skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>But, right now, starting a business with goals that aren't profitability leaves you vulnerable to somebody else who _will_ maximize profitability.

Don't assume that corporations around the world are all run with an American mindset and according to principles taught in American MBA schools.
I appreciate your comment, despite not relating to it very well and it seeming a bit strange to me.

I know that might come across a bit odd, but it's refreshing to actually try to understand other viewpoints and to do so inoffensively.
Technically no - cookies are stored by the user. If anything it is technically worse in some ways because it moves it to the back end outside of user control.
Automation of any sort will sometimes accidentally your data, whether due to periodic hiccups, system instabilities and bugs, operator misunderstandings or errors, or random cosmic ray strikes.

The exact reason it blows up isn't even necessarily all that important, other than in its effect on what you should be doing to reduce the probability of downtime. Well-engineered systems are routinely developed from less than completely reliable parts. Stuff fails, we design for it.

It's certainly not reason not to use it, if it's resulting in a net positive gain in your ability to get things done and maintain control and transparency over your deployed systems.

But it's certainly a good reason (among a long list of good reasons) to make sure you have a good backup routine in place, including regular testing of both their integrity and your ability to restore a working prod system from them quickly.
I use Windows with a Microsoft account. But none of my files are saved in their cloud.

What are you talking about? OneDrive? You don't have to use it if you don't want.

Setting? You can disable their syncing too.
Show HN: GitHub Markdown Reader
'Star Trek: Picard' Shows Where the Franchise Is Boldly Going
I guess it depends on the definition of done of each team.

We normally can't complete tasks until they are code reviewed, so checking out locally would be the analogous of working offline in a CVCS
Although it has settled the case, Google denies the allegations that it was unfairly dismissive of older applicants.

Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
There was fear that if the Russians got to the moon first they might set up a base, and having a base they could shoot down any other landing attempt (literally, with guns mounted in their moon base). Thus the moon could become Russian domain, which would not just grant them great research opportunities but also a virtually unreachable weapons platform. (Remember that the first crewed space station was 2 years after the moon landing, and also Soviet)

On that basis the military was advocating for a moon mission years before Kennedy's speech. It's hard to tell if this actually played a big role in the decision to go to the moon, but it was the cold war after all.

Also the Soviet Union was winning most of the relevant milestones in space (first satellite, first animal in orbit, first human, first woman, first space walk, etc), and this was a great source of national pride. Beating them had great propaganda value.
This might be a radical idea, but after reading that article, my thought was, "At this point, the most merciful thing to do might be to put NASA out of its misery." Specifically, this would entail:

- The US government getting out of the business of designing launchers: We'd acquire launchers the same way the Air Force gets airplanes: define requirements and solicit bids. This isn't perfect (see: F-35), but it's a darn sight better than the current SLS process. After all, in World War 2, it's not as if the US Army Air Corps (and later, the US Army Air Force) designed every plane that it acquired. It put out requirements and solicited designs from aircraft manufacturers like Boeing, Curtiss, Vought, Douglas, etc. Now that rocketry is no longer an unproven and speculative endeavor, we should do the same, and seek to build up multiple competing rocket manufacturers

- Giving near-Earth science to NOAA: Right now, Earth-focused satellites are split between NASA and NOAA. Giving a single agency responsibility for Earth-focused scientific satellites will ensure that they have a single clear voice advocating on their behalf

- Sending the astronaut program back to the Air Force (or maybe create the much ballyhooed "Space Force")

- Creating a new, smaller, more focused organization for exploration of deep space (i.e. space beyond Earth's gravity well). While this organization could wear NASA's logos, I think it would be better if there were a clean break with the past and the organization got a new name and new branding
How does Netflix and Amazon calculate ROI from their content investments?
This is has interested me for quite a while but I couldn't find any explanation of it online.

I know they know what kind of shows to make and what the audience interests are. But, how do they determine --

- how much to spend?
- how often to spend?

How do they know if something they made is worth the investment? What is a success metric for them? Obviously people watching it and applauding the content and coming back for more is the first and foremost. But the end goal is two things acquiring new audience and audience retention. Are all their content investments purely for audience retention? Is there a way they can actually compute new audience acquisition or conversion rate from new content?

I am curious how they go about all of this.
The best thing a city like SF could do is abolish its sales taxes. That increases the salary of everyone and particularly low-wage workers.
True, !! is still needed to get a True/False instead of the truthy/falsey value...
I've recharged alkaline batteries and reused them quite a bit before they turned to muck.
Exactly, I've always preferred Dropbox because unlike Google Drive, Box, etc they handled files and handled them well. The aesthetics were clean and simple (the new site looks like someone killed an eggplant and based a website on it).

