skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not really up for debate that it takes more concentration and time to read Ulysses or Hegel than it does to read the Dark Tower or Harry Potter series.

Edit: And I like all of the above books/authors
Despite your rudeness, I'll remind you that the burden of proof that "dog-whistles are worth worrying about" is not on me.

It's an intriguing concept, but the negative impacts of such behavior (as well as if it actually even exists) needs to be proven, not assumed.
> Imagine if Apple decided they were tired of everyone moaning about Safari's missing features and decided to go the same way as Microsoft.

Not happening. It's likely that Apple spends an inordinate amount of engineering on Safari to lock-out W3C web features that pose a competitive threat to their lucrative Monopoly: the app store. Their strategy has always appeared to be to purposefully cripple Safari to drive developers and users to the app store, and monetize there, both on the $99 annual fee for the developer's ability to publish apps, and that 30% cut on revenues from publishers. Then there's the whole arbitrary bans on certain apps that somehow undermine their control over the device and ecosystem.

If they didn't have a plan to cripple Safari to drive people to the store, why else would they ban browser engines from competitors?
Of course, nobody wants to play a dead game, no matter how fun. This has always been the case.
Your last long doesn't follow, as far as I can tell, from the rest.

The first part of your argument reminds me of Searle's that a belief shared, external reality is implicit in every statement of faxt, e.g. it no sense to say that "there is snow and ice at the top of Mt. Everest, AND there is no shared, external reality."
on the other hand, having more predators culls the less cunning: the specific predator as an individual that was going to end up in the trap is probably not going to eat the specific Kea bird that disarmed this trap. So the Kea bird that disarms a trap has a benefit at a cost to the group of Kea birds, so comparatively this Kea bird has an advantage over the other Kea birds...
HN isn't very representative of the general population, but this is a good start. I'm thinking along the lines of someone in Wisconsin chatting about fishing with someone from Indonesia via an online forum, for example. That kind of thing could really help dissolve blind nationalism.
I disagree. A government usually requires less than 4% of the population forming an armed resistance to remove them, the protests have turned out about 14%. Assuming your typical home made bomb kills about 4 soldiers it would take 1500 bombs and that's not even including casualties from other things, a single person could probably accrue that across the span of about a year if they built 4 a day. 12 people could do it in a month, plus say 40 people for carrying out the operations and acquisition of materials, give or take so lets say 60 people per unit of the resistance, that's like 280000 resistance operations going simultaneously.
Obviously I'm making alot of assumptions here, but I think they're reasonable. The real tricky bit is what you do after you remove the government as demonstrated by Libya and Syria.
I understand the saying, I don't understand the point. Is it that the "victimology" is completely feigned and contribute nothing to attract more people to their cause? I'm sure a lot of it is feigned, but they keep doing it because it works.
I only skimmed through it, but I can not take it seriously. They talk about general mathematical proofs, but it feels more like a few very arbitrarily chosen definitions, without addressing the most standard argument ("what is so difficult about simulating a human brain in principle, except for the (not fundamental) problem of having a big computer and precise classical measurements").
If they were made after the Chinese purchase, maybe. There's no indication in the article that they were though.
> (I’m trying to think of other good examples of this effect in the business domain but coming up short. Anyone?)

Probably the most famous example is a company called Burbn. Here's a story (not mine) about that pivot:

Posting anon.

In 2009, the startup where I was working was hitting the skids, and our investors (correctly) were not willing to back us. We all kept grinding for a month or two in honorable futility, but after a while, my bank account depleted and I had to go.

To make various ends meet and to keep my mental health during the wind down however, I took up some contract work that I found through various friends in the SF startup scene. One company that I really liked and did some small stuff for was Burbn, which was a mobile-only location check-in that was hinged around taking photos of your location.

Missing my friends in NYC (I made a lot of friends in SF, but my inner circle were my college buddies from CMU; I went to tech and they went finance, sigh), I decided to leave SF to head to NYC and get a fresh start.

As I was leaving, I wanted to tie up a few loose ends, so I emailed my contact at Burbn and said I was likely to be unavailable for any more work, but that I liked the project and hoped for the best for him. He responded and said that he was near funding on a small pivot, and that if I was interested, there might be a full-time role available. I declined - I was mentally done with SF and the startup scene (Larry Chiang, 111 Minna, the rise of FB spam-crap like RockYou, etc.) as it was then.

That person was Kevin Systrom; that pivot was Instagram.

