skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, the purpose of these camps is to "re-educate" people until China needs their organs or they die.

> I mean, China government did not put in place all these camps just for taking organs or for forced labor, from an economic perspective it would be a nonsense.

I think you grossly underestimate the economics of free labor and black market organs. From Wikipedia[1]:

> In their report on organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners, Kilgour and Matas describe transplant hospitals in China that cater to wealthy foreigners who paid upwards of $100,000 for liver, lung, and heart transplants. For instance, the website of the China International Transplantation Network Assistance Center posted the following price list on its website in 2006: Kidney: $62,000; Liver: $98,000–130,000; Liver+kidney: $160,000–180,000; Kidney+pancreas: $150,000; Lung: $150,000–170,000; Heart: $130,000–160,000; Cornea: $30,000.

All of those prices listed are in USD.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...
Boycotting is the ethical thing to do but it almost never works. What works? I guess the same things that worked for women and blacks - enough people willing to stick their necks out and organise politically.
They personally are not great people, but the system that has enabled them to hoard personal wealth and leave the streets full of the destitute will be destroyed.

The most important thing, of course, is to eliminate poverty and protect the planet. The next most important thing is destroy oligarch’s power so they don’t continue to jeopardize the most important things. And, practically in a scarcity economy, capture their mis allocated resources for better ends.

Wanting more wealth hoarded by the few is not a good thing to want.
Chinese feelings towards Hong Kong arise out of a history of subjugation by the British. The Opium Wars devastated China's economy and sovereignty, including the British forcing them to cede Hong Kong. This was the beginning of the "century of humiliation": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

It's not just the authoritarian government that is angered, it is the people of China who remember this history of imperialism and domination. Before the first Opium War, China's economy was the largest in the world. Is has only recently begun to recover: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of_t...

Everyone has a story about why they are oppressed. Who is oppressed and who are oppressors? What actions are oppressive, and which are not? Free speech is necessary as a way of litigating these very questions.
So in this discussion [1] Checkout all the replies from 'baybal2'. Like this one [2].

Now look at the submissions for that account [3].

Now read more of the comments [4].

That account has been around a while, so I'm not sure it qualifies as "shill", but it certainly seems suspect to me.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21124115

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21126141

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=baybal2

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=baybal2
Maybe those in power have found ways to keep us busy with "identity politics" so they can have their way? I pretty much think people in the US are fighting all wrong battles at this point, and are the real pawns who can be easily manipulated. 1984.
Silicon Valley and the state gird for war
That’s true, but I think unless the US acts other players will stay on the sidelines. Maybe I’ve missed it, but has the EU commenced anything that would address some of the one-sidedness? Others are either indifferent, impotent or maybe even approving of the behavior by the CCP.
This is not what people are worrying about.

We are already seeing, for almost 10 years now, a whole bunch of Unintended Consequences of dumb algorithms applied at global population scales.

Just because some people are throwing the phrase superintelligence/singularity etc into the discussion, and terminology being used is inaccurate, doesn't mean we focus on correcting terminology and forget about the issues.

The article is saying too many (serious) people are doing that. And I agree.
it's either China, or the ROW(rest of world) these days. the co-existence is getting harder these days.

time to break up, on all fronts.
Too many people bought into the Fukuyama "end of history" theory whereby free trade and free markets would automatically lead to democracy and liberal values spreading worldwide. It probably seemed like a reasonable hypothesis right after the Soviet Union fell, but at this point it's pretty clear the events of the last decade have debunked it completely. The silver lining is we're a little smarter now and will hopefully make better decisions going forward.
Okay, so then we should DEFINITELY use it here, to promote US values over Chinese ones.
Here is a non-radical opinion --- You are an idiot.
The expected "missing step" is as follows:

1. You start with "if I take some numerical representation of an image/text/sound and I multiply/add/perform non-linear function them through these series of numbers it will map to a number which I can interpret as something meaningful to me" and observe that it's not giving you a sufficiently good solution to a particular goal X that you really want to achieve.

2. You figure out that this is a dead-end, you're stuck, and you're not going to get where you want this way by implementing a passive analysis module. Instead, you try to implement an active self-modifying system to achieve that goal X by analyzing itself and improving itself to be more effective than anything which you could implement directly yourself.

3. It's not initially any good at self-improvement, but you keep throwing accumulated research breakthroughs and computing power at it. This likely takes decades.

4. At some point, eventually (if such a thing is possible at all, eventually it's going to happen) it actually does achieve meaningful self-improvement and starts using that computing power not horribly wastefully in a brute force manner as it did just recently, but reasonably well, now giving it more smartness allowing it to implement even more self-improvement on the same hardware.

