skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think that's the argument the author was making:

"Further, there needs to be proper counselling and supports for pilots following use of lethal force.

While such pilots might be removed from physical risks, we have a moral responsibility to ensure not just that drones are used in ways that adhere to the ethics of warfare, but that the pilots are adequately supported in their roles."
> “It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me.

Moreover, it's not, in general, a legal reason in the US to discriminate where a protected class is involved, including, in employment, age over 40 or gender.
Converting DC voltage is unlike AC with transformers not easy or practical.
Lenin has also written an awesome poem about a meat pie gone missing in the darkness of the night.
Did any new process/invention make it viable to use steel today that wasn't available before?
Saudi Arabia gave you 9/11 yet your president is super friendly with them.

It's almost as if you're looking for excuse to kill people.
Ok, so are you allowed to place employment ads in Cosmo?

Is it Ok just because it’s overwhelming likely to be women who see it, versus algorithmically targeting women?
> I shouldn't have the government mandating that I can't tune my advertising campaign for ROI, which is basically the only point of running one if the first place.

Then find another country.... dipshit. In the United States this is illegal. I would say "sorry", but I am not. If you really hold this view, kill yourself.
Why was a bunch of dudes sitting around a fire a "critical, life or death decision" that couldn't wait for "sufficient information"?

Total war was justified in WW2 when the Allies were facing a potentially existential threat. It was us or them. That has never been the case in Afghanistan.
Yeah, so imagine spending $3k on GoodRx prescriptions, then winding up in the hospital and finding out you've still got all $7900 of it left to cover before insurance kicks in.
Is every drone operator killing civilians? Is the sniper's syndrome limited to the operators who've killed civilians?

Recent headlines about the US killing 30 farmers make it easy to confuse the context. I'm sure the operator(s) involved with that operation are traumatized. But that's not really the discussion here.

As per the article

> The rates of drone pilot burn out were in fact higher than that of traditional pilots.

> Given that the target often posed no direct threat to the sniper, there was a moral dissonance about taking the life of someone who is no direct threat. This has obvious parallels to drone pilots.

> Couple this with the familiarity that the drone pilot might have developed through long-term surveillance, and the target becomes an informationally rich human, rather than simply a blip on a screen.

> Posing a threat to someone is often seen as a moral requirement in order for a solider to use lethal force against a target. However, the drone pilot is acting remotely, and they lose this sense of moral justification for their action.

> One important thing to recognise is that such moral injury is not dependent on the pilot actually committing something morally prohibited.

> For instance, if a soldier must use lethal force to protect an innocent family against an enemy soldier threatening the family's lives, the soldier's actions are typically deemed justified.

> However, given the features of drones, this moral justification might not be properly felt by its pilot.
Or, a “degraded” HTML

No, plain text will do just fine.
The externality is that a fosters an environment in which surveillance capitalism is able to thrive. It's not limited to just your home.
GNU Project founded out of persecution complex.
> They were wrong then, they will be wrong now. Why do I think that ? Because we are already far over the carrying capacity of the planet without fossil fuels. Either technology will save us or your doom scenario WILL happen. In other words, you could be wrong or right. If you're wrong, then of course we should only take limited steps to change. If you're right and we cannot adapt, then we're fucked unless we kill something like 90% of the human race (exact number doesn't really matter, even if it's 50%). Any event that kills 90% of the human race is going to be as bad as just waiting for the "migration, collapse and death", whether we engineer it or not.

I'm quite certain you've misread me because you seem to be suggesting I'm not advocating action and a possible stable outcome. I am. What I'm saying is that making no changes in the face of new data will simply continue to ignore the reality we're increasingly convinced of: that climate change is going to collapse every aspect of modern society unless we react swiftly and broadly to counteract it and its effects.

Suggesting this is Malthusian in nature is wrong.

> So you're wrong. Not just because there's a range of technologies that could save our ass, but also because "changing our priorities" is no different from "migration, collapse, and death" at this point.

If we refuse to apply said technologies, then we're in trouble. We might refuse if, for example, men are afraid recycling makes them look effeminate or because solar power is unpopular with people convinced oil industry=freedom.

> Animals come with a built-in "carrying capacity guesser", and populations end up very close to the exact STABLE carrying capacity of whatever environment they find themselves in.

... What? No, they don't. Any species that doesn't reach equilibrium dies.

> shouldn't our default assumption be that there clearly is a mechanism controlling human population size, and that it's not in fact screwing up ?

What a weird argument. So first you suggested we can and should use technology to preserve societal growth, and then you seem to suggest that being cognizant of these motivations and selecting among various strategies is wrong because we should trust in some kind of implicit governing principle or intelligence?

Which is it?

> As the history of Yellowstone park illustrates, humans have done far more damage attempting to control population sizes of animals than we have just letting them be.

