skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>I've been thinking about how beneficial alliances could be implemented in a number of fields for some years and have wondered why it hasn't happened on a big scale before this.

Well I think there are a number of factors at play here. For one, most reasonable ( and who are grounded in reality) people actually think they can have a dialog with people who are delusional. They do not recognize that low IQ is a formidable barrier. They confuse not having a dialog with being the hardline right-wing types. They confuse low IQ with merely being ignorant. Essentially they squander their efforts in trying to 'convince' ordinary people.
( not saying there is no value to it, after all that is what marketing is)

As to why it has not happens on large scale - well consider my post for example - that also requires some thick skin to put it out there.

>Communications would have to be on Tox or some other peer-to-peer communications system that cannot be corrupted by these new owners of the internet.

Ok, give me links and ids. I've never used Tox( Ofcourse I will do a search for Tox right after I type this post this message)

>Using any of their services would only aid and abet the problems we're having or trying to solve. In my opinion an independent communications framework must be prerequisite and in place before any proper dialog can take place.

Agreed.
I assume it's targeted at consumers. Many of them are happy right now with Windows on old Core 2 Duo, Celeron, etc, machines. Assuming a sufficiently fast ARM processor, they may not notice the slowness the same way you would.
Here is a simple REST protocol:

Send a GET request to some_website.com/some_protocol to get back a jpg of a cat

I wrote it down, and thus it was "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". As I understand that requirement of the law that is all that is required.

If I just told you that verbally, and we did not write it down, record what I was saying via a mic, or anything else, then it would not be fixed. No one does protocols like that though.
A lot of people would have said that of Erdős as well...
A paid account, sure, I assume that might already be the case? I certainly don’t expect to lose access to my GSuite account or Google Fi account if I forget my password. However, ggp seems to be talking about a free account, as the vast majority of Gmail accounts are.
Go is so simple that there are dozens of code generators and project dependency management solutions. Yet people live to espouse it's simplicity. It's simple like C in that regard, you have to roll your own solutions to avoid copy pasta hell if you want type safety and sane project management. The real mistake though is the lack of an Option type. The inability to express optional differently from passing references efficiently is a large test case burden.
Bulgaria nuclear reactor capacity reduced over generator malfunction
I dont have the impression it works on moving objects, since it needs multiple frames from different depths, but it could be used to count static critters... unless some kind of boom with multiple cameras at different depths is used...

also, since the technique is removing a foggy haze, it seems like this could be used for selfdriving cars, with multiple cameras along the periphery of the car, to clean the image for foggy conditions (fog, smoke, smog, ...)
Some of it is wasted, some is genuinely useful and to know which is which you need experience and good judgment. My point is that it is incredibly easy to fall into the trap of pursuing maximum code beauty and abstraction and wasting a lot of time in trying to attain some shining ideal, especially if the language is conducive to it.
It's all fine guys it's a private company. Just like how all SV companies deplatform political voices that don't match theirs. All in a days work!
https://twitter.com/vertexclique/status/1194902103929569280
Will fibre broadband be obsolete by 2030?
> Audiophile equipment is nothing like a multistage cryogenic refrigerator.

I was thinking more in big picture terms. Extremely expensive cables that you sell to people who believe their effectiveness depends on observing them...
1. Devalue all your knowledge.
Is this supposed to explain why 10000 per second is impressive? I don't follow.
Sorry for the bother but I'm a big lost due to the lingo and the interwebs are unclear: by unix-style long options do you mean single-dash long options (e.g. `-long` being a single option), and therefore flags not allowing concatenating short options (e.g. `-r -x` can't be written `-rx`)?
In my experience probably yes. But keep in mind everybody things they are creative. And a lot of smart people effectively create things by borrowing ideas in a team setting.
Thank you for your very kind answer.

I like it. I will have to digest it further, but on first approximation it seems like two good tactics: 1. to hack the goal/reward system, 2. to manage the exploration/exploitation trade-off.

I agree with the delta's regarding happiness. I might add "satisfaction/accomplishment/pride" in relation to your life's components. I think it goes in a bit of a different direction to what you are saying (million dollars vs homeless with new job).

It also has to do with momentum, I think. As in keep making progress in some aspect. In a professional setting, you can be a startup founder working 100 hours weeks, but if you're riding a growth wave, you're happy and satisfied, even if tired. On a personal level, something similar happens.

I agree with your take on process as well.
The sample size is 22 patients.

