skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Didn't say it did, but it's a very relevant point in all of these discussions as normal wage law can get tricky when you're involved with contracted services.

DoorDash can claim they aren't paying for the time, but for the service. And how long that service takes is the responsibility of the contractor.

Is it dirty? Very. Does that make it untrue? No.

So the first step in any of these cases is to get these gig economy apps to admit that they're just trying to circumvent wage law by classifying employees as contracted services.
If I understand this article correctly, what you and I consider to be the 'Big Bang' is itself an event filtered through the lens of our consciousness.

The big bang, the time that has passed since them, even the concept of time, are not in fact reality but rather the interpretation of reality made by our consciousness.

There is no argument that there is a fundamental reality that predates consciousness, but our problem is that everything that we view as 'reality' is just the subset of that true reality that is filtered through our consciousness.

What we perceive as reality starts with consciousness as its fundamental building block, because everything we have discovered has been built upon that foundation.
What I'm going for ultimately here is the idea that consciousness is an emergent property when a system is complex enough and has meta-knowledge about itself and so on. I mean, I get its a stretch. But duality and panpsychism are also a stretch.

Ian M Banks said it well:

... Certainly there are arguments against the possibility of Artificial Intelligence, but they tend to boil down to one of three assertions: one, that there is some vital field or other presently intangible influence exclusive to biological life - perhaps even carbon-based biological life - which may eventually fall within the remit of scientific understanding but which cannot be emulated in any other form (all of which is neither impossible nor likely); two, that self-awareness resides in a supernatural soul - presumably linked to a broad-based occult system involving gods or a god, reincarnation or whatever - and which one assumes can never be understood scientifically (equally improbable, though I do write as an atheist); and, three, that matter cannot become self-aware (or more precisely that it cannot support any informational formulation which might be said to be self-aware or taken together with its material substrate exhibit the signs of self-awareness). ...I leave all the more than nominally self-aware readers to spot the logical problem with that argument.

http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm
I assume that's the case, but is it true? Does it include people who have a FB cookie?
They jumped the shark with the Model 3, and I really wanted to like it.
Ok, so is there anything at all that a brain "with consciousness" can do that a brain "without consciousness" can't? If not, your definition of consciousness is entirely meaningless.
To be absolutely clear, this professor did not lose his job, he lost his post as dean of a residential house.

This is a role whereby he lives in close proximity to students, acts as an mentor and helps students with all sorts of things, like for example if a student was sexually assaulted - their dean is supposed to be on their side.

Students are right to question if he takes sexual assault seriously if he represents Weinstein. There are many other fine lawyers, and this was a totally voluntary job he took on.

His real job, which it certainly appears like he shirked, is to be the best advocate for his students, to help them navigate college, which is often a difficult time.

It's easy to say that his voluntary role in the defense of Weinstein has no merit or conflict with his job. But is that really true? You can say "students should grow up" or toughen up or something, but is that the kind of advice you'd offer to your own child?

I think not.

The appearance of conflict of interest is enough. That his students express discomfort and feelings of unsafe _in their own home_ was easily dismissed by this professor is additional evidence that he doesn't treat his job of dean to a residence seriously enough. "You should reason yourself so my volunteer role and job are not in conflict" is not good enough - he's putting all the effort on the weak and less powerful. And that's not right.

Ultimately the story he spins in that article is that Harvard "capitulated to a mob", but my spin is this: Harvard did the right thing by protecting the less powerful from the more powerful. And there is no disputing a tenured Harvard law professor, with tons of connections, a guaranteed for life salary, etc, is the more powerful person.
Their argument was that it's not a lie. The entirety of your tip _does_ go to the Dasher.

... it's just that they reduce _their_ fee paid to them by, coincidentally, the same amount.

And claim that this offers the Dasher "stability".
Exactly what obligation does Brian Krebs have to maintain the anonymity of random people on the Internet?
I would take this further: even if we NEVER get those answers (because of some inherent physical limit in our observation and understanding of physical phenomenon, similar to how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle means it's impossible to observe accurately both momentum and position) it still doesn't mean there needs to be "god" introduced in the equation to explain that which is unexplainable.

Once you accept that not everything is knowable, not everything is observable, not everything is explainable and not everything has to have a purpose, and all that is perfectly fine without the existence of a divine being, then why do we need to add a divine being in the mix?
I think that’s a sweeping generalisation. His crimes are sufficient enough for me.
> Science is better then this. We don't need to directly observe something, it's OK to be able to just indirectly observe.

Indirect observations involve forming a testable (and falsifiable) hypothesis. What you're doing above is more like an attempt at proof by contradiction...