Here again you're contradicting the sentiments you displayed in paragraph 1 and 2. Should we try and use technology to solve the problems before us proactively or accept any such intervention is doomed due to ignorance?

Are you sure you're the not the adherent to Malthusianism?
I think you'll have to prove to me that people like that exist, at least in a state that is acceptable enough that they can be employed by the military and not excluded because of those same problems.

I suspect people like that cause far more problems than they solve. How many war atrocities do you need to make the entire idea cost more than its worth?

And before someone jumps in that these are already atrocities, there's a huge difference between a mistake killing innocents or the idea of acceptable losses and slaughtering every man, woman and child in a village, because we've seen that before.
From memory the MiG-25 interceptor had quite a lot of steel in it for thermal reasons. Titanium was too difficult to work with for them at that time (or something).
Gwyneth Paltrow, Jack Dorsey, Marianne Williamson and the Wellness Aristocracy
The way I understood the presenation, they plan to use a single piece of steal, bent at an angle and rolled around (think one of those Pillsbury roll cans) with a single weld seem, in a giant helix.
Random Afghani civilians are not the Taliban.

(Aside from the fact that the Geneva Convention doesn't work that way, as the other guy pointed out.)
https://github.com/cc-d/ieddit
I don't think that we have sufficient evidence to draw that conclusion. It is likely that the drone pilots believe that they are fighting on the right side.

Perhaps a more profitable line of discussion would be:
On what basis would you say that this constitutes murder?
Is it really any better to make people choose just really good proxies for their intended audience which theoretically anyone could be a member of but in practice is not that way?

And if this isn’t really any better, where does that leave you?
You should read the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. None of the things you listed are examples of discrimination in the context
of civil rights. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

Perhaps I should also remind you that this isn’t 4chan.
Something vintage about video.
Just wait... soon the Captchas will be aerial pictures of Afghanistan.

"To access this site, please click on all the boxes that contain males over 16 years old".
As someone who's never used Lean, but has played around with Coq and Agda, how do they compare?
The question we should be asking is how much retraining had to occur to accomplish the new task? If it's significantly less than to the accomplish the original task, the algorithm has transferred its latent knowledge from the original task to the new task, which is significant.
I am aware of the things to which I consent. This is not one of them.
1. Do you know your worth in the labor market? Believe it or, there’s high demand for mediocre developers and they make a good living. Go on some interviews. Knowing you can get another job gives you a ton of confidence.

2. This podcast episode can help you figure out what you’re really afraid of:

https://feelinggood.com/2017/05/29/039-uncovering-techniques...
Meta-engineer? Engineering executive? At least he's trying to advance humanity instead of squandering it all on yachts like almost all the rest of the world's billionaires.
I think the parent comment's logic is sound from a financial point of view, but you do a wonderful job of reframing it to bring it back to an equal rights point of view. Women and older workers have just as much right to the same advertised opportunities as others. Sticking a job ad in the mens restroom or within an age-restricted night club when you're looking for accountants seems misguided, but it's easy to see how that wasn't considered.
Luckily, this is a solvable problem. A theorem prover is software, so you can apply formal methods to it, and prove that the software performs its stated function. The CakeML project does this, and I'm working on a bootstrapping theorem prover (Metamath Zero) to do this in a few hundred lines of code. So it's not as hopeless as it seems. You just have to have a really efficient and simple checking algorithm and run it over a big computer generated proof of correctness, and it all scales very well. Then you can take that verified theorem prover and apply it to all the regular math we care about.
Official response here - I work for Keybase.

This article isn't just misleading; it's entirely false, and the title is both highly damaging AND false. Someone below threw out the word "libel" here. I don't know about that, but it's incredibly frustrating to read this title on HN right now.

* THERE IS NO BACKDOOR HERE. Neither the especially scary kind suggested by the title (everyone assumes encryption breaking!), nor the coerced attestation kind suggested in the text.

* Put simply, KEYBASE HAS NOT BACKDOORED its apps and cannot coerce them into signing someone else's Stellar address into a profile.

Further, THIS USER VOLUNTARILY GENERATED A STELLAR PRIVATE KEY. What follows is the flow for generating a Stellar wallet and attaching it to one's profile. The author of this post went through this flow on Feb 4, 2019:

1. Visited the "wallet" tab in the app

2. read a brief description of Stellar in a modal.

3. Saw our disclaimer in a modal (not hidden - printed out front) about how scary cryptocurrency is, how it's permanently attached to your identity, and how it's important to backup your private key if you plan on leaving Keybase.

4. Only once they accepted that, then their client app (not our server) generated a Stellar private key. The app signed the public Stellar address into his sig chain. And the Stellar private key counter-signed, proving bidirectionally. The stellar key was then encrypted in a way so their devices could gossip them to each other.