Also, I've noticed the definition of the word "AI" has grown to encompass pretty much any type of software that does something with data.
This is a poor choice for a unicorn. There are incumbents making dilution refrigerators already, and it's unclear as to how your products are any better.

Yes, the lead times are long right now - but why? My assumption is that there is so little demand that these units are built-to-order, and additionally there's probably a bit of customization on each unit for end-customer requirements. I don't think there's a long lead time because they are busy. So, the volume probably isn't there yet for a company to swoop in with mass-produced cheaper dilution refrigerators. And even once there is - the incumbents are probably better positioned to capitalize on that than you are.
The errcheck linter is very popular for checking that you looked at every error return: https://github.com/kisielk/errcheck

I use it in most of my open source projects.
There’s an easy way to make lending fairer for women. Trouble is, it’s illegal
Thanks for mentioning that! You probably just saved me a few wasted hours.
Big Beer faces an uncertain future
Either this comment, or its parent, is a joke.
> This doesn't speak to Go's simplicity so much as it does to Go's conservatism.

I think this really hits the nail on the head. There are benefits to a conservative approach, but it's not the same as simplicity.
Some questions not addressed by the article:

* what is the input to the model? It sounds like it's EEG, but how practical is it to collect those data on a day-to-day basis?

* how far ahead of time are seizures predicted?

In other words -- how practical is this research?
Over the years of mindfully watching myself,

having endless debates on what's important for creativity : being flexible or being organized,

having read the book on this topic called "making ideas happen",

I got to understand what we all know already

To do the best of our work, it requires

Balance

- Balance between creativity and organization

- Balance between being practical and being a mad scientist

- Working in routine and breaking that routine

- Having a laser focus on problem and staying away from the problem
"Few people are paying for Ubuntu"

I have never understood their paid support tier pricing model. They should have offered a low cost email only support, say with a 24 or 48 hour turn around policy and could have gain many enthusiasts and small companies some of which would have transfered to bigger contract.
For gnu style long options you want: https://github.com/spf13/pflag

It is a drop in replacement for the built in flag library.

I ususally start out with the built in flag library and migrate to pflag when things get a bit more complicated.
I think your definition of 'success' is flat out wrong.

Where are those pilots now?
I know it’s not a proper part of the language, so it might qualify a “hack” solution, but one can get around some of the issues you describe by defining your enums in protobufs, and using/trusting the generated code, no?

It’s not a pretty solution from a language design point of view, but it’s been more than effective for us from an engineering point of view: since we’d need those proto definitions anyway, why bother writing our own?
Yes, I suspect your diagnosis is correct.

Thanks for your answer.

Where would you post this on reddit?
I was hesitant to share the specific personal problem, because I wanted to focus on the decision process.

In any case, if you know any community similar to HN quality for either "personal/relationships" discussion or decision-making, I would love to know.
My feelings on Go are pretty mixed. I think a significant portion of software can be described inside the box that you’re given with Go but if you enter even moderately complicated territory it becomes a shit show.

I’ve had the displeasure of working on a pretty complicated Go project at work and it’s given me plenty of counters to what OP is saying.

First, Go’s dependency management has been terrible and inconsistent for years. Dependencies started very loose and without any versioning at all and I was bitten many times by this mostly because developers used the looseness of Go get to consume repositories that were never meant to be public APIs and without versioning those repositories had zero guarantees of compatibility.

The community eventually noticed this was a problem and vendoring was introduced but the community and Go itself flip flopped on a “correct” solution for ages which ultimately led to even more package incompatibility. Now we’ve got modules which is a step in the right direction but it’s going to take quite some time for all of the Go projects to implement it correctly. Modules have been nothing but a pain in the arse for us because our Go project has a lot of dependencies.

Another thing I hate is the idea that people spread that Go’s simplicity leads all developers to write simple, clean code. Some developers, I’ve noticed, pine for abstraction like moths towards a lightbulb. In Go abstraction can be very painful to do elegantly and I’ve seen some nightmares where developers have tried. Using reflection on interfaces produces some of the shittiest code I’ve seen in a long time and yet I’ve seen it repeatedly by different developers in different organizations.

I must not be the only one who has noticed these issues because the creator of Go himself made the Go Proverbs (https://go-proverbs.github.io/) which include things like “interface is never clear” and “reflection is never clear”.

