skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well it's a bit like trying to "have your cake and eat it": if you want to run a family company, fine, but you can't ask the markets for capital and yet keep the control!
Those dual class of shares have always seem odd to me; I mean, I kind of understand the point for your average young startup - where the voting power somehow represents the risk everyone took, and you don't want to destabilize the company.
For a mature company, the justification is less clear.
Are dogs conscious? How about computers? Christof Koch takes on deep questions
If it were possible to convert an old econo-box compact car to electric for a reasonable price with roughly the same sort of effort and knowledge as it takes to do an engine swap (which I can and have done several times) I'd do it.

I don't care about range beyond what it takes for me to get from home to work and back again, with the occasional stop at a super market and I don't care about performance beyond what it takes to properly merge into traffic like competent driver.

On the occasion that find myself in need of some other sort of car for some special purpose I can rent something appropriate for that.
Rule 110
Wow, that escalated quickly.
What this has to do with a business being family-owned or not?
That wasn't what I was referring to. The winning there isn't winning the argument, which is really a trivial position to avoid. I first achieved it when I was a teenager and consistently achieved it in my early 20s. I have no reason to believe this is exceptional for anyone with a mild interest in epistemology (Crocker's Rules, etc. are examples of these being rapidly realized by individuals)

The thing I was referring to is winning at life. You can be less wrong (in the sense described above) and lose at life.

I.e. the more refined view of the world does not monotonically move you towards most conventional victories (improved prosperity, happiness, life standards).

Sibling comment has a link to more (and reinforces the triviality of achieving the more-information-mindset), besides SSC and Scott Aaronson https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21298154
What? How does banning deep fakes (literal fake news) prevent holding politicians accountable? Are you suggesting we hold them accountable by making deep fakes of them?
I hadn’t noticed one didn’t have a halo! Thanks for pointing that out. Judas did play a role but the story doesn’t end well for him. He was also accused of stealing money from the group before this moment [0]. I think having a visible halo is kind of funny in general but giving one to all but Judas is actually a solid sense of humor from the artist.

0: https://biblehub.com/john/12-6.htm

Edit: typo
Original author's Medium post: https://medium.com/@martin.monperrus/human-competitive-patch...

EDIT: Aaand: Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18234799
Isn't Ford 100 years old? Not long enough?

The Ford family has 40% voting power and 2% share ownership.
It seems like this particular alogrithm has two main components that are highly important, and human-oriented:

a) The search space is limited with human-supplied options.

b) The output isn't deterministic, is offers a series of best guesses.

I would say this is closer to a NN-powered spellchecker than an authoritative source on the restoration of the work. It still requires a decent amount of interaction from an actual expert for the system to work.
I don't think public shamig works anymore, .... Wait, did it ever work ? Would love know know cases where it did.
I don't think it is not an acceptable thing by itself (I did have other issues with it at the time V source code had released, but this one is not). For example, QuickJS `std` module does the same [1]. To be fair to QuickJS though, it documents that fact correctly and it has never claimed to work in non-Unixy platforms.

[1] https://bellard.org/quickjs/quickjs.html#std-module.
These are arbitrary definitions not knowable facts. People can agree that a standard red laser pointer is red, but exactly what frequency does light become or stop being red out to 7 decimal places? That’s not something everyone agrees on and arguing about it is not going to change people’s opinions.
Show HN: Tech Tech Events – List of Upcoming Tech Conferences
Quest for Consciousness: A Historic Contest Is Announced
well there is something wrong if you want the company to be run well. if leaders of a company are selected by any other trait than merit, then the company will under-perform. if the company has a monopoly, that means a long and drawn out period of that particular market not achieving what it could or maybe even damaging peoples lives if the market is important.
Have you ever met a baby? They are extremely vocal about even the slightest discomfort.
If 100 things are each responsible 1% of the total "pollution", how significant would you rate each of them?

Also don't overlook that just one byte more can double the amount of packets that need to be sent for something, just a little bloat can mean individual items in a list of millions no longer fully fit in the CPU cache, and so on. We also can't really know how many times things (that are put on the web) get handled by how many computers and users, so any byte you save could be multiplied by infinity. If I can do it easily, cutting out bloat is always good IMO. Personally, I find it enjoyable.
What Adapting to Climate Change Looks Like
This seems really cool but as I am not a rails developer it seems that I don't know how to even install it on a server of mine. It would help if you could provide installation instructions.
When you are more charismatic than the actor sitting next to you...

