skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We'd all be obviously better off with greater oversight and if CEOs were concerned about their story ending with "and then went to prison". Here's some examples why:

Valve stole from an estimated 20,000 Australians before a judge recognized their former refund policy as being designed to refuse refunds rather than disburse them. Under a system of accountability about 20,000 Australians and maybe several hundred thousand others around the world wouldn't have been stolen from by Valve, who got away with this massive fraud by paying a small fine they contested and changing their refund policy. GOG still enjoys a similarly disingenuous refund policy where you must help them prove the game can open on your computer which is the threshold they invented for denying refunds.

https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/valve-australia-fine-12...

Google realized at some point that they had not coded up a particular kind of refund and let it sit for twenty years, stealing $75 million from their advertising customers persisting long after they knew. Under a system of accountability these companies wouldn't be being stolen from by Google, who got away with this massive fraud by refunding an amount they calculated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsu...

Facebook realized at some point they could steal from children and started both optimizing for more confusing virtual currency purchases and refusing refunds on accounts they identified as children using parents' funds. Under a system of accountability exploiting these children and defrauding their parents wouldn't require a multi-year lawsuit to resolve with a small check.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/facebook-knowingly-duped-...

Then there's the mystery of who's still paying for AOL dialup. Across the internet zombie subscription fraud and free-trial fraud must be in the tens of billions a year, companies optimize around fraud so hard we have to call it dark patterns so they can disassociate from the criminality of what they are doing.
I'm a Driver for Both Uber and Lyft
Scott Meyers also suggests the same sort of thing in Effective Modern C++ when not using an IDE.

Personally, I use the technique a lot for debugging template errors in the language.
I don’t want to sound critical, instead just providing some information: deep learning models like RoBERTa (a type of BERT, I experimented with Facebook’s just released large model this morning) can perform anaphora resolution (coreference) answer general questions, score whether two sentences contradict each other, etc. One model solves several very difficult problems whose solutions have evaded hand-coding efforts for decades.

There are experimental seq models that transform paper text into figures or joint models that transform figures and text into some code, but you are correct that these are not production ready.
This post just made We* seem like a big scheme just to make the founder wealthy. Am I missing something?
Try checking the size of a typical C++ compiler plus supporting headers and libraries and comparing that. Same concept.
Neither is the CutiePi, but it does seem significantly farther along the process of becoming a purchasable product [1]. But I do like the idea of using a Pi compute module for the basis of a tablet.

[1] https://www.pine64.org/2019/08/05/august-update-london-meetu...
Thanks, this is awesome!

I am not a fan of Fargate based on personal bias mostly towards K8s and a sour taste I got when Fargate and EKS were first announced together, (with Fargate "available now" and EKS coming soon, it felt very desperate, but that's neither here nor there...)

Was very impressed by this screencast and will definitely try Fargate now thanks to your work here.

When I got to the point in the screencast where you build the image locally, I was on the edge of my seat hoping it would include some CodeBuild setup automation too; maybe you have already planned that, (or maybe that would ruin its simplicity.) That was a great demo, even without this part.
Until someone who has the authority to approve purchase orders but wasn't in the loop on this decides to use this vendor again.
I'm not sure why you think a person's compensation is related to the value they add. It's supply and demand - you can add very little value, but be an extremely scarce commodity and command a high wage. Same with the inverse - adding a lot of value, but there are too many of you, so your wage is low.
Review by a machine system sounds dystopian and buggy. If it just automatically flagged for human review though, that sounds reasonable
I mean, if I give you a voice recorder, let you record secret stuff on it and give it back to me, do you really think it's reasonable to expect me to never listen to it under any circumstances? Really? It's not a technically complicated thing to think through is it?
Wow, that's terrible.

What exactly happens to the supervisor, and what exactly does he do to all of you?

What do you think could be done to make this situation better?

I wonder if something different, maybe more serious needs to happen to the supervisor for getting a low rating? Or I guess the issue is, he gets to retaliate for a whole quarter and your opportunity to ding him further won't be until 3 months later. Maybe there needs to be an avenue for immediately reporting this kind of retaliation, with clear consequences for him? If the higher-ups don't have the kind of trust it would take to create such an avenue, I dunno what can be done. I guess that's what unions are supposed to be for, but the situation already sounds so broken. I guess if a union already existed and was trusted, it could serve as such an avenue of last-resort.
> For other types of data, a gradient may not exist.

