skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> that any Chinese student who studies abroad must become a member of the Communist Party

Not true. Being a Chinese student who studied in the US in the past, I never joined, or was asked to join the Communist Party. In fact, the majority of Chinese students in the US that I know are not Communist Party members. A passport (and a valid visa) is all you need to go abroad.
Elusive red sprites, like glowing jellyfish in the night sky in Oklahoma
The fact that we still tax capital gains way lower than personal income should already tell you volumes about who has special privileges in the tax code.
I actually read that just before this comment :)

Edit: Some more clarification about why the arguments don't hold for me.

- More code = more bugs

I think code that is harder to understand leads to more bugs, but more characters typed does not necessarily directly result in more bugs, as far as I know.

- Writing code takes more time

Again, it's not the typing that takes time, but thinking of which code to write. If I have to type more, but there's less for me to keep in mind while typing (i.e. lower cognitive load), I'll be faster at that.

As said: yes, readability is important, but that's a different value than "write less code".

I'm trying not to make a judgment about Svelte here specifically since I haven't worked with it yet, and the general concept (of being a compiler rather than working during run-time) appeals to me. That said, concepts like bindings do scare me - with e.g. `useState` I know that the only places that can change `a` are those that call `setA`, whereas it appears that with Svelte, it can also change e.g. in response to `bind:value` attributes? I'm (perhaps misguidedly) afraid that that's saving a few characters at the cost of readability.
> Is farming 0.07% of the US economy or of the US workforce?

0.07% of GDP. It's a higher percentage of workforce, but still under 1% directly employed. Land area is irrelevant to my argument -- greenhouses can feed a lot of people in a small area.

> There were bread and rice riots around the globe just 10 years ago.

All that says is that Capitalism does a really bad job of supplying stuff to people without any money.
I fail to see how this solves the root cause of the problem such that we won't see another student debt bubble arise again in 20 years.

Students loans must be dischargeable via bankruptcy. Until that happens, student loans will continue to be an issue. I feel like Warren is just attempting to score political points here because her poll numbers are dwindling.
> This is a private company

Alphabet is a publicly traded company. Which means it is expected to uphold certain standards of behavior.
> It's also curious to me that the load balancer doesn't smooth this out. If you have ten application servers and a client makes ten requests over a single HTTP/2 connection, I'd expect each server to respond to one request each.

A lot of people set up their load balancers with session pinning (i.e. always choose the same backend based on the session id). This can improve things like cache performance.

Not sure if this is the case here, but it sounds like it.
ah, makes sense. guess I was the fool :P
Why? I've heard this sociological theory plenty of times. I don't know that there's any data for it, but on the other hand, it seems far from the category of garbage one might reasonably dismiss out of hand as "absurd".
Un-ironically there's an episode of SpongeBob that perfectly illustrates this. Where Squidward convinces SpongeBob to go on strike and once he's actually on strike is surprised and outraged when he realizes he's been fired.
>Karpathy's presentation is really good. Watch it later if you get some time.

I would second this recommendation. He did a really good job not only explaining Tesla's approach, but also breaking down the concepts in an easy to understand way for laypeople. That is a rare skill to have especially among someone who is obviously so technically accomplished.
That only buys time against the long-term trend of increasing retirees per worker. Which is great and all, but there's only so much military budget bloat to cut. Eventually you need either higher taxes or savings, more workers per retiree (eg, through raising retirement age), higher worker productivity, or lower real consumption by retirees.
This is nothing new. Americans have always considered themselves temporarily poor.

And while many don't become fantastically rich, there's still a huge amount of turnover at the top levels of wealth between generations.
You talk to the audience in their language. Not yours
>Wildlife suffering happens with or without humans, but humans active choose to breed and kill animals when we don't necessarily need to. We could just not do that.

You don't support humane slaughter or buying meat from free-range cows, because you think not being brought into existence is better than a happy life with an abrupt ending? What if supporting humane slaughter led to less animals being factory farmed, which is agreeably relatively better conditions for the farmed animal population as a whole? That would then be lessening the suffering of animals in the hands of humans.

>Often vegans are also environmentalists in that human effort has put additional major stressors on wildlife - deforestation, oil spills, human-accellerated climate change, plastic pollution, etc. Factory farming by humans happens in addition to wildlife suffering.

That's great for keeping a clear conscience. But realistically is it believable that this will slow down the impending climate change?