But I can assume the contrary viewpoint and deduce as well. Suppose human consciousness is non-physical. From observation (as you said) we know it can be affected by physical things -- brain damage, drugs, etc. So it must have a physical/nonphysical interface, probably in our brains.

You might say Occam's razor rules non-physicality out, since such an interface is a bit much to assume. But given that we don't have a meaningful way forward assuming physical-only, perhaps admitting one further assumption can help our inquiry - perhaps physical-only is too simple an explanation. As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Or you could just look for the anti-intellectual movements seeking to marginalize academia in general, which your comment itself appears to stem from.
Not sure how does the CapEx gets allocated for the projects that are already progressing. For example: Tesla started building GF2 in China a few months ago so any idea in which Quarter(s) Tesla account for the CapEx? Is it before the project starts or at the end or every month gets even distribution of CapEx allocation from Start until End of the project.
Cultural differences: Japan is pretty homogenous and they seem to see themselves as part of a whole whereas in the US, for example, exploiting your fellow citizens for profit is almost a matter of duty in business.
The same obligation that those "neo-nazis" have to maintain the anonymity of the journalists they dox on that doxbin, more or less. (I'm not condoning swatting.)
While integrating with a large company's SSO protocol (with a cleanroom implementation), I found that the off-the-shelf "standard" XML DSIG canonicalization code they were using (from a major vendor) actually was not compliant with the W3C spec. That was unpleasant to have to discover and then explain.
>What is it about life that makes us want to value it?

That's an excellent question. All the questions about consciousness are probably an attempt to better understand (and avoid?) death.

However I still have a hard time imagining a scenario where we can scientifically understand consciousness. Eventually we will understand all about how the mind works. All the various processes and how they lead to higher functions like thinking consciously in natural language etc. We'll be able to manipulate and alter our conscious experience. But even if there was a neural switch to turn consciousness on and off, we would still fail to convince ourselves of the physical nature of it, as we could never experience a state without consciousness.

My personal belief is that although we are painfully physical, we will never explain why we're actually here, experiencing those calculations, or in fact being them. Being calculations of a meat sack. Why would this happen?
In Cambodia, you could get killed for wearing glasses. Their purge of intellectuals was extreme - and that's just 45 years ago.

Not saying that every pseudo-dictator is going to end up like pol pot, but it's good to see the warning flags.
> possible only because pointer states of quantum objects exist

I knew it was pointers! So observation is the universe's GC? I feel better knowing that life is here at least to collapse enough wave functions to keep things humming along nicely. (Ever wake up and feel that you must have been stopped-and-copied over the night??)
I'm not denying that the experience of life or consciousness exists. I just think it's not as significant as some make it out to be.

The question still stands. How would a creature experience life without consciousness?

Or let's even say you created a generally intelligent neural net with sufficient sensors, cameras, and actuators for it to live in our physical world, piped into the neural network. It learns to use it's sensors and actuators, much like a growing child would. What is it's experience? How does this neural network experience life as compared to our brains?

To give you a hint, it wouldn't have a Heads-Up-Display with a battery indicator. It would feel tired or hungry. It would experience life immersed in the world to the extent that it's sensors would allow it. It's sensors would be naturally fused in it's neural net in whatever way was most optimal for it's environment. Much in the same way that we use sight, sensation in our feet and muscles, and the liquid in our ears to maintain our balance without ever thinking about the source or distinction in the data our brains are receiving.
I don't think that's true.

Their old 10Q said this:

> An active user is someone who visited Facebook.com and logged-in (or has been logged in) or who has taken an action with a Facebook feature (for example, clicked a ‘like button.)

The current ones say this:

> a monthly active user as a registered Facebook user who logged in and visited Facebook through our website or a mobile device, or used our Messenger application (and is also a registered Facebook user), in the last 30 days as of the date of measurement.

Clicking a like button is no longer sufficient to count as an active user. I believe there were articles about this when they changed it, but I'm not sure.
Likewise, I recently had a "discussion" with a colleague and their contention was that they had too many writes for an SSD to be reasonable (they don't)... However, still complaining about performance in their app.

Every time you want 10x the users, you need to make compromises in design to reach that goal... 100 users is easy, 1000-10000 you can hardware your way out. More than that, your design better be decent.
>>Sometimes your requests for rigor on a freeform discussion board don't carry the weight of law, sometimes people just respond with what they're thinking instead of doing what they're told.

Well, you made a claim, and people asked you to prove that claim. I think it is quite reasonable to expect you to carry that burden regardless of medium. Otherwise, you should retract the original claim.