You don't calculate a gradient on the data, you calculate a gradient on the parameters of the model. But I'm going to assume you mean that some types of data are not well represented by floating point numbers, which is true, but there are workarounds, e.g. vector embeddings for words or simply one-hot encodings for categorical values.

What is true is that if you need to make a hard decision in one part of the network, for example deciding that the image is a cat, in order to further process that decision. This would not be differentiable. But we can represent objects in a non-discrete way, with embeddings, hidden state vectors etc. My point is, people are getting around this problem.

I also want to add that I agree that we are way far off from building apps automatically, but I think you're giving way too little importance to the advances that's been made. Just take a look at the latest GANs, or the advances in machine translation using the Transformer and attention architectures, or Neural Turing Machines.
>What is new is the hype around deep learning that took off after 2012, and because Google and Facebook decided to champion it.

Have you seen what neural nets are now capable of? Speech synthesis/transcription, voice synthesis, image synthesis/labeling/infill, style transfer, music synthesis, and a host of other classes of optimization problems which have intractable explicit programmitic solutions.

The hype is justified, because ML has finally arrived, thanks primarily to hardware, and secondarily to the wealth of modern open research, heavily influenced congregations of leading researchers enabled by funding at Google, Facebook, etc.

The problems being solved by "curve fitting" ML were simply unsolvable by any practical, generalizable means before recently, and the revolution is just getting started.
In my mind any perversion of this truth undermines the very credibility of the scientific discipline. For if our scientific leaders are swayed by forces other than facts, how can we be surprised when public opinion turns on science? One of my favorite quotes that resonates with this piece is by John Maynard Keynes:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

EDIT: to address the possibility that the Keynes quote is apocryphal, here is another (also possibly apocryphal!) quote I enjoy:

"In God we trust, all others bring data" - W. Edwards Deming
I've got a problem with how these figures are calculated. For example "CEO-to-worker" compensation is a relative figure that is individual to each company. A company like Google, that operates a high margin, high revenue business, can afford to pay its employees $200K+ a year on average, whereas a company like Wal-Mart, which has a low margin, high revenue business with millions of employees, CAN NOT ever match Google's compensation. Even though they are both complex businesses with multi-national operations and high revenue in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

There's other compounding factors. The business landscape has changed in many ways since 1978. The late 70s and 80s were a time when global trade was rapidly expanding. International corporations outsourced a lot of labor to China, India, and many other lower cost labor centers during this time. As as result, total manufacturing employment has declined: from a high of nearly 20 million employees in 1979 to just 12.8 million in 2019 [1]. In 1978, the U.S. labor force was about 100 million and today it's 163 million. So not only have the absolute number of manufacturing jobs decreased (as offshoring increased), but the relative percentage has dropped dramatically for U.S. workers...from nearly 20% in 1978 to just 7.8% [2].

So I would rather look at CEO pay relative to profit-per-employee figures or something else that's far more relevant.

Further compounding factors are the tax code and how that has changed dramatically since the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The act lowered tax rates but completely eliminated tax shelters and restricted personal expenses (which executives used to take egregious advantage of). The number of write offs an individual and a corporation could claim prior to 1986 was dramatic. Consumer credit card interest was deductible! Auto interest? Deductible. Empty commercial office buildings? Could be deducted over a 15 year accelerated depreciation schedule [4][5]. Caused all sorts of bad signals in the economy and contributed to the Savings & Loan crisis.

At any rate, it is very, very dubious to compare businesses of 2019 to businesses of 1978. The variables in all vectors have shifted dramatically, and an over-simplified look at complex multi-variable systems is unfortunately, rather rampant today.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP
[2] http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
[4] https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/history/137_165.pdf
[5] https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal86...
No, you can’t do multiple high level tasks at the same time. Low level automatic tasks like breathing and balance fine to do at the same time.

Being able to do differential equations and simple conversations but not complex conversations means simple conversations are lower level.

Thus, it’s not language that makes complex conversations a high level task.
Undo is an transactional operation... backspace five times is precisely what backspace is for and would make undo less powerful if it undid every single keystroke.
How to Use SuperLife STC30: An Explainer Video
This is a surprise to ~no one here, but this is absolutely a surprise to at least a large portion of the general population. Why? Because they don't know how these things are developed, even at a high level. To most people, systems like these are a black box; they talk to it, it outputs text. They don't think -- or need to think -- about what the system is actually doing. There's nothing wrong with that.
not really into rust(yet), just wondering why each cargo install takes forever(it rebuilds everything related from source?).