So to be clear (1) this writer did in fact have that Stellar Key. And (2) we, Keybase, did not. And (3) they knew they were doing it. I encourage anyone curious to go try it out -- the flow has not changed.

I don't understand what their agenda is here. Offering some charity, perhaps they went through this flow late at night and forgot. (Looks like they generated their Stellar account well after midnight in Europe.) But the claims in the post are just false.

I accept some people don't like the opinionated cryptocurrency partnership Keybase has formed. We do like Stellar. However, that doesn't change our security story. Nor does it force users to set up Stellar keys, and something like half of our users have not. Actually - we spent a great effort building around the fact that many users wouldn't be interested in the cryptocurrency side of things.

For those who generate Stellar keys and then change their mind, not wanting them, we'll add the feature to delete all of them.

Anyway, this is just not true. All of it.
The only part I disliked was LinkedIn - #introvertsunite
I'd argue that the main objective of the job is to achieve the strategic objectives of the country engaged in armed conflict. Indiscriminate killing completely devoid of a moral or ethical framework definitely does not accomplish that objective.
So if an armed organisation in Afganistan targets exclusively American troops, they will not be considered terrorists and we will be letting them into bars in France?
I was one generation behind you. We had actual flip/flops and even small ROMs, made from something called CTL (complementary transistor logic) which was similar to ECL in its voltage and power requirements. But did not require water cooling, just banks of large squirrel cage fans.
I recently got my XLM drop. Had to click to accept too. Also felt a bit tricked. Like when randos slide into my Keybase messages
comments links are not working.
You can use Claws Mail
If another nation's military had accidentally murdered 30 American civilians because they didn't wait for sufficient information, you'd be crying out for blood.
I’m from Levels.fyi. We actually request users to report compensation with appreciation. This is because the appreciation can actually be used to negotiate compensation elsewhere and provides a more accurate picture.
You are using the legal definition of discrimination, and I am using the economics definition of discrimination.
IIRC naringin has an indirect effect on coffee, where it inhibits an enzyme that is involved in metabolizing caffeine. So the outcome is that the effect of your coffee lasts a lot longer, instead of being more potent.

Edit: Now that I go looking again, there is also evidence against this conclusion: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-04/aps-rsm04090...
But should Ebony be allowed to market ads on Facebook and exclude white people? I honestly don’t know where I come down on this issue: it feels different to say, “we have a better ROI if we exclude certain demographics from seeing our ads” than to say “black people can’t eat at this diner.”

Let’s take a company like REI: is it wrong for them to put their stores in places that are most profitable? Should luxury good companies be required to have store fronts in inner cities?

I’m legitimately not sure I’m comfortable with either answer. “Women / older people are unlikely to respond to this ad; so we’ll have a better ROI by excluding those groups” feels awkward but like a legitimate business interest. If I sell male hygiene products can I exclude women from seeing the ads, not because I don’t like women but because the ad is less likely to be relevant?

“I don’t want to work with women or older people so I’ll not show them the ad” feels unquestionably wrong.
>Coding is a skill that takes time to master, and if these people were sufficiently motivated to code, they probably would've become coders before now.

Personally a DevOps/SRE type role appeals to me more because

1: I really liked ops but found coding and doing NOTHING but it kind of meh. A combo is fine.

2: I REALLY like approaching ops as a software problem

3: The work itself has more variety than straight ops or dev which I think is more suited to my adhd issues.

I think there is much political inertia and a lack of code savvy workforce keeping ops going but honestly the way I see it the writing is on the wall for traditional ops. I never see any ops positions in FAANG.

It may be true most coder s don't think about infrastructure but that gives more value to this niche not less. There is still value to DIY when it comes to things like infrastructure.
Targeted ads when it comes to housing (AKA redlining) are illegal under Fair Housing Act of 1968.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
Where else would you draw the line? I don't think what I described is a real problem in practice. Housing and jobs are often advertised in rather neutral publications, not special interest ones. But what Facebook enables goes beyond targeting based on interest, it's explicitly exclusionary.

If your local newspaper could print a special edition for minority subscribers that didn't include job listings, that would be a problem. Advertising in a special interest publication is not, on its own, a problem. Of course there's no clear lines in reality, everything must be evaluated in context.
You did notice that this is Phoenix right? They are not going to solve the issue of urban sprawl tomorrow, but they can optimize for the footprint of the houses that will be built no matter what. So should they not do this because of the transportation issue?
You need to see a psychiatrist and a counselor. You need medication to calm the anxiety while the counselor helps you figure out how and where these issues are coming from.
Why is it legal to charge men more for car insurance? It’s definitely more profitable that way, but maybe so is the targeting in the article.
Do you believe that there is ever a justification for taking human life?
Some statements are so absolute that they cannot possibly be correct.