But I've always wondered why they don't expand more on their storage basis for new features? Say email storage and backup (with say an optional web client interface) that supported regular email clients like Thunderbird/Outlook (ok, handwavy magic outlook support). Or a password service that sync'ed via Dropbox (1Passwd was great for a long time this way until I moved to a Linux desktop from a macbook). Their MS Office integrations are actually pretty great. Paper was cute at first, but doesn't build on their storage-first basis by storing say regular markdown files somewhere.
Author here, any feedback is welcome~
Do you know of any good resources for learning Blender?
Watch this paper doll do sit-ups thanks to new kind of “artificial muscle”
The post doesn't say, so does anyone know if the new React version is also available on the web?
Elon Musk says Hyperloop hit a top speed of 463kmh before exploding
Raising the seat on a small single-aisle plane might have your head bumping into the overhead if you're tall.

It'd be nice if the seat height were adjustable, but that would just result in the seats breaking down more often I think. I have long legs, but not that long a torso for my height, so a slightly elevated seat would be nice for me, but other tall men might be miserable.
You have to declare the project and get permission to ensure it doesn't conflict with GitLab.

I don't recall us ever denying permission.

I can't find the handbook link right now.
For long time NASA announced a space program after space program only to be canceled at an unfortunate moment.

We have to understand that our problems with advancing manned spaceflight are mainly organizational. And because of that, it's beneficial to focus efforts not on a grand goal, which may not survive the next budgetary fight in Congress, but instead on capabilities which can mostly be used for whatever goal we'll have in mind at any particular moment.

We're well on the way along this idea already. Whatever payload can be used for on LEO, we already have means to get some 20 metric tons there reliably. This, as Heinlein put, is already half-way to anywhere in the Solar system. We also work on manned spacecrafts, which, while useful for getting to ISS and back, can also be used - mostly - for much more distant trips, to near-lunar space and more. We're growing a network of automatic stations, which can provide early reconnaissance for various sky bodies, navigational beacons and relays. A bunch of companies have growing experience with controlled landing and launching of one-stage rocket devices.

Gateway has a good property in that it's another component on the way to the Moon - and elsewhere - which has higher chances to survive another organizational shakeup because it's easier to build Gateway than to mount a sizable manned program to the Moon surface. Gateway is an ISS on steroids - in terms of getting to a much higher point - but not much more in terms of complexity, and we became pretty good with building and maintaining ISS. A smaller ISS in Moon vicinity can be less risky and less expensive than many other projects. As for usefulness - given that Gateway is in place, it's much easier to manage risks for more bold manned and unmanned projects on the Moon. Here I disagree with Griffin - he doesn't seem to recognize organizational challenges which Gateway allows to solve.

Gateway has benefits in easier construction (you don't need to land heavy modules on the Moon), better understanding of international cooperation (e.g., ESA will get experience launching modules towards the Moon), uses other than Moon (for later stages, when we might have some flow of materials from the Moo surface), easier return to Earth (so less risks), better coverage of Moon surface in terms of accessibility etc. IMO, not bad for something which actually has a better chance to get funded to completion than existing alternatives.
"Landowners supply land, one of the key inputs to the economy."

Landowners don't supply land. That land is there whether these owners exist or not, and regardless of what they do or don't do.

Now, there is a system built up around denying access to land to anyone who doesn't own it or has the owner's permission, but that's a far cry from actually supplying land.

Contrast this to a baker who bakes bread. Without him that bread would not exist, so he actually does provide a service of supplying bread. Not so with the landowner, who creates nothing and whose ownership is a legal fiction.
Why do you keep talking about states? I might better understand your viewpoint if I understood why you keep focusing on that particular thing.
Windows Server is basically Windows 10 now. It really tries to remove the control from the Admins. By default it will auto-install updates and restart whenever it feels like it. Really useful on servers...
> Signs of dislike or tension:
> - Biting, swiping or batting your hand away with their paw.

Until now I always assumed this meant my cat was telling me it enjoyed being stroked. /s
It may he the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity. It may also be the best. I lean optimistic myself. The whole temporary survival machine for your genes existence we've had so far is overrated in my opinion.
> Humans don't seem to need anywhere near the same level of data or training that our current models need.

I find this to be a common misunderstanding. If I show you one Stirch Wrench, and you've never seen one before, you learn instantly and perhaps for the rest of your life you'll know what a Strich Wrench is. The problem is I didn't show you 1 example. You saw perhaps millions of examples (your conscious process filters those out, but in reality think of the slight shaking of your head, the constant pulsing of the light sources around you, etc, to be augmenting that 1 image with many examples). I think humans are indeed training on millions of examples, it's just we are not noticing that.

> That alone is a sign that deep learning may not be enough.