I love Ashton's response to why he isn't invested in WeWork though.
> if "connecting the world" wasn't actually a positive thing

That's the most baffling part. Facebook is a closed platform, so they're not "connecting the world". They set the terms and rules. So I don't know how he is supposed to answer that. Because he's connecting the world, but in a way that has rules and boundaries about what speech is allowed.

So he's getting complaints on both sides, people that want it more open and less open. The pro-open ones don't like the control Facebook has and its size. The pro-closed ones don't like hate groups or politicians of one party or another on the platform.

And of course some people for whatever reason just don't like him personally, in which case facebook could never win
Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
I could dance on the grave of WeWork, softbank and the general "startup" culture for a little longer.

Strike up the band!
People see it as a "schadenfreude" story. How the hottest of the hot unicorn startups got it's due. A great story to repeat over and over and over.
Sounds like sophistry to me.
Please don't. Critique is welcome, but curiosity withers under repetition and internet rage is uninteresting.
Native Icelander here, short answer you don't.

Iceland is a mess in many many ways that never reach the international media.

Nepotism is rampant (it's very hard to have anyone vaguely related up the genealogical tree somehow)

Foreigners are extorted and mistreated as a rule of thumb

The cost of living is high and the government does little to alleviate this burden on most of the tax base.

For me it's extremely heartbreaking to see all the ridiculous posts of foreigners on reddit asking how they can move here not understanding what they'll be committing to.
Don't insult Pets.com by comparing them to WeWork. At least they actually produced technology even if it was just an ecommerce website.
If we don't want it happening, we should make it illegal, simple as that.
I think the right way to think about Zuck is that he's a libertarian absolute free-speecher who assumes everybody is intelligent enough to decode propaganda and evaluate truth on its merits. He also has a lot of practical experience with actually running a system that has to make controversial calls about information. And he runs a product with >1B users.

It's not easy for a person like Zuck to talk to normals, because he's not normal and he has data most people don't have access to. Working inside an internet company that deals with billions of users, you start to see/learn things about how people behave on the internet, you see state-sponsored actors trying to influence elections, etc, and you see it without hte spin and bias of the media.

I'm not defending zuck other than to say that at least he's articulated a position that defines the base philosophy of his platform.
Have all the commenters here assuming that this is a misguided attempt that'll end up letting any idiot into degree programs as long as they are labeled "diverse" considered that maybe, possibly standardized tests aren't necessarily a good measure of one's ability to a learn well through a degree program? That maybe the ability to answer hundreds of multiple choice questions and write five-paragraph essays in several high-pressure thirty minute sprints isn't a prerequisite to success in a field? Are they not bothered by the fact that these tests are surrounded by an industry of expensive prep classes specifically meant to teach you how to take a test?

This doesn't say you can't submit scores. Most still will. But it does say that performance on one specific exam doesn't have to be a deciding factor, which I see as a step forward.
At this point, he should really be looking to add a property in Florida before it is too late.
Because this kind of behaviour is rife in the industry and hiding it under the carpet only because he was (eventually) removed from his position does not mean the true story does not deserve to be heard.
> Article doesn't mention who the FATF is, what makes them or their assessments legitimate, or who is using the FATF to apply leverage against Iceland, and why.

> It would be funny if in 100 years we looked back on the cause of so much conflict in the world and found it reduced to the proliferation and tyranny of the passive voice.

> Ah wait, make that 75 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langu....

Wikipedia has a load of information on this organization: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Action_Task_Force_...
The article is probably correct that Zuck can't clearly articulate a logically consistent plan, but the article also doesn't articulate well it's breasons for this conclusion. It repeats and restates its claim that Facebook's policy is incoherent but never actually does much to provide actual examples, much less how it might improve upon it's position.

As such it's hard to come away with the impression that Zuckerberg himself fails to understand these things, which is the primary claim here, or if this is simply a thorny and complicated issue that doesn't allow for easy straightforward answers.
Vatican's wearable rosary gets fix for app flaw allowing easy hacks
And that “proof” is of a first generation Touch ID, and unless you can find a reliable citation showing where a dead finger would work, how do you know it’s “gobbledygook”?

From a practical standpoint, if someone was willing to cut off your finger, wouldn’t it be easier to just force you a gunpoint to unlock your phone? Someone who really wanted what’s on your phone bad enough to try the “unreliable” hack, would just force you to unlock your phone or give up the password.
Brexit Keeps on Giving
Softbank should have known. They had billions of dollars invested. They don't get to act surprised that Neumann was borrowing money from banks and then having the company cover those loans.
The search for secrets of the human brain
Maybe I'm wrong in one or many ways. But I'm reading a lot of people suggesting it's for the dumbening. But I never took anything like the SATs in Canada. I don't think we have that. And our universities seem to be doing great.

