrutiny? If any difference would exist in scrutiny, it should obviously ask more from a result that goes against the general preconception.
> Chinese history they are remarkably non expansionist

That's a narrative story, not a history.

"China" has never been a continuously consolidated political entity. The PRC (and the ROC, and previous imperial governments) find it a useful myth to equate its current geography of control with a tradition that hearkens back through millenia, but it's quite simply not. The Qin dynasty initially controlled the area of a small province, and conquered its neighboring state rivals one by one to establish a dominion over them; it fell, just as countless other empires fell, leading to centuries of alternating fragmentation and consolidation.

Even in modern times, various political entities that position themselves in the history of China have engaged in expansionist colonial missions over a range of territories, from Xinjiang to Taiwan to Tibet. Even Inner Manchuria is only considered "part of China" because the Qing dynasty ruled it and China simultaneously. (As an interesting aside, contemporaneous Han historiography considered the Qing ruling class foreign usurpers; it was only in the 20th century that ROC/PRC historiography decided to incorporate the Qing Dynasty into China's lineage, for political reasons.)
> They deserve to be paid whatever people are willing to pay.

Not if the government is doing the paying, they don't. How much am I willing to have the government pay for me? Quite a bit more than I'm willing to pay on my own account.
Cool! Can I send you some cash somehow?
> `?` isn't really that great - for all but toy cases you have to jump through hoops - especially if you are trying to handle different error types from separate in a unified way.

To be clear, that isn't the fault of `?` but that Rust "requires" you to specify your error type. You could just specify `Box<Error>` and go about your day without boiler plate.

What you mention and my workaround are two extremes of the solution space. There are Rust crates inbetween that help people handle errors the way they need with minimal boiler plate.
I'm getting tired of saying this.

Why is it one or the other? Why only a human driver or a robot driver? Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? If the human falls asleep, the robot can do trivial driving, and the human still makes the more difficult driving decisions.

The question isn't if robot car is better than an average car being driven by a human. It's if the same robot car would be safer if the human was driving it, and the robot in accident prevention mode. And I don't think that is going to be true in any near future.
Yes, his review is scathing. "I started to laugh in the methods section. The authors constructed their key measure (called “internal consistency”) to make it essentially impossible for them to not get the results they got. Or put another way, the study was basically rigged (although not necessarily consciously so), as subsequently shown by three other groups also published in PNAS." So he accuses those he disagrees with of having committed science fraud. Not only that, this fraudulent science has passed peer review and been published in PNAS. It is odd that it has not been retracted if it was so laughable as Cahill claims!

He also claims that these "ideologues" have such a strong grip on academia that they will destroy your career if you oppose them: "Senior colleagues warned me as an untenured professor around the year 2000 that studying sex differences would be career suicide." It is smearing, which he offers no evidence for, hoping that the readership will already "know" it is true. Maybe he is right, maybe he is not, I can't tell. If he is right then I hope more neuroscientists speak up about the bullying and that journals like PNAS stops publishing junk science.
Depending on how you learn, you might find it easier to start by learning the normal patterns and tools for how one does macros (aka "syntax extension") in Racket, and later coming back to this article.

The advanced adversarial stuff Alexis is doing can help some people understand the underlying model better upfront, but other people thinking they have to know it upfront will be needlessly discouraged.

There's also a risk of learning the fancy things too soon: people seem to fixate on the fancy things, sometimes to the detriment of the basics. My favorite example is when newbies to a language will hear of `eval`, which is almost insanely powerful, and then their solutions tend to include `eval` when there are almost always vastly better solutions.
> I thought it was only 1 or 2 people out of 8 who were problematic

I think ahelwer meant the AI ethics space in general, not just this panel.

As a researcher who has been working in ML and also software engineering ethics since long before "AI ethics" became a thing, I've definitely noticed a massive infusion of self-promoting "thought leaders" who have zero expertise in either of those things.

Most of those people are MBAs with little or no actual business experience and zero software knowledge (let alone ML or AI research experience). Their ethics background usually amounts to a few undergraduate philosophy courses that, ironically, failed to teach them the one thing that a philosophy course should teach: a modicum intellectual humility.

