skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The internal representation depends on the tool and application. Here are a few examples:

* For deeper analysis, we often use the same internal data structures that the compiler itself uses. This includes data structures that capture AST and type information. In the case of some languages, the compiler doesn't capture enough information (e.g., dynamically typed languages with no static typing). In those cases, the data structures are often enhanced/similar-but-not-quite-the-same as what the interpreter/compiler uses.

* In "shallower" analysis, you can use a language-agnostic parser to generate a generic AST. There's various techniques for doing so in a language-independent fashion, depending on what tradeoffs you want to make with speed, accuracy, and generality. The tree-sitter library is one such example. You can also use tools like CTAGS + textual heuristics in the extremely shallow case.

* Then, there's the Kythe approach, which constructs a taxonomy of source code graph nodes and edges that aims to capture every possible relationship in every language. Each language requires an integration to convert from the source code in that language to the Kythe schema; that integration can use either the "shallow" or "deep" approaches described above, and the right answer depends again on your tradeoff of speed vs. accuracy.

As for combining dynamic information like profiling and runtime info, this is something we've been thinking about for awhile. We think there's plenty of low-hanging fruit that combines static information (types, AST, source code) with runtime info (stack traces, profiling info). We've a couple of efforts in motion toward this end. One is the Sourcegraph extension API (https://sourcegraph.com/extensions), which allows injection of third-party info, often from runtime tools, into wherever you view code, whether it's in your editor, on GitHub, or on Sourcegraph. Another is allowing a user to plugin stacktrace data to heuristically select which jump-to-def/find-references options are most likely to be useful given what your currently debugging.

I'd love to hear what you're thinking of—care to share your ideas in this space?
Destroying others for one's own gain is fully compatible with self-interest -- there's nothing enlightened about it.

Altruism, yes, is enlightened.
It's a valid point, but to be completely honest, the same point applies to all the rich countries. The only reason we can have the life style we have, i.e. drive a car that costs only 20k, wear clothes that cost 20 usd, have a smartphone for 150 usd and oay for gas only 3 usd us because if slave labor in third world countries and the American military forces make sure to preserve this state of things. Otherwise we'd pay 40 usd for gas, 200k for Mazda 3, 5000 usd for a smartphone and 50 usd for a coffee.
It's true. I may have actually been higher for some loans until I got a couple of promotions and had enough of an income increase to be able to refinance to a 5 year 4.75% loan at SoFi. Which itself still feels high as you watch DAILY interest compounding happen.

I lean fairly liberal, but I think we can make significant strides with this issue in the US by simply changing what max interest rates are and how this interest compounds. The way things work right now truly feels like robbery when you're in the thick of it.
If someone gets into writing open source with the goal of making money off of it and gets pissed when others “extract value” from their work, that person never should have gotten into open source to begin with. In fact, for their own sake, they should probably get right the fuck out of open source pronto, because they are seriously missing all the points in spectacular fashion.
>Second, 18 to 35 is sort of a crazy range

Agreed. The data can be skewed by more people going to college or grad school. Those people tend to not have much or any net worth.
> With two sensors, you can detect failure. It’s very unlikely that both would fail simultaneously. If they did, it’s very unlikely that both would provide the same erroneous readings.

> First: I said it’s very unlikely, not impossible.

> You’re just badly arguing details while ignoring the actual point here.

My point here was that with two AoA sensors you can't reliably detect failure. They can both fail simultaneously and provide the same erroneous readings. And because it's not that unlikely we have to be sure that pilots can handle MCAS problems when two AoA sensors fail.

> Second: the failure of AF447’s pitot tubes was detected immediately

Because A330 have three pitot tubes, right? Not two out of two sensors?

I'm not arguing about AF447 case, I gave it as an example that two sensors _can_ have same erroneous readings.
Airbus engineers were not sure that can happen in real life, so stall warning issue was a real surprise for them.
It’s impossible to free ride with a permissive license like the one used.

It’s like complaining because Seattle sets up a free subway that supports infinite riders at $0 marginal cost and Amazon has all their employees ride it instead of making google buses.

There’s also an issue that Elastic’s district was actually worse than Amazon’s new distro due to license confusion.
Just checked my direct federal loans (the first source of loan funding for most US college students -- the second is private banks). Interest rate is 4.41%. I was lucky because federal direct loans covered my tuition, but many other students need to take private loans, as well.
But, this has really not a lot to do with pattern matching. Please see my comment at https://www.reddit.com/r/perl6/comments/bvhzwh/perl_6s_given...
Who's going to stop them and who's going to investigate them?