> "The best part is no part."

Simple design is better because less moving parts means less complexity.

> "The best process is no process."

No single process is a panacea for all situations, so strictly adhering to a process will eventually cripple you. The best process is the ability to quickly change your process when it is necessary.
You say you would find it easy to kill (concerning), but have you been in a similar situation? Have you at least killed a large animal?

I've killed a rat with my own hands, I felt bad even though I never thought I would. It's different when you hear it squeak and bleed, then die in convulsions.
I can't see myself killing a goat, let alone a person, unless I am fighting for my life.

A purely speculative opinion of how you would feel is of little value.
Because it’s not covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
Any time this general topic comes up, I like to drop the Chaos Poem as an example, for anyone who hasn't yet encountered it: http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html
Been looking for something like your course for a while now.

Keep up the good work!
This was AMaZING. Exactly the kind of content I want to consume on HN
My Aunt wrote computer code into her 60s. This was up until at most 10 years ago. She has a degree in math and went back to school after being a SAHM and got a degree in computer science from a community college, and banged out code for about 15 years.

She coded circles around (and out-adulted) her younger colleagues.
See: Voat
Finally, a A-Z list of logical fallacies!
Reading the article, I took sympathy with the Keybase team. As a dev working at a relatively large software company, I commonly see the smallest issues causing users to knee-jerk and claim conspiracy to harm them. Of course, this headline is shocking, and many probably upvoted it without reading the article, or having any context into your software.

Is there any precedent to getting posts like this (blatant lies) removed from HN? I will report the post, but this article has the potential to be highly damaging to your business, even if it has zero truth to it.
We have decided as nations and societies that some forms of economic discrimination are too damaging to permit. The details vary, but typically the things we can't easily change: race, nationality, age etc. Such discrimination is generally outlawed.

Someone lacking relevant market skills or education etc can go out and fix that.
All I can do is point out the implications of what there saying.

And point out you and I live on lives sustained by indentured servitude.
Note that this is editorial license on the part of the writer; Buzzard is proposing the use of interactive theorem provers, which only use a small amount of 80's style AI (backtracking search and higher order matching). No one in ITP is seriously using modern neural net based AI in real theorem provers yet, although there are several research teams working on it.
I don't think I ever saw these used in a residential setting. Commercial buildings are a different story.
Joining Petabytes of Data per Day: How LiveRamp Powers Its Matching Product
WeWork proves that (venture) capitalism works
and the courts only care about the legal definition.
You're on a site where at least half the commenters are anonymous, and evidently the discussion level here is good enough for you to stay. Conversely, Facebook is not any less cancerous because they have a real name policy. So no, I'd say the least N years have not shown that.
Show HN: Hero Trainer – Sweatcoin for Video Games
The short answer is: it depends. I don't think you'll run into much trouble in excluding women from your ads for beard care products, but you might of you're excluding them from your ads for housing.

I think you have to consider intent as well as outcome.
Because if you make an oligo from someone's digital data it's harder to link you - you may never have been on the same continent together.

It's like snatching handbags vs online credit card fraud - the reach of criminals to victims got a lot bigger.
Homotopy Type Theory is based on Martin-Lof Type Theory (which is your standard dependent type theory), but reinterprets equality to mean homotopy equivalence. In vanilla MLTT, a = b is inhabited iff a and b share the same normal form, and its proof is refl (reflexivity). In HoTT, a = b may be inhabited by proofs other than refl. Namely, the univalence axiom states that types are equal when they are isomorphic, and function extensionality states that functions are equal when they map the same inputs to the same outputs. You also get higher inductive types, which allow you to define constructors of equalities on inductive types. So, HoTT allows you to prove things that you can't prove under ordinary MLTT.
My hay fever medication (called Teldanex in Sweden) was withdrawn from the market in 1998 due to some fatalities when combined with grapefruit. So it must have been well known long before 2012. I remember feeling quite lucky I wasn’t into that particular fruit... :P
If only there was a technology that would guarantee the transport would stay on a path. If it could carry a lot of people , that would ve a bonus...
Back when I was dependant on Valium, which was hard to acquire, it was a great way to rocket up the effects
Please imagine an Afghani drone killing 30 civilians in Washington.

Then think again about who is dehumanizing who.
I haven't used Reddit in a very long time, but does it not allow anonymous posts and comments any more? My account, at least, isn't tied to my real name or identity in any way, IIRC.

Anyway, I'm not sure anonymity is a great feature. The lack of accountability is a good part of the reason why Reddit became such a cesspool.
The Harry Potter series narrated by Jim Dale. We listened to them while driving on family vacations. Kept the kids engaged and prevented the driver (me!) from getting bored. Another good one is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Lambda is a poor substitute for EC2