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18063362
Most people have no concept of how much space things take. When their phone fills up because of too many videos of toddlers bumbling around they assume it's the apps.
In my experience (which isn't data) the correlation is weak at best, I know people I consider much smarter than me who read slower (my boss for example, he has advanced degrees in industrial chemistry and is ridiculously smart)

That and people over-estimate my intelligence because I know about lots of random things, they think I'm smart because of that but they could have done exactly the same thing if they'd chosen to which feeds nicely into nature vs nurture I guess.

I got hooked on books and my mum fed that addiction, that they didn't is the only difference.

It helps that the perception of computer programmers is that we are geeky but do something that is incredibly difficult (when I know the reality is except for certain domains, you really don't need much math beyond arithmetic and the rest is conscientious attention to detail and explaining the problem simply to a really high speed idiot).
> The intelligence risk is limited to the ability to see how chips are wired together, with some ability to guess what ICs are in use by clues in the pinouts.

No, they could insert fake chips during the assembly. Chips that do almost anything, from interfere with operation to logging information, to transmitting data, to exploding in place.
Though the shade of brown is different, right?
Generally people don't just want to know that they got a qualified candidate, they want to know that they got the best candidate available. And so having a more sensitive differentiator than 'passes basic qualifications' is important to most people.
They said that about the trash can, and it couldn't do any of the things they marketed it towards. Unless Apple called Michael Bay for his advice and they're trying to render the next bumble bee unfolding from their home studio. Don't get me wrong, I'm stoked about the expandability of the Mac Pro. But they priced out their largest audience.

An 8-Core E5 with a $200 GPU at $6k skips over the largest part of the Mac Pro market?

Back in 2006 an Avid editing station came out to something crazy, like $50k if I recall but far more than I could afford, but you could go buy a Mac Pro and Final Cut for $3200 and start editing a movie or tv show without any of the industry standard tools that nobody could afford. And that machine could grow with you for years. I was still using the 2006 Mac Pro in 2015 until we just had to retire them for ports like USB 3.0 to save time.

Granted, you can do complex edits on a MacBook Pro now. Things have changed a ton. I'm just failing to understand why Apple Priced out the majority of people who owned the Mac Pro tower.
An aside.

Has outline.com been handcuffed? Whenever I hit a paywall it used to just be a matter of feeding them the link. Now everything seems to get: "We're sorry, but this URL is not supported by Outline"
I don't know anything about intercepting electronics, but I would not bet my life (which is what you're doing) that a good signals intelligence agency cannot somehow compromise a PCB.
Psychology of game design - Sid Meier - YouTube. Games are so brilliantly built these days - designer for maximum addiction while keeping you constantly engaged at the perception of winning. Battle royal is brilliant in the way you describe it but also because you can finish 2nd just by doing nothing.
Why we can't have privacy on the internet (2018)
Fine, it orbits sagittarius A'*' with some very small wobbles caused by sol.
Sure. I get the value proposition. Just seems strange that we don't have more examples of constrained autonomous robotics products beyond factory/warehouses and vacumns. IMO the answer is that it's very hard to build reliable robots + AI even in simple environments and AVs are still very dependant on the driver.
> If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in?

Back in 2016 you could have pointed to the Brexit referendum as an example of meaningful participation. You could say to the environmental campaigners: copy UKIP, get the government to concede a referendum on shutting down Heathrow. Campaign in the the referendum. There are big problems with persuading enough people to win, but democracy works; if you persuade and win, Heathrow actually gets shut down.

Now they laugh at you. Even if you win the referendum, nothing happens. Then nothing else happens. Then the BBC uses a combat comedian to signal that you are fair game for acid attacks if you refuse to shut up about nothing happening.

The question of whether democracy in the UK is a sham splits into two questions. The split is analogous to the split implicit in the slogan. "Justice must be seen to be done." It is not really enough that Justice is done. Justice must be done in public, so that people can see that it is done. Similarly Brexit is complicated. Many people accept the politicians assurances that they are having difficulty doing something difficult. But that isn't really enough. We want to keep hot-heads on board with democratic politics. That required leaving on 29th March. We missed that deadline, and there will be adverse consequences throughout public life for many years to come.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but this is exactly what I want. I'd settle for a 15 minute walk, but being able to walk to work would be incredible - commuting is by far the most stressful part about work for me.
"We don't know how to do it, therefore it is impossible" is silly.

A real result would be "We prove that human-equivalent intelligence is impossible", which would be quite a shocker since we have the existence proof of actual humans.
Wait, you forgot one interesting question. This paper claims that a Turing machine can not be a general AI, but it says nothing about other models of computation. The notion that (quantum) Turing machines are the most general/powerful model of computation is only a conjecture, although a very plausible one (usually called the (quantum) extended Church Turing thesis).