I think Americans often ignore the reason behind the EU's deep concerns around privacy and regulation is simply because EU lawmakers have no other power over American corporations. Simply none. The most they can do is excessive financial penalties. They cannot jail Bezos. But what they can do, is impose an absurd financial penalty. Amazon will appeal. It will go to court, and the US State Department will try to help Amazon (an American corporation after all, representing American jobs and American workers) and the penalty will be reduced. The EU public is happy, the EU stuck it to Amazon! But they didn't face any significant consequence for their action, and never will.

If however, this happened in the US, it can get thorny for Amazon. A "lowly" judge in Texas can compel Bezos, the richest man in the world, to appear in court. The implicit threat being that, being in non-compliance would escalate the case until it reached the highest courts, which can compel the Federal Govt. to take action to compel Bezos.

A US judge has that power. No judge in any other country has it. Every other country has no reason to believe Amazon will do as it says. Only some have the power to impose the kind of regulations like GDPR, EU being America's close trading and diplomatic partner.
Unpatched Docker bug allows read-write access to host OS – Naked Security
All makes great sense. Well good job!
Wow, one step of the process takes 10 minutes per cable. That's insane.
>
Few are willing to risk their life when they ride around in their F150 picking up cheeseburgers, fries and a large drink for <$10 on the way home to watch the game… or whatever. That’s the real power of America that so many underestimate. You can placate 90% of the population with that alone.

And no wonder. It's the lifestyle that billions of people in countries other than US can only dream of. A lot of them are risking their lifes to be able to live this dream.
Maybe the secret plan was healthier employees lol.
Of course, the fact that we make sure that they don't do anything, and discriminate against them when they try to break that expectation, has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Average credit card APR in the US is a bit different. https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/rate-report.php
Millenials are distribued evenly throughout every electoral district. Without proportional representation, it's a perfect gerrymander.
I'd almost be more interested in the change in variance across time. If education costs are the main factor, and the top 10-20% (? estimate) have parent's who pay for college, you'd think this might be yet another factor exacerbating inequality.
$2.13 tipped minimum wage is 'indentured servitude' – Ocasio-Cortez
Destroying office equipment seems like a good way to become unemployed. Not everything has to be absolutes; before burning the building down, you could just ask "hey, what's with the cameras".
It depends on the cat, they can be conditioned to accept things like collars and even leashes if you start early enough.

A friend once attached a servo to the collar of his appendage-friendly cat with a long carbon rod protruding in front of his cat's head carrying a small cat toy on the end.

The receiver and small battery pack hung from the collar bottom to keep things oriented. It only lasted for brief periods of amusement before the rig would get destroyed in the chaos, but in those short functional windows he could influence his cat's steering by radio control.

I don't think he ever figured out how to add a throttle control.
The average cookie doesn't belong to a high-value segment, explaining why the average benefit is limited.

Of course Mercedes wants to reach people shopping for a BMW and will pay substantially more for it. They are paying extra to reach a small subset of users.

No conflict here at all
Tell that to the state of California
They’re not expected to be that reliable. They’re small vanes sticking out the side of the nose, vulnerable to bird strikes. The article mentions hundreds of reported failures over the years. The way to make the system reliable is redundancy.
They have security cameras to protect people and the bank assets - not do monitor the work of their employees.

At least in Europe that's the law. Besides that, you must have visible warning signs to let people know there are cameras recording them, and you also have to notify the national entity that's responsible for data protection that you will have "X" cameras (image, audio, or both) for the "Y" purpose.
Theres that caps lock again...

1. Of course not. I am not an idiot. Fringe viewpoints belong on the fringes. It's why they are called that.

2. You don't and can't. It's been shown that when they do change their minds it's often through indirect means.

3. A company has a right to do whatever it wants within the confines of the law. I am saying they should make better choices and shame on the ones that don't.

This argument has gotten circular and pointless. The tone of your responses has gotten frankly combative and rude and your counter argument is based upon a false premise. I've clarified my original intent as much as I care to. If this is how you engage with those that you disagree with I would encourage you to find a better approach. I am out of this conversation.
http://archive.is/NizFV
I took this course from the author (with a draft of the now-published textbook—I'm in the acknowledgements for proofreading help) and thoroughly enjoyed it. I hadn't thought I was much of a math guy, but it made set theory and proofs and very basic modern algebra seem interesting and intuitive. Not sure what else there is to say, but I'm happy to answer questions.
> These games have so much more to them than reaction time and dexterity

Sure but they're still an important part of the end result which most people don't consider. For many the title just says "AI beats human mind". If you want to know which mind is better then compare minds, all else equal.