4B. It also should be expected to easily obtain much more computing power - e.g. it's obvious that anything that's slightly above average human programmer smartness and has a direct use/desire for computing power (as opposed to simply using it for cryptomining) can get some; anything connected to the internet can get the same resources that current scriptkiddies can get by writing a botnet or a ransomware operator can get by extorting a random municipality; there's nothing except total isolation that could prevent it from buying or stealing a few million dollars worth of cloud computing resources to get started.

5. This thing is alive and will kill us all in maximization of its utility function.
I think this demonstrates the opposite of what you want. Saying "a hobbit hole is comfortable" would be telling. It's not explaining or showing what makes it comfortable, or why it is comfortable - it's one abstraction up and just declares it comfortable. For what we know at that point in the story, a hobbit likes worms and oozy smells and finds that comfortable.

But instead he evokes those images, and gets you to imagine something different; something probably closer to our idea of comfort, because the reader now has seen that hobbits ideas of what isn't comfortable is at least somewhat aligned with ours even though the live in a hole.

I'd consider this a fantastic example of how to show without having to be boring and prescriptive about just describing what you might see, but how you can also show through creating emotional response and through exclusion.

That said, good writers will know when to break the rule and tell. Tolkien certainly does tell a lot even if I don't agree that is an example of him telling. A lot more than many, if anything. But of course he gets away with that because he was a fantastic writer. The advice to show is beginner advice more than anything.
I've found it to typically not be applied equally, neither in the US nor in Europe (which makes sense, since it's designed to protect marginalized groups). For a quick test, replace some words, i.e. "all X are ..." and make it "all Y are ...", switch minorities and majorities around - you'll be able to tell whether it's considered hate speech then. #YesAllXYZ
I agree. Almost every time I hear of someone having issues unpicking a complicated git issue it's because they were trying to be too smart with it and use every feature just because they are there.

Find a _simple_ git workflow, document it in a style guide, stick to it. Git doesn't have to be complicated.
i didn't say "racial equality", i meant the radical equality that flattens everything. i'm talking about the tradition that rejects prophets, rejects hierarchy, rejects teleology, etc.
Isn't our best course of action to achieve technological progress and fix the situation instead of 'preventing' it?

Like build dikes around low lying areas rather than trying to coordinate a worldwide slowdown of economic activity which faces the worst outcome of prisoner's dilemma.
I agree in principle, although in practice this is impossible to be preached. In China it's that political opinions aren't tolerated, especially anything that notes on the edge of separatism. In America it's the same, certain racial, gender chats are simply taboo, whether it's personal or national level. While there is no explicit governmental prosecution, you can be sure that you'll be punished in a way.

The idea is that in America such topics are prohibits because there is the idea of historical injustice and bringing everyone to a fair level for a "better society" (very well-intended). It is no different in China when political topics bring an uprising flux of emotion from within the Chinese people (also very well-intended in the context of Chinese legacy). There is no fundamental difference, only a difference in how the freedom of expression is backed by historical context and reigning ideology.
I'm not sure sure it will go "badly". I believe there's a fundamental issue with a class of software applications that the current OSI licenses don't do much for. Let me clarify that statement with some examples. If you're a developer of an "open source" library or database engine, you have great OSI licenses available to use. The consumers of your work will either open source their work or purchase a license (i.e. dual-licensing). If, however, you're creating a CMS or some standalone tool (like GIMP, for example), you're left to go down the road of open core (typically). So, the alternative here is to choose a license that's conducive of being able to monetize without depending on donations or support contracts.

I think developers should pick a license that makes sense for them, not necessarily for the benefit of others. What is important though, is that some thought is taken and to try it out. You can always go more permissive later.

I'm working on something that I want to monetize, but the OSI licenses aren't helpful for the kind of application I'm working on. I'm leaning towards a similar licensing structure and have been spending a great deal of time thinking about this and I hope to have more discussions on this very topic as it's extremely helpful for everyone.

edit: typos
"Robust" has different meanings. I think the OP is equating robust with strongly typed and compiled.

I have found well written PHP code requires very little unplanned maintenance. When I package the application in a docker container along with its dependencies and a webserver (nginx), I find that I can run a PHP application for years without having to worry about it.

In this sense, PHP code can be very robust in the sense that there are little surprises once the application goes into production. The PHP ecosystem is very mature.
Doesn't look like he's siding with Beijing at all.

https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1181497808563658752

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrY6bKFVD3Q&feature=youtu.be...

https://streamable.com/b7ifu
Sure aresant, just email the address in my profile - thanks.
I propose "mμns."
Unbound Babes gets 100% YoY growth without conventional ad channels
Cool assertion, but even if that were true, why wouldn't the WTO enforce net neutrality?
I've heard it said:

Games used to be about making the computer do what the user wanted, now games are about making users do what the computer wants.