Here in Ontario admissions goes by your top 6 "university level" high school class grades. It helps prevent your future from being determined by a single test, which to me seems like a terrible design.
Your (grand-)children can’t guarantee you to preserve your values. Only policy maker can.
It would be motivating to know cases where "everyone can act now by themselves" really worked. I don't know any. Big change usually happens through organizations lobbying for something. Organization is the keyword here. Individual change rarely makes a difference if not organized.
Please lable satire. Even when obvious, Poe's law applies.
That would be complicated. You'd have to make outdoor photography illegal.
Sorry, my point is that when harvesting plastic from the ocean, the garbage gyres become a rich “mine” as they are very concentrated
> Wait... I thought you don't believe in free will?

I don’t. I also don’t find the libet experiment to provide convincing evidence either for or against the existence of free will.
He is basically the John Hammond character in Jurassic Park.

He will continue to cling to his creation well after the power goes out, the kids are missing and the Raptors and T-Rex are loose. Only problem is he hasn't been running this experiment on an island but on 2 billion lab rats. Whether they are Generals, Janitors, Journalists or Teenagers everyone is effected in ways no one fully understands yet.

So now we wait for more and more unintended consequences to mount. Because it's not like a Zuckerberg replacement is going to do any better. This is a problem that has only one solution.

Eventually the park will be shut down and be rebuilt after we understand the psychological and sociological dynamics such networks produces at scale. Right now his answer to Harari is incoherent because no one knows what the answer is. And it's impossible to figure it out while watching the current experiment gone of the rails.

Micheal Crichton however, did provide a possible answer to Harari's question 20 years ago -
"I think cyberspace means the end of our species. It means the end of innovation. This idea that the whole world is wired together is mass death. Every biologist knows that small groups in isolation evolve fastest. You put a thousand birds on an ocean island and they'll evolve very fast. You put ten thousand on a big continent, and their evolution slows down. Now, for our own species, evolution occurs mostly through our behaviour. We innovate new behaviour to adapt. And everybody on earth knows that innovation only occurs in small groups. Put three people on a committee and they may get something done. Ten people, and it gets harder. Thirty people, and nothing happens. Thirty million, it becomes impossible. That's the effect of mass media - it keeps anything from happening. Mass media swamps diversity. It makes every place the same. Bangkok or Tokyo or London: there's a McDonald's on one corner, a Benetton on another, a Gap across the street. Regional differences vanish. All differences vanish. In a mass-media world, there's less of everything except the top ten books, records, movies, ideas. People worry about losing species diversity in the rain forest. But what about intellectual diversity - our most necessary resource? That's disappearing faster than trees. But we haven't figured that out, so now we're planning to put five billion people together in cyberspace. And it'll freeze the entire species. Everything will stop dead in its tracks. Everyone will think the same thing at the same time. Global uniformity"
The difference is that they actually own those shares. This is about different kinds of shares being issued, i.e. the founder gets some that have 10 times the voting power of normal shares. He now only needs more than 5% of the company to provide the majority in votes.
I believe it is probable that an independent individual would be able to provide a useful advice and interesting speculation on the subject of philosophy, psychology, ways of living etc. Everybody is exposed to significant amount of life experience and information and given just that + sufficient intelligence and a habit of analyzing that can come up with something interesting and useful.

At the same tile it probably is much less probable that an independent individual has writing skills necessary to produce a high-quality work of literature.

So we have to choose if we would like to limit our inputs by only considering well-written literature. I believe what I'm actually looking for has high chances of occurring outside that filter. Perhaps we should not insist on getting a pleasurable and a practically valuable reading at the same time.
To save you the click through:

> This may be a great obscure fact, but it is not an example of European regulations gone mad. To keep track of where all the trains are on the Swiss rail network, there are detectors positioned around the rails. They are simple detectors that are activated when a wheel goes over a rail, and they count how many wheels there are to provide some basic information about the train which has just passed. Unfortunately, they keep track of the number of wheels using an 8-digit binary number, and when that number reaches 11111111 it rolls over to 00000000. Any trains which bring the count back to exactly zero move around undetected, as phantom trains.

From: "Humble Pi: A comedy of maths errors" by Matt Parker (https://mathsgear.co.uk/collections/books/products/humble-pi...), page 191.

edit: Added quote attribution.
Yes, you misunderstand it.