"Dumb" bots have been kicking player's butts for years now. Not because of intelligence but because everything else was not equal: great aim, great reaction time, great situational awareness. So aren't you curious how much the "intelligence" part evolved?

Imagine a 100m sprint where one of the runners has to wear army boots and backpack. Would you even bother drawing a conclusion?
On the upside, oxygenation led to the explosive diversity of complex, high-energy organisms that led to us[0]!

Without living on the edge, you don't get complex, powerful organisms (like mighty trilobites).

Plus, there's no telling how much reprogramming for stronger oxidization-repair mechanisms can provide. Mammalian mitochondria are inferior to bird mitochondria (and birds have them in their blood cells unlike us which may help[1]), allowing birds to live longer even with higher metabolisms than mammals. Evolution hasn't exhausted the possible. There's hope!

Just not for us. :) Which is fine; everything's fine.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Increase_in...

1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3686644/
It just shows how extremely hardworking those young people are. Its effectively harder to earn good money now than 25 years ago.

And thats after two major economy collapses.

Despite all odds against them, they dont give up, yet still get shorter stick.
A few years back my employer took over a floor of offices that had previously been occupied by a small financial services company - they had installed loads of very obvious cameras in the ceilings. Although I was pretty sure they weren't connected to anything I went around and disconnected all of the cables going into the cameras just to make sure!
Have you seen Google's growth chart? It was meteoric. All these things you mention came in or after 2007. Google was already a behemoth by the early 2000s and that was because it was just way better than anything else.
>Smith wasn't saying greed is "good". He was saying that self-interest is unavoidable, so the economic system must accept that inevitability.

Well, self-interest is not unavoidable. There were societies where doing what's honorable or good for the many, was more celebrated than self-interest.

By taking it as inevitable, why make self-interest not just an acceptable, but a celebrated even trait.
> you would not be able to bring your own fuel

I love that you point this out. People are so used to even "hard" science fiction hand-waving this away they often don't realize the magnitude of the problem.

For example, if you use a fusion drive (I_sp = .12 c) and start at 99% fuel (9:1 fuel ratio for initial acceleration and then again for deceleration at the end of the journey, so m_0/m_1 = 10 both times) then you can only travel at .27 c which means time dilation is nearly negligible, only about 4%. Similarly, if you start with 99.99% fuel, you still only achieve 0.5 c, 99.9999% (the payload is now one-millionth of the ship) gives you .68 c, one part per trillion gives you .93 c, etc. We assumed perfect engineering, used a trillion tons of fuel for one ton of payload, and we're still only at Lorentz factor of 2.7. If someone invents an antimatter rocket we can improve the .12 to 1, but that's only a one-order-of-magnitude constant difference. The tyranny of the (relativistic) rocket equation is brutal. This wikipedia article contains the equations used for the above calculations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_rocket#Relativist...

Now, you might not have to take all your own fuel with you: Bussard ramjet style designs gather their own fuel as they go once they get up to speed, thereby breaking free of the tyranny of the rocket equation. These are in the realm of science fiction at the moment, but at least they are within the known laws of physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

Realistic projects like Breakthrough Starshot usually assume (a) an external power source (such as lasers pushing a mirrored object), (b) no deceleration at the end (an order of magnitude savings), (c) very small payloads, and (d) only moderate velocities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot

I've been moderately critical of Starshot for other reasons (how can a useful camera or other sensor fit into such a small device? How could it have a directional antenna large enough to focus over 4 light years? How could it contain a power source large enough the send a signal back?) but in terms of just getting a payload a certain distance, it seems workable and is perhaps the best design we have.

So yes, bringing your own fuel is not a good idea if you are trying to get close to light speed!
> Second, 18 to 35 is sort of a crazy range, it seems to me, since the net worth of the group is likely going to be dominated by those in their 30s who are mid-career.

And yet, it still

> has dropped 34%

If you break it down to two sub-demographics, I suspect there'd be an even larger disparity within e.g. 18-25 than there is with 26-35 for reasons such as student loans, but 18-35 would seem appropriate for what's perhaps an overgeneralized view of when most career trajectories and preferences plateau/harden.

Not sure if it's at all related to the key TV demographic of 18-34, but that wouldn't surprise me either for largely the same reason (hardening of preferences).

But I think that's kinda the point. People were previously building more wealth at a time in their lives when said wealth would have a more profound impact as they approached retirement age some number of decades later. The current generation occupying that demographic has been tragically stunted by stagnation in wage growth + inflation of education charges, and here in the United States, this may well impose a cascading detrimental impact on the health of the economy as a whole.
Boeing engineers did consider [MCAS activation due to failed sensor] in their safety analysis of the original MCAS. They classified the event as “hazardous,” ... could trigger erroneously less often than once in 10 million flight hours.