It seems to me that a vegan's idea of helping animals/climate is to disconnect from the situation entirely. That might allow for avoidance of responsibility and a moral high-horse, but economically, it isn't realistically helping to lay the groundwork for lessened suffering and a cleaner environment.
Good points. I think if you are living a bachelor life, with a good tech gig paying six figures, yes you can get there by 40. If you max out retirement accts, live a decently modest lifestyle, have no debt. I bet you could hit 1million, if you are working from age 22-40.
I expect that at some point, it will be possible to grow meat from any given set of human DNA. At this point, I see two things:

1) Lines of celebrity meat. One might be able to look forwards to, for example, an Angelina Jolie steak.

2) Middle class (well, by then the middle classes won't exist - let's just say "rich people") dinner parties in which the hostess serves her guests herself. On a plate.

Is it cannibalism if it was never part of a whole human, but was instead grown in a vat?
No, it's spot on. It's entirely what I said: the car can only deliver a few raw frames, and only in response to particular triggers.

Notice the cherry-picked examples in the presentation. There is a whole class of problems the field cars can never help with, since they lack the dead-reckoning sensor setup and precise odometry a development car would have.
A million in 2050 wouldn't take you nearly as far as today.
Both real median wages and real median per capita income are growing. Part of the rise of income is the fact that people are working more hours than they used to.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2018/10/1...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Some of the data used by your source uses the year 2000 as a baseline. This was a highwater mark and feels like cherry-picking (caveat: it is a nice round number). This narrative was especially strong during the great recession, but it is not strong today.
> Lidar is an unnecessary mistake that competitors are making

This is very controversial and rest of the industry thinks exact opposite, many even claiming that Tesla is being irresponsible and even delusional in trying to do autonomy without lidar. The main points I have heard in favor of lidar are that computer vision is very flaky not only in suboptimal weather but even in good weather. Cameras are simply no where close to in performance in dynamic range, rapid adaptation, focusing etc as human eye. Imagine car going under the shaded road with rapid changes between bright light and shade. The likelihood that your depth estimation will get messed up is very high. Of course, night driving becomes highly questionable as well. In additional the long range depth estimation is very flaky with stereo vision right now and a topic of research for mono-vision. If you want to retreat to level-4 only and that too with conservative speed, weather etc then may be vision+radar more doable?
I'm sorry but I'm finding it really difficult to watch this and match up what the engineer is saying to what Elon Musk is saying.

For example, the engineer says the custom ASIC does 144 TOps for 2 chips vs the NVidia drive Xavier - does 21 TOps. Okay, well yeah I expect your custom ASIC does have a nice performance advantage over the equivalent GPU. at 3.5x advantage probably seems reasonable. Cue Elon Musk:

"At first seems improbable, how could it be that Tesla, who has never designed a chip before would design the best chip in the world but that is objectively what has occured. Not the best by a small margin, the best by a huge margin".

Mate, it's a dot product with some memory attached, and not a single detail your half hour deep dive has gone into suggests anything other than a bog standard ASIC.

"All the cars being produced right now have all the hardware necessary for full self-driving"

And this is where I'm totally lost. I want to believe! But he's lied so many times now. This man is sucking the credibility out of every engineer in the room. Don't repeat the same lie twice.
Didn't realize that LD44 was this weekend! Thanks for the heads up, looking forward to compo!
Thank you, that means a lot!
The GP implied that vegetarians use the logic "ending life is cruel" as a basis for their stance.
But then you have the major car company problem and the phone companies before steve jobs. You have people who don't know what's possible, don't know who are the best people to hire, and can guide a vision. if you know capacitive touch screens are possible no one has ever tried it makes it easier to implement. Same with google and how their CEO are all engineers. So pitching the CEO on AI project becomes easy
Why do you say that? In some regards yes, and some no.

I think the intellectual property is in the APIs/"headers". That is what Android uses from Java and what this company is copying from SmartCar. Its not easy to write a good API. (But, I should say, once you have the headers it is not as tough to populate them with code.) As for coping actual documentation, that is just plain stupid but not the _worse_ crime here.

Now, what is different is that many of us don't approve the way Oracle is enforcing the rights on this information. Java is not like the SmartCar APIs in that it has been free to use for so long. All the same I think Oracle should have the legal right to do this.

Many may disagree about Oracle vs Android but I think it is devaluing the work of people like James Gosling _and_ SmartCar if you say there is not intellectual value in the code/API headers.
What an absurd response! The chance that a random person on the street in America is a billionaire is currently 0.00000212036%. It is absurd for anyone to think they'll win that lottery chance (especially since the acquisition of wealth is correlated highly with... already having wealth)
Try adding some random stuff that you get for basically free with your choice of backend / implementation.

This will waste their time if its a harder problem with their backend / implementation.

Another fun thing you can do is using something that looks like a 3rd-party service/API, but is really just another domain controlled by your company. Make it something specific to your business, so they'll be tempted to use it.