Okay, I’m going to stop ranting now but I seriously don’t get the hard-on for Go. I think I kinda got it before I used it professionally.
But here, the effectiveness really depends on using superconducting cables, i.e. there really is a difference if you use superconducting cables or e.g. silver-coated stainless steel.
https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/2cultures.pdf
Hope they fix that soon!
You should view this condition as something to fix in yourself. Take joy in doing these things with precision and efficiency, and making your work easy to understand and explain to others. It's hubris and, frankly, rude to subject your professional colleagues to your artistic expression.
> In conclusion, cars aren't necessary in cities but are awful for the residents, even for those who choose to never touch a vehicle.

Disagree, for many they are a necessary evil. You can live without but you have to contort your lifestyle.
> The user can enter the offline-generated secret into that false origin and never realize the phishing even happened.

That's pretty far-fetched, never heard of a phishing attack that tricked the TOTP secret from users. I bet 99.99% of TOTP users don't even have access to the secret. You can only trick the six digit code out of them, valid for 30 seconds, which you then feed into the actual login form / API.

The SMS code phishing flow is the same. You trick the username and password out of the user, feed it into the actual login form, trigger the SMS challenge, and once again trick the six digit code from the user (which is usually valid for longer than 30 seconds, btw).

Except with SMS there are many ways to intercept.

Re edit: “Your downvoting suggests there's a significant difference between the two, but phishing studies show that all of us, even those of us who consider ourselves experts, are vulnerable to phishing.” With SMS you don’t even need phishing, you can combine leaked credentials (e.g. from other breaches) and SIM jacking to hijack accounts. Plenty of high profile cases posted here before. That’s the scary part: no phishing at all. And you never backed up the “TOTP is the one that is more trivially MITMed” claim.
> God I miss it. I miss the goal of just cleanly naming things what they are, not how they look.

I think utility-first CSS has its benefits as well as it's drawbacks, but just regarding the statement above: wouldn't you say that when naming things for the purpose of targeting them with styling, what they look like is indeed what they are?

As in, referring to, for example, ".comment" and ".testimonial" in your CSS, when those classes have been added purely for the purpose of styling the elements as what is commonly called a media component, could be considered less semantic than just naming them according to how they look -- as that's the reason for naming them in this case?

(I think these are two different ways of looking at the issue, none of which is clearly the right or wrong one.)
I think it's ok to call this AI, but I agree that it's a little misleading. I think a better way to describe much of AI these days is pattern recognition. Incredible pattern recognition, to be clear, but pattern recognition.

Agreed about the sample size. It's not clear from the article whether the high accuracy was based on testing against the training set, too. I assume not, as that would be exceptionally sloppy. But it's not clear.
As someone who thinks readability is the¹ most important quality of source code, that makes me less interested in learning Go.

¹ Yes, even over correctness.
So, the boss is only a 100x-millionaire and really wants to own his own island before he's 30. Let's knuckle down and do it!

Realism, surely isn't motivating in a capitalist society, you're working to make someone else richer in most jobs, someone else who is already rich.
For some real fun start quoting koranic poetry and start listing random sites in yemen and pakistan.
Project Zero could be counted as well
I agree with you. And it would even be fine to allow shadowing but require an explicit declaration to allow it to happen in a particular case. e.g.

import "foo"
func other() {
shadow var foo string = "bar";
}
Thanks, I appreciate it. From my layman’s reading, it seems like RLE is very safe and doesn’t have the same side effects as LASIK. I guess my real question is why shouldn’t it be more widely used for younger or less extreme corrections. It’s likely that I am misunderstanding something and I am wondering if it’s obvious to you as an expert what it is.
Utility-classes like `font-16 font-bold font-purple` are essentially just shorthand for writing inline CSS. You are defining the styling in HTML, with a utility CSS file as go-between, true, but if you use Tachyons or Tailwind the way they’re supposed to be used, the way to change the look of an element is to go edit the HTML.

For component libraries, that makes a lot of sense. You re-use snippets of HTML that is styled a certain way. No need to set up another re-use layer using CSS.

I expect the next level of utility-first CSS will do away with the CSS file altogether, and start baking the resulting styles directly into the HTML, so <div tx(['font-bold', 'font-16', 'font-purple'])> would be transformed by whatever you use for HTML rendering into <div style="font-weight: bold;font-size: 16px;color: purple">. That would complete the circle and cut away a lot of complexity.
I don't agree with that. The pronoun "this" does not appear in the example question you just provided. There's a difference between "this" and "his" and the difference is how they resolve contextually.

And in the OP's question, it's obvious that "this" resolves to the current question that it appears in. It seems like you want to say that this is not obviously the case simply because the question is unanswerable. Yet I'm not convinced that you didn't invent this requirement yourself. Anyone reading the OP's question would clearly understand to what the "this" is referring.
If I had to guess, Goldman Sachs
Your arguments are simply baffling due to a very simple reason: two planes crashed! Even if everything you say is true and the pilots were at "fault", it means that Boeing is designing planes where some significant percentage of pilots flying today will crash it. Do you want to fly on that plane?