By all means I feel rust still compile too slowly, if it has faster build time I might spend some time playing with it.
China has been dragging its feet for years when it comes to banning fentanyl analogues when in the past they were quick to literally execute their citizens for manufacturing legal highs a decade ago.

The scale of the operations suggest that the state is involved. It used to be the case that actual clandestine labs would produce a kilogram or drum of illicit substances here and there, which is what happens in some Canadian labs. However, we're regularly intercepting unprecedented amounts of fentanyl analogues from China.

There's literally no where else in the world where both the manufacturing ability and severe lack of accountability both exist to produce novel fentanyl analogues in excess.

Also, China is selling thousands of doses of fentanyl to individual American kids online, so there's that, too.
Anything that depends on current high tech or advanced manufacturing (a good portion of imaging technologies, many implants) would definitely not been around 30, let alone 50 years ago.
I don't know man?

Just Devil's Advocate here, but as an employee going into a startup it's kind of well known at this point that you're only likely to get what's written in black and white. Would you go to work for a company that promises to start paying you at "sometime in the future"? I kind of agree with WheelsAtLarge, you had to have known what you were getting into. Personally, I wouldn't work for someone for free for any length of time unless it's volunteering. Anything else just sounds fishy.

Similarly, if someone promises you equity "later if [blah blah blah]"? I'm just saying, that sounds pretty fishy.
Drones can be used to plant 100000 trees in a day GIF
Awesome post. I worked with cloud.typography for a client once too, and was surprised to discover that they shipped two base64-encoded data strings for each font, each one containing only one half of the font's glyphs – that is to say, their CSS had two @font-face rules for each font: one that had the data for e.g. A-M, and the other that had data for N-Z. The `font-family` rules of the body text specified both FontA and FontB, leaving the browser to piece the font together. Of course, this made extra bloat in the base64 string, because it's essentially two encoded font files instead of one.

I assumed this was for anti-DRM / licensing purposes, so that if someone tried to download the font shipped to the client, they wouldn't get the whole alphabet (even though it's fairly trivial to stitch fonts together – you can use FontForge to copy/paste glyphs from one font to another). Do you know if they still ship fonts with a split alphabet?
I don't know that anyone claims that deep learning is the only technology needed for AGI. The biggest proponents will say that it's the missing piece. But a full system will involve lots of ideas including tree search.
Growth will also give return on investment. I'd rather see Cloudflare invest in growth and R&D than give a dividend. They are nowhere near finished growing.
Well, unless future generations will resurrect me then I would prefer the progress to stall completely. Otherwise it's kind of unfair.
Over my total career I have probably helped safe guard millions upon millions of dollars.

How much value did that create or protect? How much of that was I allowed to capture compared to the CEO? A fraction.
This is exactly why I joined Vendr. I've been in CTO/tech leadership roles at quite a few companies now, and have never particularly enjoyed having to negotiate with sales people. It always seemed like it was a timesink that was distracting me from building the best product/service/company that I could.
That's not entirely accurate. The native ISO ("base sensitivity") just means no analog gain is applied. This is a fairly complex area, but to simplify - for non-dual gain sensors - the sensor captures the same amount of information regardless of ISO setting. The ISO setting then determines how much analog gain to apply, and also how much digital multiplication to apply (if the ISO setting is outside of the analog gain range). No additional information is captured at higher ISO values.
I've used every one of the frameworks that I mentioned with the exception of Svelte, and am surrounded by framework users. Not a single one has ever made that argument. It's always, "Look at this new shiny framework, we must use it!"

And all of those frameworks were great right up until the point that my client or company had a product requirement that the framework designers hadn't though of and then, suddenly, the framework was working against me instead of for me.
This is just about when kids go back to school. You see fewer IPOs over the summer because the bankers are all off in houses in the Hamptons or Nantucket. Your underwriters may not want to IPO until you get back, and there will be fewer people to buy your shares.
> What do you mean by that?

By that I mean that there's no need to trace ownership to the trade union and conclude that because independent trade unions aren't allowed, the company can't be independent either. You could just go straight to Article 17 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China [1], which reads

"The grass-root organizations of the Communist Party of China in companies shall carry out their activities in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China."