IF they use it, the least you can do is terminate their access at an inconvenient time. This will frustrate their customers as they scramble to do their own implementation.

Final thing you can do is not doing incremental updates, but instead doing big rollouts with many features at once.

That way they'll always be weeks to months behind you.

Basically, when someone is following you, mine the path to the point that it's cheaper and more effective for them to find their own.

Edit: Bonus round is talking about some near-useless feature on your dev blog that would be hilariously expensive and complicated to build, without actually building it. Hope they waste time on it.
I don't know why the article is picking out millennials (other than that it's a popular tactic in the news media). You can replace the phrase "American millennials" with "Americans" in the headline and it will hold true.

I'm reminded of something John Oliver said during a segment of Last Week Tonight some years ago about the lottery. It seems that there are only two classes of Americans. The rich and the soon-to-be rich. At least that's what Americans seem to believe.
"She would eliminate up to $50,000 in student loan debt for every person with a household income of less than $100,000;"

So she plans to reward the people who made the worst decisions. As someone who made responsible decisions: nope. Just no. I will not support tax dollars going to bail out people who paid upwards of 50k for worthless degrees.
It's not 1945 anymore. Nobody in Washington has any qualms about Japan building up its military strength with anything short of nukes. The post-war constitution and pacifist values imposed by the Allies on Japan actually took too well, and the Japanese people remain more skeptical of the wisdom a more militarized Japan than either the current Japanese PM or Washington.

Japan has little to gain from going on another rampage through Asia conquering stuff. Even if you ignore that annexing other countries tends to make you an international pariah these days (see Russia in eastern Ukraine), everyone near them either has nukes (Russia, the PRC, and the DPRK) or is in some form of alliance with the US (the ROK and ROC).
Expanding the textbox can, but how would you set focus to another element with css? Genuinely curious, I have just learned about :target and am having this exact scenario in a project of mine.
The world in 1941 was a lot different. Back then, one would be forgiven for viewing history as either colonize or be colonized.

This is not to defend Japan's actions, they did totally unjustified things in China, and as it turned out after Japan modernized, the west never posed a threat (as WWII would wipe out the Europeans ability to colonize and the US had no interest in it.

The point being, now our perspective on history is very different. Colonization is a thing of the past. Respecting borders is by and large an unimpeachable norm across most of the world. I don't think Japan will feel the same pressures.
>This is the reason why american people don't vote for more taxes on the rich, illusion that someday they will be rich too.

Source?
If they had been using sticky sessions, this should have been a problem before, but to a lesser extent. The same server would have needed to process all of the requests for a single client. You'd still have spikey metrics.

This might not be such a problem with one client artificially limited to a single application server. But in practice, it means that individual servers will be overloaded when they are chosen to handle multiple clients concurrently (while other servers are idle).
Almost all TOS and Privacy Policies are copied from each other, and are pretty generic. It's incredibly unlikely anyone would sue you for that...
Do we have well preserved genetic samples so that when cloning or synthesis technology gets better the flower can be reproduced that way?
I love OldTony for his humour! I'm not quite interested in metal work but he explains things so well and makes it funny during the process!
It arose organically before the restaurants adopted it, but Taco Bell and White Castle have both embraced their reputations as food for the chemically impaired. Almost every time* I've heard someone talk about either restaurant, they have a glee as if sliders or a gordita crunch are a form of debauchery.

*the exception is vegetarians who have a lot of completely earnest love for the bean burrito.
> At the net macroeconomic level, workers make stuff and a portion of that gets redirected to taxes, debt repayment, and return-on-capital that non-workers then consume

It's not quite that simple. "Stuff" can be divided into things we consume (spending) and things that build more stuff (investment). You can spend more on factories, infrastructure, etc. and then shift towards consumables as the number of non-workers increase. Of course we didn't do that, but it's at least theoretically possible.
It was great including his explanation of how Tesla drives in snow and rain which is hard to understand how a car can do it.
Steinbeck believed as much:

"I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist."

often misquoted as "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
I am a full time Go developer learning rust on the side for more low level things, and one of my side projects is writing an OS.

Rust's error handling really feels the exact same way to Go's in my opinion, the only difference is, so far in my admittedly newcomer viewpoint, using unwrap to get to the error value, or returning an error value and doing an if err != nil check.

This isn't to say anything other than agreement that I indeed like this style. I like to handle my errors as values and program around them.

The thing I don't get is why all the bikeshedding and hate around "if err != nil" spam I seem to have seen here often and on other blogs. Go seems to get this "criticism" (I don't really believe it is a valid critique, for what it is worth) heaped onto it plentifully, while Rust seems generally immune to it, otherwise praised for the approach -- but it is the same approach! In fact you even have a builtin panic func in go!