The Chinese Room is a refutation of the Turing Test and similar claims on AGI. It has nothing to do with the person in the room, but with the outside observer.

You, the observer, could be convinced by the evidence that a Chinese speaker is in the room despite that not being the case.

So you can't use outcomes to infer intelligence, and formal computaion of symbols is not thought. A neural network is still just an extremely fancy, well tuned lookup table.
I dunno, our children may discover the joys of slingshots again. There'd be plenty of target practice for them.
I like the author's emphasis on taking one's craft seriously, and pursuing curiosity as a means to build expertise in any domain of their choice. The interpretation of "four hour work week" is fragmented, and people choose the parts to retain what they think aligns closely to them or sometimes easy to adopt. To me, the essence of the the "four hour work week" is to look beyond traditional occupations and instil habits that allows one to optimize on their time while keeping a healthy work-life harmony. The take away for me is that hard work and dedication has no substitutes and one should not see "hacks" and "shortcuts" as a way to achieve long term success, but rather use them reasonably as a means to validate assumptions and pursue curiosity.
Testing is hard: Git submodules edition
I think he would have more of a formed opinion on this topic than an armchair professor of media studies. He actually has to make real decisions and run one of the largest organizations in the world which he helped build. His decisions impact billions of people on this earth. You may not like or agree with his decisions but to say he's somehow a layperson on this topic is just wrong.

Facebook has to implement these policies across 150 different countries while some professor on media can write a snarky article with no substance and make the brilliant observation that some people aren't honest about their online persona and use it to trick people.
Please don't lump the two together, at least not near that time period. Frontpage would take clean html and convert it to crap when edited. Dreamweaver was amazing in comparison.
Monarchy is really underrated.
for the same reason theranos used to come up all the time. because investment and hype didnt appear to align with the true value of what the company in question was offering.
Right because putting people in crippling debt when they fail out of college is going to improve civil rights.
It's both.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Adrivel
What about this cases is "forcing suspects to give up their PINs and lying to say it was voluntary."? Both of these was swiftly executing an arrest warrant before the suspect had an opportunity to lock or destroy their device.... seems reasonable. Definitely no lying to say they handed it over voluntarily.
There is plenty of energy available from the sun in one way or the other, and there is no inherent harm in utilising that. So in my ideal tax system only finite resources should be taxed, primarily land usage (including use for agriculture, and somehow based on demand) and raw materials (including oil, coal etc). Things like labour, "value added", energy use and co2 emissions would be exempt. Imagine hiring an expert to do repairs would cost about the same per hour as you can make after taxes. In North West Europe a plumber or painter typically costs you about twice what a programmer makes after taxes in the same time. Because of 50% tax on income + 20%VAT. So even if you are not so great at DIY it is (or seems) very often much cheaper to kludge it yourself that to hire an expert expert to do it for you. What a waste
I stopped reading because the ads are obnoxious
Thanks for writing. The story of icelandic corruption is really not coming out, not even in other scandinavian countries (where I am). I would hope the nordic countries would be allies in turning Iceland around, but I guess they can't do much unilaterally.
Yeah, first line, w/e
That's not the point of control. Think of it as the company selecting their CEOs as any other company would, but the family that owns the company setting guidelines, like, even if we could use our tech in military projects as well, we're not going to get involved in military projects. They don't run the day to day business, but give them guidelines.
Apple’s GIF search won’t find some images from China
Depends on how you refer to it. Dextrose is a sugar. She is my sugar. That is a bowl of sugar.

(Similarly for water/waters.)

I'm not familiar with a general usage describing species of drivel in singular terms, however.
Why would a school want to increase their acceptance rate? Generally selectivity is seen as a proxy for "quality".
HTML/JavaScript mouse input performance tests
Model of Y Combinator as a maximally efficient university
You mean the antitrust lawsuit that was overturned and that MS later settled?

And the government forcing business to do what the “people want” is fine until the “people” elect someone who doesn’t share your views - whether it be banning guns on the left or restricting the rights of gay people to get married on the Right or banning interracial marriage up until the 60s because “the people” thought it wasn’t “Christian”.

You should always be worried about giving the government - the one entity that can take away your property, liberty and life more power.
> which stems from that consciousness and perception. If the decision precedes it

The decision being made before that result is perceived is certainly not the way to prove the decision doesn't come from consciousness and perception (biases and heuristics aside, thanks to millions of years of animal brains).

And it might be that, for most decisions, perceptions and heuristics do play a part. That again doesn't mean all decisions are pure automatons.