I 100% agree with that. It's going to take improvements in lots of areas, many unexpected, but I think the deep learning approach is the "wings" that will be near the core.
It's what makes these posts cute. Thanks to multi-region and load balancing it will work for some and be broken for others
I wouldn't go back even if they brought back the public folder.
The Amazon Dilemma
Very nice page. Some one knows a open source project similat to this githubstatus page?
All depends on the context. Does it make sense to talk about propagating splitting in this context? Surely no - for three reasons:

1. You're describing a time evolution _of the subsystems_, which isn't really a thing in the MWI.

A many-worlder would say, instead, that the Universe has split a bunch more in the interim. He would point to the time evolution of the state of the Universe, and perhaps there have a discussion about how the inseparability of particular subsystems has propagated over time. Put differently, the many-worlder might say the correlations of these particular relative states with one another propagated over time.

What you've done, Everett would call characterizing branches of the universal state in a space-like locality.

2. Split != superposition. Frequently, splitting in MWI is identified with decoherence, so in that sense there is a self-consistent way to describe local splitting - but then you'd really mean, when you referred to the splitting of "an object" or "a system", that Universal splitting had occurred in such a way as to cause the object to exist in some particular multiple new branches.

3. None of this line of discussion helps the parent gain an understanding of how MWI is importantly different from (and the same as) other interpretations of QM. It's far too shallow to amount to any real expert insight and yet too technical to amount to any real layperson insight.

What can a discussion on propagating splitting illuminate here? It seems to me that it is a less than useful idea for the parent and readers like him/her, and many-worlds is more clearly understood without it.
Don't focus on people who have already made technology choices and are just looking for staff augmentation. Focus on the business value you can create, regardless of the tech stack, and seek out prospects who have the problem you solve, and care more about having the problem solved than about mandating a tech stack. Ideally, you want to be talking to LoB (Line of Business) leaders and executives, more than IT people. IT people care about stuff like "using C++ instead of Java" or "using Neo4J instead of FoundationDB", or "Using Angular 7.32.444.1.x.alpha.23j.br/3" instead of "Vue 42.0.0.0.0.42.42" or whatever. Try to avoid those people.
I would love a decent PDF as I don't like reading long form works on a screen. The best I've found is a scan of the magazine here: http://veryinteractive.net/library/what-is-code
Great article! It's worth mentioning that the founders of most of the immigrant-founded companies are ostensibly white. I can't think of any of these companies that has a non-white founder. I only say this because articles such as these are wont to use the data as support for mass immigration, which usually is non-whites into white countries.
Fusion 360 really solved that problem with CAD, most of the features I was able to learn strictly by discovery
Took this opportunity to set up my own Git server on a VPS I have. It was actually extremely simple to set up the server, limit the git account (ssh only) to only using git-shell, and adding gitweb with basic auth in an nginx setup with letsencrypt, HTTP/2, and FastCGI. Took maybe 20 minutes, and most of it was looking up the necessary commands.

That being said, I am, and probably will still be a massive GitHub user, because I value its community aspect. But I also now have unlimited, truly-private Git hosting for peanuts (cheap DigitalOcean server), which is always nice.
How do you know we are not closer to AGI? Because we don't how to create AGI we cannot know whether we are closer or not. We can say artificial neural networks are not the way to go because they are not like real neurons, but we can say very little about neurons that could be possible artificial neural networks are actually the way to achieve intelligence. The topic is so complex and we know very little that any strong claim is very likely to be wrong
WORKAROUND: apt-get install gweled
Not exactly what you are asking for, but the Onion did a great send up of techno-utopian TED talks here:

https://youtu.be/DkGMY63FF3Q
A full video overview of everything that's now included in the Serverless Framework can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nf0ui3qP2E
I think it's more likely because the credit goes to the market (i.e. everyone together) rather than a big move by the government. Very different to the Energiewende.
Airbus has unveiled a bird-like conceptual airliner design
Asherah: Open-Source Encryption Automation
Smartphones temporarily diminish ability to interpret the deeper meaning of info
We will not reach AI for anything else than super tight bounded contexts like playing chess or drivning a car.

It's not AI imo. It's a trained model that will never be able to evolve outside those tight boundaries.

And that is because, which is really simple, we don't really have any clue of how the brain works, technically. And besides that, the impact which environments has on the brain.

Why no one is talking about this being a huge driver for Microsoft Azure and what Microsoft as a company will gain from this, baffles me a little. Not sure i like it.
We do month long sprints, GitLab ships on the 22nd https://about.gitlab.com/2018/11/21/why-gitlab-uses-a-monthl...