Can someone tell me what I may be missing?
I'd assume that most of them didn't expect much/any disfavor.

Wild guess is that Google internal culture has more "we're the good guys" beliefs among employees than many other companies. And, at least in the past, Google officially supported Don't Be Evil.

If so, that good-guy identification might be self-fulfilling to some degree, in the people who are attracted disproportionately, and in reinforcement from an atmosphere of many people identifying that way.

Continuing the wild guessing, it's possible that people think Google is a safer place to speak up than many other places.

And especially in the age of 'social media', we have blurred ideas of where the line is, between collegial dialogue and public performance. Also, a single person's blurred ideas about that can turn something that was internal for everyone else, into public for everyone else.

Though, in general, if people feel they have to go public about an issue (assuming it's genuine by everyone, not a self-regulation/PR stunt, nor politician-style individual career-building by some)... that seems to suggest that they don't have sufficient influence and trust internally, without putting the organization on the spot publicly. If you don't trust your colleagues/management to do the right thing, or you still don't have influence, I'd say that's not a place you want to be. If the idea of walking away sounds bad, consider whether you actually can find influence and trust within the organization. (And let the rest of us know where you eventually find influence&trust, because that can be hard to find.)
>> Your argument is tendentious in the way it arbitrarily takes certain fixed positions, such as the above insistence on not doing anything unless you can guarantee 100% success,

> What are you referring to?

It is rather surprising that you claim not to follow here, but here's just one example:

>> All ethical guidelines are, in some sense, arbitrary, but the one that says one should try to treat people equally is a pretty good one

> If the software has a less than 100% success rate, then it does not treat people equally.

As your quote is presented as a response to mine, the argument you are making here is that if the software has a less than 100% success rate, then trying to treat people equally is pointless.

> Again I don't know what you're referring to. What do you mean when you say "only so far as it justifies [not focusing on reducing gender/racial disparities]"?

Firstly, rewriting a quote is fraught with problems, especially when the actual words are just as easy to quote, and even more so as you had just quoted them accurately. In this case, they are "only so far as it justifies (in your view) doing nothing in the case of ethnicity, race and gender, but no further."

To give an example, you write "the objective should be to maximize the number of lives that are saved with the resources available", but your position only goes so far as to do nothing about this particular case, and has not been extended to its logical conclusion, which is to redirect all expenditure on facial recognition to more cost-effective lifesaving measures.

>> You have consistently failed to show any real-world evidence for your position.

> I've already addressed this argument. Repeating myself:...

Repeating yourself does not somehow nullify my response to its first appearance, which was to point out that there is good evidence for bias in the case of ethnicity, race and gender, but we are seeing no evidence whatsoever for the sort of confounding problems that you make up in your so-called "thought experiment". Your claim that you don't need to show evidence, because you have an argument in principle, leaves your position wide open to the criticisms of being unrealistic and pedantic.

> Prioritizing the error rate of one subset of the whole will be less efficient at reducing the total error rate.

Given the frequency that the law of diminishing returns is a factor, that is not nearly the given you think it is.

Let's consider some examples of how your point of view would play out. For example, there was recent fatal crash that revealed a corner case in Tesla's vision system, and other crashes that have revealed problems with Boeing's MCAS system. By your argument, it would necessarily be counterproductive to do anything that attempted to mitigate either of these issues specifically. I say 'necessarily' because if it were a contingent matter, then it would be inconsistent with your claim that you don't have to show evidence for your principle being realistic.
Having worked in a government organization (military) for 10 years, i will guess.

I think the point is not that one is not better than the other, simply that they are different. Each coin has two sides, and double edged swords cut both ways.

If youre flush with cash, you might feel void of meaning. If youre helping children, you feel fulfilled but frustrated by what little it would take to accomplish so much more.
I'm a crank. I found this article very valuable.

In 2010 I put online a brief refutation of the EMH, the efficient market hypothesis. Here it is: https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.0423

If I had seen this then, I think I would have followed the directions in the inset box, where the article suggests saying something like: "The reason I succeeded in finding an algorithm for P=NP is that I noticed that... No one else seems to see that this insight is very powerful. It is very useful since it implies ..."

I could have simply written: "Nobody has bothered to test the Efficient Market Hypothesis, but since I have some background in computer science I made an unusual mental connection, and it follows that it doesn't need to be tested. It cannot be true."

(My proof outlined a way to show it has to be false.) I remember my thinking at the time was that I didn't need to explain it at all, just make it correct and brief.

At the time, I didn't want to include anything personal in the paper. Perhaps I should have. It's not a very good paper.