Incidentally, what you said about "people just [stating] what they are thinking" and then not backing that up with evidence is a huge problem in today's public discourse. If we don't hold those people accountable, then what we have is not a discourse, but a cacophony of random voices.
Thanks for a level headed and informative response.
Not at all. It’s perfectly okay in science to say we don’t know how that happens yet. Deciding that we’ll never know is an irrational leap. The “never” is a strong statement and requires proof. Can you prove never? I don’t think so. Then why assume it?
Not sure how to fix business, but for B2C getting rid of the ability to monetize user data would help. Right now businesses go: well we're gonna have to vacuum up all their data anyway, and our price is free, so who gives a shit if we write it in slow and bloated HTML+CSS+JS? All that matters is that we're on every platform yesterday and sucking up that sweet sweet personal information.
If a chunk of the time, effort and money that went into making web UI so nice and easy to work in could be invested into making true desktop apps equally as nice (no, electron doesn’t count) then I think we’d be in a great place.
The Tech Industry Is Building a Vast Digital Underclass
The people you know may not be representative. I agree that it seems that less people use FB to share stuff about their life or follow friends and family. But many people also shifted their main usage of FB, so it's not that they are not using it all, just use it differently. That's at least my impression based on the little data I have. I'm talking about things like FB groups, market place and others that are pretty popular.
That's assuming that "arising" is done as some part of logical plan. The universe doesn't have to be logical, physical phenomena doesn't have to follow human observation and logic. It's crazy hubris to assume the opposite IMO.
Yes, racism exists. Armenian, Greek etc are used as insults by racist people. This doesn’t mean that it is the general state of public.

People like Trump use Mexican as an insult, that doesn’t change the fact that there are tons of people with Mexican roots that identify as American and are well respected by the non-racist majority of the nation.

I don’t see how PKK is anything like American revolution. PKK isn’t representing any form of official group, they aren’t acting in favor of any specific agenda. There is no ‘real unsolved problem still present in Turkey’ that can justify suicide bombing civilians. They are indirectly funded by USA through military aids to PKKs extension PYD. If you asked what does PKK want to Turkish people, there would be no clear answer, as all PKK ever accomplished was stirring the political climate every single time there was a possibility of political stability in the area.
Yeah, here's an article from 2015 when they changed the definition: https://www.adweek.com/digital/monthly-active-users-definiti...
See slide 18. :)

https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/Q2...
Numbers tend to lie less than emotional appeals, especially given recent history of shouting "bad guys" as a pretext to ruin nations.
Exactly. I didn't really understand the outcry, unless people in the USA just don't understand fully how tipping works. It's exactly the same model that restaurants use.
Three Strategies for Keeping Your Team Engaged
> But that accepts the educators' power as legitimate; if it weren't, you wouldn't bother to rebel against it!

On the contrary, it only accepts that their power exists. That is not the same as accepting its legitimacy. If you accepted their power as legitimate then you wouldn't be rebelling! The rebellion occurs because of the this discrepancy between what is and what ought to be, as the student perceives it.
How We Made Moon
It looks Google Audit agree with you: https://imgur.com/a/mROAbvh

Chrome 75.0.3770.142 with not extension active.
I think that, if you believe the FAANGs are dominant enough to be considered infrastructure, you can make a case that their putative political bias is worse that other company's lobbying. At least lobbying results in the introduction of bills that can be debated in a legislature with public input (via calling your representatives, as well as protests and counter-lobbying from other interest groups). The FAANGs' decisions on how to regulate their platforms are subject to no vote or other public input before enactment.
That includes Whatsapp and Instagram, right? Instagram is pretty hype atm.
I was thinking more of the arguably disproportionate impact that California auto-emission limits have had in the overall US market. As I understand it, it would cost too much to produce multiple state-specific versions. So the high-population state with the lowest limits effectively sets the US standard.

But maybe that doesn't apply as much to online stuff. Because marginal cost isn't so sensitive to volume.
This people made me fill a 5 page long form in order to download a thing that doesn't work on my Linux box.

It would have been awesome if they were a bit more upfront about it before making me fill the form.

Also, the form seems to have been designed to be filled after using the thing, not before download.

Overall, I'm not super thrilled. I guess I'll have to look for a gameplay video to form some opinion on it.
How to add extra functionality to buttons that already exist in your car
Anyone else disgusted by the thought of a special club of well-connected journos and socialites elevating the status and relevance of themselves and their group to national levels, because they have the powerful influence of national media? It's "fun" and "cool" and "hip" because they're in it, and since they are the writers they get to determine the reality of those things.

Isn't this the most bourgeoisie thing you can think of?
Oddly enough my experience is that use has only increased in my parents generation (the 75+ crowd). From my admittedly small glimpse into their circle of "friends" it seems that much of their use is a non-stop rage fest around politics.
Just for some context, more than half of those users are in Asia (India, Indonesia etc.)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-...
The banks are all different from each other in various ways, but to answer your question, yup Mercury provide debit cards too! Not sure about the nuances of what you're looking for in terms of transferring money, you might need to check with them on that.
And here I am reading the numbers thinking, "wow, nearly doubled in sales revenue? Great job!"
This article linked from another Josh Barro piece tells you exactly why it's so expensive

https://www.city-journal.org/html/fifteen-stories-under-1410...