Rather, games used to be about packing in features players and the developers thought would be cool and fun, and then the game would be sold for a flat price. Now games are about extracting as much money as possible with a minimum of interesting game mechanics and a maximum of psychological tricks. It's not true of all modern games, but is definitely a growing trend.
I guess. But it’s worth mentioning that Fukuyama is no longer a Fukuyamaist himself.
> In fact, UC Berkeley case is the only data point I've seen from you here; which feels sparse given the blanket statements you've made about the intentions of various groups of people.

You've been too busy twisting my arguments and you might have missed the link I posted earlier:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/ada-shakedown-racket-12494...

> Can you also provide a data point on the UC Berkeley lawsuit being frivolous? What are you basing that on?

Are you now trolling me? I can't believe I need to explain this but I'll make one last attempt:

UCB posts free video lectures online. UCB is technically violating ADA by not having captions.
Someone says "You're breaking the law, your free content must be available to everyone with disabilities or I'll sue you". UCB complies with the law the easiest way possible by shutting down the free lectures. You say you value the ADA law so you should be happy - UCB is in compliance now. Everyone else lost, including actual people with disabilities who might have had partial access to the videos one way or another. I'll leave it to you to decide how desirable this outcome was, nitpicking "frivolous" definition notwithstanding.

> Could you please stop inventing arguments to rebut, because it's not really helpful. We're talking about ADA here, not whatever you're making up here.

My argument is perfectly valid. I was talking about ADA until you implied that I'm bigoted and trying to tell blind people what they should be interested in. That has nothing to do with ADA. If want to go in that direction, go all the way and tell me that I'm racist because I'm not ensuring my site is accessible in Africa.
I would highly recommend subscribing to Erik's rss feed or email drip or whatever, his blog posts are always high quality and have been very useful to me when it comes to "career thinking." And fun fact, he wrote Annoy, which is damn good software.

https://github.com/spotify/annoy

https://erikbern.com/2018/02/15/new-benchmarks-for-approxima...
火影，or naruto, so not surprising he's not seeing the rockets. Not sure if BT will edit the article or not
Fair enough. I don't really follow football. I still think that he would have been suspended if he put on a black panther beret and called for a revolution.
Thanks to the tremendous criminality and wealth concentration of the last 200 years, western corps generally only answered to western wealthy audiences. The game has changed, that's all....
An old boss of mine told me the French drive like Italians but without the skill.

It’s interesting to compare their accident rates with the UK, a similarly sized and developed country.
and trello and airtable
Hello pot, let me introduce you to kettle.
Does discovering an exoplanet really qualify for Nobel Prize?
Because political satire and propaganda are two different things, power and resistance.
FWIW worth, I have limited knowledge of gaming communities. Most of my concern have been with behavior of twitter when it comes to policing content, specially anti-Islam content which violates blasphemy laws in certain countries like Pakistan. For long time I was of the opinion that twitter is wrong in the way it bans people or removes content which violates these laws. And that twitter should stop operating in those countries instead. Since then I have changed my views about this. I think twitter as a company has every right to operate where ever it pleases and if it means adhering to local laws, so be it.
AFAIK, political speech is not protected against employer discrimination.
Attempts by China to leverage market access into self-censorship by U.S. companies should also be treated as trade violations that are subject to retaliation.

Thank you, Ben, for this honest appraisal which involves sticking out your neck and perhaps even harming your ability to travel to China or expand your business.

Regarding this comment about Apple:

And then there is Apple: the company is deeply exposed to China both in terms of sales and especially when it comes to manufacturing. The reality is that, particularly when it comes to the latter, Apple doesn’t have anywhere else to go.

That may be true of manufacturing now, but will it be true 5 years from now? Surely Cook et al saw the writing on the wall years ago when it articulated some of its core values around privacy. Conflict is inevitable, and the risk associated with having all your manufacturing eggs in one basket is too great. We saw the announcement of Apple's manufacturing initiative in Texas, and there are other locations for electronics sourcing and assembly throughout Asia. How much of Apple's supply chain could be relocated elsewhere?
No it's Five eyes and part of EU (excluding UK), and even US has a lot differences with EU.
Or we could open up to more deities outside of the roman/greek arena. How about Cthulu or Freya?
To understand the issue (and any issue for that matter) I think it's important to make an effort to try to see things from perspectives outside your own frame of reference. There are 1.4 billion Chinese, the vast majority of whom see what we frame as democratic protests, as unlawful acts of arbitrary destruction and now increasingly often - violence as well. And they too are framing the violence as increasingly racial/cultural. For instance mainlanders tend to speak Mandarin. Hong Kongers tend to speak Cantonese. Guess whose property is getting disproportionately destroyed. And as these protests are turning increasingly violent, it's easy to see where that is and will continue to be focused as well.