This is basic Human Factors 101. Designing something where some percentage (even a small percentage, and especially when tragic consequences are involved) of properly trained people will be confused by the design means the design is at fault, not the people.
Jared Harris is a tremendous actor. I could watch him watching paint dry whilst reciting the local takeaway menu for 30 minutes and not get bored.
Yes and having that option is way better than losing your account forever with no recourse.
Perhaps like Erdos, he could be called more of a problem solver than a theory builder. In contrast to a figure like Cantor, Galois, or Grothendieck whose work has more fundamental ramifications. I think this raises interesting questions about the continued viability of the "great man" theory of methematical/scientific progress going forward. As Tao and Gowers exemplify, the trend is towards increasing collaboration on problems as they became ever more complex and individual mathematicians become ever more specialized. Could the age of the great theory builders one day come to an end? Is it already over?

Not that I'm trying to downplay Tao's achievements. How overrated can a Fields medalist really be? They don't hand it out for nothing.
In Go, the informal rule is to duplicate the second time you need a bit of code, and factor out only on the third time.
Then that is what need to be fixed. Either make DNA information more accurate or better inform the general public the current state of DNA evidence.
> by unix-style long options do you mean single-dash long options (e.g. `-long` being a single option)

Yes.

> and therefore flags not allowing concatenating short options (e.g. `-r -x` can't be written `-rx`)?

Depending on the implementation concatenation of short options may be allowed; it certainly could be ambiguous. I'm not sure about flags (the golang package) though.
> It can be easier to maintain a small amount of code that you duplicate and check in and is purpose-built to your use case and treat as your own, compared to a general library imported for one routine that you have to think about (licensing, upgrading, auditing). Or sometimes libraries break backwards compatibility to add features you aren't interested in, and it makes busy work to stay up to date.

The overhead you're talking about isn't a real problem in my experience, as long as your dependency manager has semver support (all of those I know).

When writing (or copying from SO) a simple snippet that's supposed to do just what I want, almost 80% of the time there will be a bug in it (typically edge cases are not covered)…

For instance, before Go 1.10, there was no rounding function in Go's std lib, and 99% of the code you could find on the internet to do this (simple) task was buggy: some failed with negative numbers, and others due to bad handling of floating point numbers…
Actually, let’s compare real cost and duration.

Cost of item: $100

SEPA: $100.00 (<15 seconds, irreversible)

GiroCard: $100.13 (< 5 seconds, medium to reverse)

Bitcoin: $100.57 (< 20 min, irreversible)

Bitcoin (SegWit): $100.41 (< 20min, irreversible)

MasterCard/VISA: $102.50 (< 30 days, easy to reverse)
This is a criticism of slack rather than an appraisal of meetings.
This only applies to articles that authors choose to monetize. Articles that are not monetized for not count toward your limit, and you can read them even if you’ve already reached your limit.
> One example of Go's lack of expressiveness is that loops are not abstracted away, e.g. you can't use higher level constructs like map and filter on collections.

This is (or was) deliberate, with the rationale being that it makes O(n) blocks of code trivial to identify in review.

Whether or not you buy that argument is a separate thing, of course.
I guess the question is "if we make zero profit, and have to reduce management level wages to achieve greater fuel efficiency in [our part of] global trade, then we're going to do that then, right?".

The answer is going to be "well of course the shareholders deserve profits", or something similar?
I don't think being practical acts as a hindrance to one's imagination. It's critical to actually accomplishing creative ideas. Each skill just needs to be engaged when they're most useful. If you're trying to be creative, then you should be actively trying to pause thinking practically. Then, once you think you've "got something", start looking at the idea practically to see if it's even possible. Repeat until you have a creative solution that might just work. Being imaginative let's you fly, being practical helps you land.
Good catch, I don’t think they mention that in the main article (at least in reader view).

In this case I guess the “AI” label is relatively well applied (compared to the scope of ALL things I’ve seen it haphazardly slapped on), but yeah, still - people need to stop calling any kind of data analysis “AI”.
One could argue also the contrary, a larger user base might make you more of a target for Stripe to cut-off. Who knows.
I've found that Cobra[0] does pretty much everything I've needed via a reasonable API, but I'll admin I'm not fussy about CLI utility behavior.

[0] https://github.com/spf13/cobra