In Britain and France, only the “miners”—or tunnelers—work in unions similar to America’s. Contractors hire other workers largely as they wish. The jobs pay well but not American-construction-union well. In New York, everyone works by the same union rules, which include hourly wages and staffing requirements that can mean 25 workers per tunnel-boring machine, compared with a dozen or so in a nonunion state and as few as five in countries such as Norway.
Looks like the cash situation is finally under control.

They generated over $600 million in FCF in Q2. Compare this to only $200 million by Ford over the same period, also announced today: https://s22.q4cdn.com/857684434/files/doc_financials/2019/q2...
Nope. Read the book. There is even an Audible version if you'd rather listen to it.
anyone care to talk about this part "This feature is currently operating in “shadow mode” in the fleet, which compares our software algorithm to real-world driver behavior across tens of millions of instances around the world."

that seems very juicy?

edit: it seems people put a disclaimer on their ownership of tesla stock on hn about tesla threads. i dont own any.
How do you "dox" a journalist? They sign their names to what they write.
> It would imply that other physical objects can interact with it. We see plenty of evidence of that, with victims of brain damage, or when using drugs.

And our senses. Another personal favourite example: being bludgeoned into temporary unconsciousness.

> to assume that consciousness is not physical, not only you need a mechanism for it to interact with our physical world (since it can order our bodies to do stuff) but also for the physical world to act on it

I've seen this argument before - a variation of it ties in the physical principle of conservation of energy - but I'm not sure it really holds. It assumes a pretty 'strong' dualistic model.

Even if we take the starting assumption that the mind arises from the physical world, we could say that the mind exists in a mind space, rather than a physical one. I believe David Chalmers' theory of mind takes a similar line (disclaimer: I haven't read it). [0]

If a dualistic model really does propose a suspension of the physical order, well, they've already lost.

Related: I like the way Dan Dennett answers the question of Is the mind physical?: it's physical the way a center of gravity is physical. It's not a particle, or something you can touch, but it arises from the physical world.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers#Philosophy_of_m...
Azure has this built into some of their DLP...at least when looking at emails
Because, weight. Before jets, aircraft were weight-limited, rather than volume-limited. It took 8 engines, with a total of 144 cylinders, to get this thing off the ground. That's not the record; the more successful B-36 Peacemaker, from the same period, had six piston engines, with 168 cylinders total, plus four jet engines. Here's the famous B-36 takeoff sequence from "Strategic Air Command", starring Jimmy Stewart.[1]

Those were the last of the giant piston powered planes. The successful Douglas DC-7 was reasonably large (105 passengers) by the standards of the time, but even a B-727 was much bigger.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FJVxtTNjJk
This is an ontological problem only. The goal here is to solve the problem of that we can't find a rational basis for knowing. If the physical world has primacy then you have to figure out how to solve the irreconcilable perception problem. It makes the philosophy easier to say conciseness is first. I don't understand why we need to have an absolute basis for knowledge as long as our approximations for knowledge are so astoundingly useful.
>Will there be a version for Android and iOS?
>A: No, because there would be no point: very few – if any – mobile devices are powerful enough to even theoretically run SpaceEngine.

A12X isn't fast enough? I call bullshit.
If you’re not condoning swatting then what is even the point of these comments? Swatting is the topic at hand.
I am the developer behind ReviewNB.

> I just wish it could live within Github

Whenever I thought of integrating the review experience in the GitHub UI (via browser extension), I always thought of overwriting the GitHub diff UI. That approach is very hacky and would result in the extension stability issues (any DOM change in GitHub diff could break the extension).

But I just looked at Zenhub and having a separate tab for notebook review could actually work! Since it relies only on the tab related HTML, the extension would be relatively stable. There's still a question of how to post comments etc. But it might be a good start to just offer notebook diff in a separate GitHub tab for pull requests.

Thanks @the_watcher.
This is a known feature unveiled, I believe, on Tesla's autonomy day. It just means they're able to test Autopilot on cars even if they aren't running autopilot.
Also, quick clarification note related to the GDP numbers. Erdogan has been Turkey's Prime Minister since 2003 (head of the executive branch).

In 2014, Erdogan was elected as President. In 2017, Turkey went through a constitutional referendum that made the President head of the executive branch.

I'm noting this because much of Erdogan's popularity is rooted in Turkey's GDP growth between 2003-2013.