But even with that in mind, this paper does not seem convincing, including for the reasons you already mentioned. Hopefully it will spark a conversation though.
I'd try your software if you made a Linux release.
'Political will is a key reason for the success, Bampton said, with Mozambique’s president keen to see poaching reduced.'

=> "Do not give up"
They only build the board, not the chips that go on it, so no, they couldn't.
thank you amazing human
Note: The following is an earnest suggestion and not just a recruiting plug, but it is also a recruiting plug. If this is not an appropriate place for this content then comment and I'll remove (I do not frequently HackerNews)!

Personally, I believe the highest leverage thing we can do to promote scientific research is to help connect the dots between related discoveries in the service of bringing new ideas to commercialization/impact as quickly and reliably as possible. I joined Citrine (https://citrine.io/platform/) a few years ago thinking that we would help accelerate research by direct support - building simulation, data, and machine learning tools for scientists. It became clear very quickly that the community was already in a pretty strong position (smart cookies, those research scientists) on that front. The biggest opportunity turned out to be scaling expert knowledge - bridging the no man's land from ideation to scale-up, integration, and manufacturing. At Citrine, we're building infrastructure that helps researchers contribute to an organization-wide knowledge graph capable of supporting inference in the scale-up or manufacturing context based on relationships learned in the R&D phase. This fundamentally changes the ROI calculus for basic research because it can plausibly support the entire product life cycle.

If this sounds exciting to you, then consider joining us! We just raised a Series B and are growing quickly.

If you have an applied math and software eng. background and want to help generalize and scale our property inference infrastructure, then I think you'd enjoy working with me and my team in SSE: https://citrine.io/careers/#scientific-software-engineer.

If you have a backend software eng background and want to build distributed services for scientists and engineers at some of the biggest materials and chemicals companies in the world, join us in engineering: https://citrine.io/careers/#sr-backend-software-engineer.
As far as I was aware, the UK didn't have access to the source code for it's own jets anyway. Does it make much difference if yet another nation adds it's own backdoors?

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/11/us-to-keep-jca-source...
Being difficult to read definitely isn't a mark of quality, but all books aren't written at the same difficulty (vocabulary, ideas, information density) level, even if the idea that some things are harder than others strikes you as elitist.
This is all assuming that they did the assembly, which I'm willing to wager they didn't.
What it's like to be a white woman named LaKiesha
Basically the battle royale game mode was all they had as an identity. Almost everything else about the game is generic. The graphics look like every asset-flip from the last ten years, music is utterly forgettable, there's just no style. I hate almost everything about Fortnite's style but it does have a distinct one.

Compare Wolfenstein 3D to Doom, except pretend Wolfenstein never had the "Nazis" idea and you were just fighting generic soldiers.
> So we are very differently positioned than we were when Firefox/Chrome overtook IE.

I would agree, but not for the reason you state. IE was the standard back then, too. The difference is that once it was "good enough", Microsoft reduced investment in it and allowed it to stagnate. Others caught up in terms of compatibility and passed it in terms of usability.

Google, on the other hand, invests so much that no on else can keep up, and knows that this is the means by which they maintain control over the web (and web standards).
It's bare board, they don't assemble. They just make the PCB board itself.
I would have liked to see the results compared to ground truth. ie a picture of the person taken from the center the lense.

And i would have like to see more false-positive rejection. e.g. stuff that gets detected as a face but isn't- at the edges of photos, but really that relies on the robustness of the face detect heuristic, so it's a short and sweet heuristic that will make people look more normal at the edges of photos.
And it is why I find the paper very unconvincing. We do not have a good model right now, but it is shortsighted to claim we will never have one. The whole statement is completely circular and tautalocal.
Not every dynamic system is self correcting, in fact if the hypothesis is that a system is ‘stable’ in that sense the next step in the discussion should bear on:

- the forces in action and their relative directions

- the regime within which we could consider dynamic changes to be stable

- the time range we should expect the system to converge to the hypothesized equilibrium state

Most importantly in my opinion, is not assuming that a stable regime exists within a time/space envelope that corresponds with a physically achievable state in the real system we are trying to approximate.

I would put that sort if assumption into the category of ‘common falacies.’
I am not an academic neurologist, but I have never read anything convincing that suggests quantum effects are critical to the behavior of human cognition. It may yet be true, but I suspect that classical physics/chemistry is probably sufficiently close to what actually happens to convincingly model human behavior.
More popular and simple way to build command-line tools
>The risk to the supply chain is zero

Hypothetically, what would happen to a pcb board , 33x33cm in size, with the ground lines running around the edge of that board, when hit with a high power 900 MHz broadcast?
The paper seems to basically say, as I read it, "the current approaches for modeling human behavior are unlikely to be perfect enough so no approach will ever work." I find that to be filled with a lot of unsupported strong assumptions. Specifically, it talks about modeling language with machine learning based on input-output pairs.