We do a daily company call and group conversation https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/communication/

You can find more details on what works for us on https://about.gitlab.com/company/culture/all-remote/tips/
Sorry if I was insulting, I wasn't trying to be. That's why I called out my own difficulty as stupid, since in fact such people sure seem to exist (though, again, my problem is that I can't listen to them without a "no, but really, what are you after?" in the back of my head, so am having deep trouble modeling a fairly common kind of person I'm pretty sure is real).

The "this is all so great (though, I mean, at least as Lovecraftian?) that there must be something behind it" or "Buddhist practices do help you find meaning (and Pure Land and saviors and all the stuff about wild miracles are allegorical or else wrong-but-maybe-useful)" is the sort I can understand, actually.

It's the leap from there to "this specific set of stories is right—as in, actually true, or at least much of it is—and the rest are wrong. I've not picked this one to follow because the moral teachings and practices give me comfort and little offense, but because I think a large part of the specific supernatural episodes the faith considers true are true, in a real, actual sense". Supernatural angels and god(s) themselves really actually do stuff in real life—maybe now, and certainly in the past—that kind of thing.
See the other reply for the Georgist critique of land ownership.

>Taxing landowners as if they control their own zoning would distort incentives in bizarre ways. They are already bearing the costs of not being able to fully develop their property. (A negative tax might make more sense!?)

I think you will find the majority of people who vote in municipal elections are home owners. The policy would cause zoning restrictions to increase their tax bill. Very quickly, I think we would find zoning laws would change. The real reason this policy is naive is it would be very difficult to actually get an accurate estimate of the counterfactual price.
Isnt this the common situation in most of Bay Area for service workers? Im in no way associated to Facebook, but I think its a bit unfair to call them out just to make the headline sensational. They're just another tenant in the Bay Area.
The amount of hand-drawn animation that went into Cuphead is a marvel.

There a bunch of really interesting examples just using Ubisoft's UbiArt framework such as Rayman Legends, Child of Light, and Valiant Hearts.

Speaking of Ubisoft and open source, Ubisoft originally announced UbiArt as an engine/framework intended to be open sourced. It's a shame that Ubisoft never followed up on that promise.

Supposedly it hasn't been used for a game since 2015 because it was "hard to use", but that seems more of a reason to open source it, perhaps to see if community interest could help where internal-only work struggled. A lot of open source starts hard to use and takes a village to make it better. (Blender, also mentioned here, might just be a poster child of that, too.)
It already did. More to the point, if Blender can create an easy to use and fully functional alternative to closed tools, it would be even better.
If it was the only instance, I'd say sure, but:

- Lindows

- Microwindows

- wxWindows

- Windows Commander

- Suing Amish Shah

- MikeRoweSoft

Then all of the various anti-trust/anti-competition lawsuits against them by both companies and government entities (Be Inc, Nescape, the EU, Spain, the US Government, Caldera, Opera Software. Also individuals in numerous class actions).

Plenty of reason to feel slightly concerned.
If AGI is achievable (seems likely given brains are all over the place in nature) and achieving it will have consequences that dwarf everything else then doesn't it make sense to focus on it?

Yes, historically people were way too optimistic and generally went down AI rabbit holes that went nowhere, but two years before the Wright flyer flew, the Wright brothers themselves said it was 50 years out (and others were still publishing articles about human flight being impossible after it was already flying).

People are bad at predictions, in the Wright brothers case since they were the people that ultimately ended up doing it two years later they were likely the best to make the prediction and were still off.

Given that AGI is possible and given the extreme nature of the consequences, doesn't it make sense to work on alignment and safety? Why would it make sense to wait? If you accidentally end up with AGI and haven't figured out how to align its goals then that's it, the game is probably over.

Maybe OpenAI is on the right path, maybe not - but I think you're way too confident to be as sure as you are that they are not.
It depends on the child. If they're well-behaved children, then yeah, they can be very nice to sit next to. After all, you don't have to worry about them taking up much seat space.

If they're American kids, on the other hand, prepare for hours of sheer misery as they have zero discipline and their parents refuse to curtail their horrible behavior.
Do you hate all marketing or just around AI in particular? Would you bat an eye at MS investing $1B into a project + ads about say a new GPU architecture promising how "games will never be the same" because the new hardware (or even Cloud Integration) lets developers efficiently try and satisfy the rendering equation with ray tracing?

FWIW I thought you were clear, but there are only so many middlebrow dismissals one can make towards AI or AGI efforts and I think I've seen them all plus the low-value threads they generate. (I've made some too, and suspect we might get brain emulations before AGI, but I try to avoid the impulse and in any case it doesn't stop me from hoping (and minor contributing) for the research on the article's load-bearing word "beneficial" to precede any realistic efforts of building the actual thing. At least the OpenAI guys aren't entirely ignorant of the importance of the "beneficial" problem.)
Maybe because it is settled and not proven in court?