And yes, those folks tend to care mostly about their paychecks.
Terrifying. Knowing nothing about this at all, I am curious if insects that feed on blood like ticks or mosquitoes can carry or transmit CWD.
I'm confused. Are you likening people who are upset about mishandled sexual misconduct allegations to lynch mobs?
Convenience before the courts. Tradition thereafter. Inertia in the body of Law at some point.

It works, and wise people don’t seek to fix things that are not actually broken.
are employee 'walkouts' a protected class? Like a union on strike?
Any corporation here can take advantage of tax rules. You can be a Chinese national starting a US company as a subsidiary of a Chinese company and do exactly the same thing.
In theory. Also, purchasers can be seen as paying profit taxes as well.
I'll agree that "liberalism" is a relatively recent political label - but that's about it, especially when religion starts popping up throughout the rest of the short article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty is a good 'starting point' - but then going in a hundred different directions, with most of them denouncing their forebears (as is the way in any good political movement)
As an EE with sense of physics I ran into the same confusion. Your instincts regarding reciprocity, effective area and all that were in the right direction and with a few more steps you would have had your satisfying 'Eureka' moment.

Most of these comes from the Pathloss Equation which it turns out is a stitch up to make things simpler and easy (but wrong).

It's best explained with respect to parabolic antennas but applies to all antennas. The key point to picking this apart is to consider reciprocity which states that the that an antenna is "the same" as either a transmitter or a receiver. In particular the gain is is the same.

So gain is the increased power with respect to an isotropic radiator. With a parabolic antenna the focus (ie beam width) of the transmitting beam does depend on frequency due to geometric concerns and as such, in the path loss equation the the antenna gain appears as frequency dependant as it ought to.

However, reciprocity requires that the receiver also have an identical, frequency dependant gain. The gain of the receiver though depends only on its physical (or effective) area and not on its frequency.

In the pathloss equation you can see that the loss goes as the reciprocal of the square of the distance, which it should, but also goes the reciprocal of the square of the frequency. This frequency term (which causes the equation to violate conservation of energy, normally a bad thing) is there to cancel out the bogus frequency term incorporated into the gain of the receiving antenna due to the also bogus reciprocity law.

So to simplify, in an electromagnetic link between two antennas, the gain of the transmitting antenna depends upon the frequency of the transmitting carrier, because the focus of the beam varies with frequency. The signal then drops off as 1/r^2 in the normal way (with no frequency component) and the gain of the receiver depends only on its size. A bigger receiver antenna captures more energy from the receiver. That's it, simple and sensible.

Effective area is a separate topic for long wavelength transmissions but also sensible in the end.
Sure, but your title sounds rather hyperbolic if based solely on this singular character change. There are dozens of examples of popular gay male characters in American television to refute that claim.

Now if this were China, for example, where Bohemian Rhapsody recently had all references to homosexuality stripped for the Chinese release, your title might be appropriate.
It feels like Google eventually started disciplining disobedient employees. I mean, can you imagine Goldman Sachs bankers organising a protest to express their dissatisfaction with certain decisions their upper management makes? They would be fired on spot. Now, Google has been facing employee revolt for the last couple of years (military projects, James Damore, China search engine), and Google kept allowing that to happen without any consequences. Now that changed, and it makes sense, because employees don't own the company, employees work for the company in exchange for compensation and don't really have to grounds to constantly blackmail the management just because they don't like the direction the company is going. You have to be delusional to think acting like that won't jeopardise your career... Besides if you need to involve a lawyer you are most certainly unwelcome there and should probably just quit (however, finding a new role might prove difficult given the circumstances. Which company would employ someone that organised a revolt against their leadership in their previous workplace and eventually ran crying to the media about retaliation instead of handling the situation quietly).
> Sort of seems even worse in that there is no built in way to propagate the error if you don't want to handle it.

That's better, not worse, because it means you don't up with unhandled downstream errors bloating the signature just because people didn't want to bother with them, which means people are more likely to do something sensible (which may just be wrapping) with them.
Because law English is not our English. Law uses plenty of terms in completely different ways than everyday and even academic English, but still with specific meaning within its own context.

That this meaning is unknown to people outside the profession is not necessarily an issue. It is the job of a good legal professional to make sure we never need know whilst they sort the minutiae between themselves.
Murdering the Mayor of Paradise