The incuriosity of all parties to an event categorized as hazardous is astonishing. Boeing says it's a system that's completely transparent to the pilot, and therefore there is no need to describe a failure that they say would be hazardous. What part of that passes a reasonable smell test? It's safe unless it fails, which would be rare, but if it fails people could die? But meh, it's rare so let's not even find out what would happen if it happened?

Boeing must be compelled to show their work for this probability computation, because it is clearly wrong. And both Boeing and the FAA have to answer why there's no mandatory testing of hazardous events. At least what does a simulator think will happen in various states of perturbed sensor data, and how does a pilot react when not expecting such an event?

Oh, and the part about depending on a single sensor is not, per Boeing, a single point of failure because human pilots are part of the system? That's a gem. The pilots are the backup? This poisonous form of logic is perverse.
Scale is all about numbers. Solutions that work for small scale don't always translate to large scale. Plenty of information about Uber scale is publicly available on the blog and YouTube.
Amazon isn't free-riding any more than everyone else. If I can buy hardware and hire SREs to run mongod myself, I should be able to pay AWS to do the same things for me, and it's weird that the authors expect a cut in one case and not the other.
I think we’re on the same page here. To really stretch an analogy, if I were to leave a taser with a small child they shouldn’t taser themselves, but I’m clearly (and Unironically) the asshole for giving them the taser.
With the student debt I honestly expected the average net worth to be negative.
Absolutely. That was my first intuition as well.

But then I got to wondering if our bodies aren't critically entangled with our Earth ecologies in various time sensitive ways, and realized that I don't know the answer to this question.

(I.e. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0004105 )

So my second question is treating the human body as being meaningfuly physically entangled with it's environment and as being in some sense unified with it. Accelerating a body away from Earth at 1g might be akin to cutting off a limb and expecting it to survive on its own. I don't know if this is the case, but it seems possible.
Charlie Munger Harvard Speech 24 yrs ago: The Psychology of Human Misjudgement
Cameras were installed at a previous company where I worked. This was just an office - there was nothing to see anyone doing other than sitting at desks and walking between desks.

The management told the staff they were only going to be on after working hours, to catch thieves. I noticed a week or two later that some young, male, technical members of staff, including the one who did the installation, were in the server room watching staff on the monitors, laughing at people’s appearances and talking about the sexual acts they would like to perform with some of those visible on the monitor.

I reported this to management, who said they’d fix it. A week later, the same was happening. Again I reported, again it carried on. Then I saw that (male) management were using the web viewer from their desks to watch the women in the office (selecting particular views) from the comfort of their desks with monitors towards the windows. Which are reflective, so they weren’t as private as they perhaps thought.

I told one of the women concerned. She complained to the same management - they told her they were off during work hours (which they weren’t) and nothing happened.

I kept spotting them sitting watching the staff from their cosy corners, so I logged into the system (it wasn’t hard to find the credentials) and reconfigured it so it wouldn’t appear on the network any more.

It took them a few days to factory reset the box and they were off again. I left shortly afterwards - the general attitude towards employees being one of my main reasons.
I'd also be much more interested in a more detailed net worth distribution over time. Reminds me of the quote Nassim Taleb is fond of, "Never cross a river that is on average 4 feet deep".
I think Goldman just wants to get into consumer finance and that means paying to get the foot in the door.
>The problem I see with your suggestion is then society must pro-actively make some sort of decision for each and every domain in advance, which isn’t possible.

First, why not? It's very much possible, we have all kinds of systems in place, even electronic voting.

Second, privacy is a serious matter, of which there aren't tons, so it's not like "each and every domain" is equally important.

Third, it's not like a decision for all domains has to be taken simultaneously and right now. We could vote for one domain per year, and we'd have covered 10 most important domains in a decade...

>The goal of expectation of privacy is as a test to determine when privacy would be or has been violated on a case by case basis.

It's also used to mean "you wouldn't expect it in X domain, so you don't get to have it there".

And, as lots of domains where privacy is important are new, what's "expected" can go either way, like FB trying to argue that "people don't expect privacy in social media".

If we instead change it to whether people want privacy in social media, that's more clear cut, regardless to whatever someone can argue we "expect" or "not".

In fact, even if we keep it to "expect" (as the deciding factor), why shouldn't we vote on whether we do expect it or not? Why expect should be speculation?

Ask us (the people) to vote directly whether we expect it or not, don't decide for us, with some BS medieval-style theological syllogisms...
There is nothing preventing you from exploring. You can be a big fish in a small pond. And because they know your worth, they won’t treat you as disposable.