So no Chinese company could possibly be independent, trade union or not. That's on paper anyway. In practice, Chinese companies undermine each other and government agencies all the time, instead of harmoniously cooperating to fulfill the CCP's grand plan. Similarly, membership in the ACFTU doesn't tell you anything about the actual power dynamics.

[1] http://english.court.gov.cn/2016-04/14/content_24532981_2.ht...
"Why go public if you literally say you won't make money?"
Because you can get rewarded heavily for it.

They have $88 million in working capital as of June 30, 2019 and are on track to lose another $40 million before the end of the year, so they need more capital. With $330 million carrying value of preferred stock, I think it's go public, somehow issue 100s of millions of dollars in debt or die.
Only issue is that they don't have that much revenue compared to the amount of interest there will be in their stock so its going to turn into a speculation vehicle.
Can you please put that part that I'm ignoring in a single sentence? Is it "primary activity is using capital to gain income, versus working for pay"?
I was a going to register "soylent.ai" and put up a roll of shame but the ai registrars charge an arm and a leg. Perhaps someone else will.
Today, we aren't built for 10-20 person companies, but it is definitely top of mind. We are working on productizing some of our knowledge to solve for this use case, but we aren't there yet.

In terms of non-SaaS, yes, we could handle those examples. But, we don't do your cable bill and things like that. Technology procurement, yes.
> “I think it’s offensive and I don’t like how the industry has standardized on basically assuming everyone’s a bullshitter,”

I think it's weird for people to complain about whiteboards and technical questions, given the implied alternative. There are many other industries if you prefer the traditional hiring model.

That is, if you can get an interview. While you complain about the awkwardness of a whiteboard, people in other industries are quite happy to get a call. And in the interview, they compete in terms of poise, diction, rapport, and other intangibles, without the chance to repair any lack thereof by demonstrating technical competence. And they get 1 hour to make their case, not 3-6 hours.
But they weren't lured with the promise of equity. The promise was that they'd get equity if there was a subsequent funding round.

The investors, especially, have zero right to complain.
Have you talked to any government agencies about using this for larger, public sector, software procurements? I've worked for a govt software vendor in the law enforcement space for a few years, and it's very difficult to actually sell anything real, because the clients don't understand anything and fall for every single marketing/sales tactic from the big vendors. If there were a technically knowledgable middle-man company involved, it would actually be a huge boon for my company because we could focus more resources on building good product that the middleman would understand is better for the client versus fighting the legacy vendors with big marketing budgets and very low engineering support/talent.
`SELECT * FROM technologies;`

Internet, radio, electricity, solar panels, lawn mowers...
Hello,

I have a different question, if you don't mind.

Under what conditions or use cases, do you think it may make sense to migrate from ec2 to ecs? What are the advantages or disadvantages that one needs to take into consideration?

Thanks
I don't this is necessarily a good measure of how happy people actually are. However, it is a good measure of how people are going to perceive the mood of society.

In other words, if most of what an average twitter user sees on given day is people wishing each other merry Christmas/happy valentines day/etc. then they're going to perceive that things are mostly going OK for people.
But on React Native there are major platform differences that you also have to bridge. Moreover, as the platform essentially uses each platform's native components through that JSON serialized bridge you'll have UI inconsistencies between platforms when sharing code.
Yup, for many years that was Amazon Mechanical Turk's actual marketing slogan.

I haven't seen them use it lately, but I might have missed it somewhere.
JITX is hiring an infrastructure engineer to automate circuit board design
> ... companies are often forced into such practices, ...

No company is forced into doing anything unethical. What it boils down to is group think. A group of deciders convinces themselves little by little that their current behavior is OK; mostly because of money. And so little by little they slip into the doing unethical behaviors.
Every time I encounter the claim that something is “common sense”, either the claim is false, or it’s not common knowledge.

I believe most people neither know nor care how their devices and services function.
They took "fake it till you make it" to another level.
tragedies of the commons

I think we should retire that phrase and rethink it as the tragedy of greed. Many people are happy and even work to maintain some sort of equilibrium between their consumption and replenishment of natural resources. Garrett Hardin, who originated this trope, arguably had a very dim view of human nature and began with the premise that everyone was equally greedy and pseudo-rationally inclined towards maximizing consumption.
Electricity and all the things we use it for is and was