Even within Hong Kong there seems to be no reliable information available on aggregate views. The only poll I can find, potentially of dubious reliability, is from 2016. [1] And in that poll, the vast majority of those living within Hong Kong were against separating from China once the 'one country, two systems' agreement expires, in 2047. Only 17.4% supported independence from China even when it was just in theory and 2 decades away. What percent of the protesters are within that 17.4%, and what are the views of the 82.6% on these protests? These seem like important questions that are going unasked, let alone answered by our media and reporting. Whatever the exact numbers may be, there are a lot of people who are very much against whatever you want to call what is happening in Hong Kong. This isn't just a scenario of "good guys" vs "authoritarian government." Its large groups of people who feel very different about the same situation.

Of course you will reference propaganda and I fully agree with you. But there too I am left to wonder something. Take the average Chinese who relies on his regular sources of information for news. And now take the average American who similarly relies on his regular sources of news for information. Who would be able to provide a more accurate response to factual queries on the protests, Hong Kong's relationship with China, and the views/values/etc of those within and without the protest group? Similarly, do you think that, for instance, the New York Times has provided accurate and objective reporting on this topic? Or do you think that their reporting and presentation is attempting to present this story from a distinctly prejudiced angle?

Something that I think social media has masked for many people today is that our own views are not "THE" moral imperative for the world. In fact they, regardless of what they are, tend to be quite obscure when contrasted against the world at large. Step outside the anglosphere and it's amazing how insane we are starting to look from the outside. Or perhaps we always looked this way, but by living inside the bubble for so many years I was equally a part of the insanity.

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-survey-idU...
Ok. Just want to make sure we're all on the same page, this is about nationalism and competition, not freedom or trade. Pretending like we're opening the world up for everyone to become magical free millionaires just makes us seem naive and dishonest.
At least, dropping a zip file shouldn't be as punishing as dropping a real card stack. :-)

Also, 1MB must have been really massive then. (Nowadays, a zip archive of a few card images easily has a multiple of that.)
Memory Lessons from a Man Who Couldn't Forget
How much does air pollution cost the U.S.?
Are you proposing that a majority of election coverage is not clickbait speculation? Have you actually watched any election coverage?

There is plenty of real coverage that takes place, but it doesn't fill a 24-hour news cycle. It consists of things like direct quotes of what candidates actually said and things they actually did. The rest of it is filled with guesses about hypothetical policies they might adopt and what horrible/wonderful things might occur if they do get adopted. In other words, clickbait speculation.
Drones as Detectives: Surveying Crime Scenes for Evidence
Dating very old rivers & civilizations that flourished near them.
When it came out in 2001 or so, "The Endurance" was considered a major motion picture. Blew my mind anyway.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_endurance
>There was a really interesting talk at Strange Loop this year about how quirks in code layout fool programmers into chasing their tails thinking they’re improving performance when they’re not.

I think the author may be referring to this talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-TLSBdHe1A
I'd define it as the nonphysical controlling the physical. Math is one obvious example of such magic.

Hence why Bacon, who originated modern science by rejecting teleology and promoting math, was an occultist.
I'm curious as to what happens if the NBA does in fact get banned from China. I've always wondered whether, as the Chinese economy grows and living standards rise, individuals would ever feel more entitled to individual rights. Of course maybe this is just a western bias.

If the NBA was blocked, would passionate Chinese NBA fans (of which there are many) fall in line? Or not?
It seems that without the article's context, these are controversial points. The word 'minority' here is used to describe a group of people bound by their ideas and opinions.

The minority rule states that the opinions of a few can be projected onto a whole through an emergent property. If a few people do not like to eat spicy food, the whole office might cater mild or bland for an event. An outsider would think that the entire office dislikes spicy food.

If there is a small group of people who think that expressing certain ideas is incorrect, then an entire group might avoid speaking them.

A free society needs to make constant, conscious decisions about what ideas cannot be expressed, because if smaller groups are allowed to make these decisions without review, then all free speech will dry up in a real way.

We should always argue when some group says they don't like hearing certain things. The fact that we are often arguing is a sign of good health for free speech.
What's the dream for giving natural language commands to AI?