But, for example, if you took a human brain, deconstructed it's physics down to individual chemical reactions then you're no longer trying to predict a black box with input-output pairs. You literally have a copy of the black box in mathematical terms.

Like most of these papers it basically boils down to positing a solution to a problem as the only solution and then claiming that solution doesn't work so no solution would work.
It feels more like an argument that chatbots will never exhibit general AI.

Which ought not to be controversial. The point of the Turing test isn't to provide a blueprint (just optimize human dialogue and you'll eventually get general AI) but a test to see that your general AI works. You might build a general AI that fails the Turing test, but you won't be able to pass the test without a general AI. That's the idea.

Unfortunately people have taken the wrong idea from the Turing Test and decided to attack the "faking human communication" thing directly. Which is fun! But anyone who in 2019 thinks that better chatbots will eventually develop general AI are delusional. I don't know if anyone with more than a passing interest actually does believe this, so it feels like this paper is arguing against a straw man.
I never knew that anyone subvocalized until I ran into theories that subvocalization was required for reading.
Web Workers were added to Firefox ten years ago this month, so they're definitely not new technology. I think this is a great call to action to actually start taking advantage of them.
I think the right algorithm for something you put a lot of effort in (like I did for Shadergif):

1. Post on HN.

2. If upvotes <= 3:
Post the next day.
Maybe you did not get the attention you deserved. Try tweaking the landing page a bit. Maybe you can change the title, add more screenshots of your UI on the landing page.

3. Iterate on your product or work on a new one, but don't post a similar thing again for 6 months.
I also was of the opinion that there was the possibility to reach general AI in the future, but now I will take time to read this paper. I'm not skeptical about it because we know your assumption number 3 to be false: there are mathematical functions that aren't computable. For a proof you can look here [1] or google it.
[1] https://www.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/198271819
> Actually everything gravitates around everything else, as the article also explains.

What helped me understand it the most was an answer to this question:

"Where does the Solar System end"

"When the dominant gravitational influence is not the Sun"

it seems like it is always a loaded question because it is relative to the body being talked about and not its own moons, but it really just comes down to gravitational influence.
Making K3s Self-Aware
HK to suspend extradition bill after protests
Surely you mean "including raw sensory perception" ;)
> But it's a mistake to say that the flat-earthers are wrong in any absolute sense. They aren't.

I'd say they're absolutely wrong in the sense that they make the flawed claim that people who assert that the Earth is an oblate spheroid are absolutely wrong, or worse, are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to hide the truth.
You can probably guess from the conflation of entertainment with education in the article:

> Buckleitner, who has been reviewing educational games since 1984, assured me of their quality. “They were good!” he said. “They had animation, music… for the first time you had actors speaking, kind of like comic books. They teach higher order thinking, so they fit well with school curricula.” That I never thought about it means they were doing their job.

Personally, I never felt I learned much from TLC games as a kid (although I enjoyed some games), and what I did learn I could've learned as well or better reading books or doing regular exercises.

In general, educational and brain-training games don't work, likewise, handing out laptops, and the better the experiment you run, the smaller the effects are. (This is true of education experiments in general, where effects are typically near zero.) Just because something is entertaining doesn't mean it's educational, and just because something is educational, doesn't mean it's more educational than what a kid would otherwise be doing, or educational about useful things.
> California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation.
I completely agree with you. I put quantum in parentheses because quantum behavior is important in complexity/computability, and I wanted to be complete. However, yes, there is absolutely no reason to think a human brain possesses that computational capability (and plenty of reasons to suspect it does not).
If your client is a large corporation where your contact person can only view your site in IE, you kind of have to make it work...
The effect still exists in some way in later version windows like the Windows Volume Mixer will freeze up or won't open if you have an application stopped at a breakpoint. I think it gets stuck waiting for a reply from something like WM_GETICON that it would have to send to top-level windows.
There is a great analysis of the issue you raise in the essay The Toxoplasma of Rage at https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
It's generally believed that it gets weaker (that's the point of attacking someone - to put them down) and my point is that it tends to get stronger. Attacked groups get together and become more active and motivated. They refine their methods and obtain more high ground from the excesses of the attacking parties.
Can someone comment in this vs Pyro?
And not a single mention of Pale Moon, ungoogled-chromium, or waterfox...
How much longer will Taiwan choose to be an independent country? They seem to be getting pretty cozy with the mainland.