skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> - The Intercept published a report by the DHS Office of Inspector General revealing that 1,224 sexual abuse complaints while in immigration custody were filed between January 2010 and June 2017.

Any data on what the rate post-Trump has been? Or during the Bush years? Because it's hard to reason from this alone.

(Not to mention that the rate of complaints is influenced by a whole bunch of factors other than the rate of incidents - for instance taking complaints seriously might make the number of complaints go up relative to ignoring them or retaliating against the complainants, and rewarding people for making complaints would likely increase the false complaint rate. What we care about is the number of actual incidents, but that's really hard to determine with any level of validity)
Boilerplate may not be the best term. It's more the presence of fitting into types and structures that certain libraries/frameworks provide where you just need to be much more explicit than in some languages. It's definitely a good thing long term though.

Writing code without dependencies/frameworks that have a required structure is a joy, however.
On the benefits of using C as a language back end
Stop Mapping Stuff in Your Middleware. Use SQL’s XML or JSON Operators Instead
I switched to duckduckgo entirely in the beginning of November. Just to see if I'll like it.

I kind of forgot I did. I really dont notice a loss of anything other than not having to ignore really bullshitty sponsored posts and the Fisher Price feel of google telling me what I want because of "trends".

That I feel like maybe tech companies need something like the alcohol industry in the US. A person cant have ownership in a brewery, distributor and alcohol retailer. They can only have ownership in one. Maybe tech needs to be broken up that way? I'm not sure exactly when it comes to fine lines. But I know a search engine controlling ads, news, tracking data, phones, and just data in general... well it's not good.
A couple things go into that, their NY location is probably extremely busy for Amazon due to it's proximity to NYC with it's large fairly well off population and corresponding large number of orders. That business, without increases in efforts towards safety, means more going on which means more chances for injury. As for your anecdotal info about safety with so many locations there's bound to be lots of variance in business, contractor safety, and culture around reporting.
Interspecies Competition Impacts Targeted Manipulation of Human Gut Bacteria
Ditto in Alberta -- Kijiji or bust.
> Are you relying on a correct and comprehensive project/workspace setup within the IDE?

That's not something I "rely" on, it's the first thing I make happen whenever I use an IDE.
Ring provides way more value than assistants, though.
Waterloo getting more and more traction every day, I see.
It comes down to data ownership. If my recordings of outside my home are “mine”, then police can’t get it without a warrant. Amazon certainly shouldn’t be able to access anything without my full consent.

In that case, I don’t see any reason it’s different than a closed loop system.
Thanks for the reference, I hadn't heard of Stitch Fix. They seem to have a great tech blog: https://multithreaded.stitchfix.com/blog/2019/09/10/stochast...
See my above comment for an example of a prior that doesn't just "feel" right.
Carpano is a good beginner vermouth if you're just getting into this, because it's so sweet and distinctive, but it's also a total overpowering vanilla bomb. Punt e Mes is in the same ballpark but less like drinking vanilla extract. Or just replace the vermouth entirely with Lillet or sherry.
And they are still surveillance machines. People getting accustomed to smartphones doesn't change their nature. In fact, nowadays as owning a smartphone is unavoidable in many contexts it's much worse than it used to be when they were introduced and an option.
PC supports auto scaling.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/autoscaling/application/userguid...
If somebody breaks a law they are sent to jail. If somebody breaks the law in regards to the border they are sent to detention camps. There is no difference except who is running the jail. If that is the only issue then there probably would already be a compromise to have the illegal immigrants sent to regular prisons.
I don't think eating meat is bad, but I'll try playing along.

>Imagine hearing that whenever the topic of vegetarian comes up. It's not very useful, and it dilutes the message.

What kind of a message does sacrificing nutrition for hunger send?
> I don't want every rando adding "priors" that "feel" right to their analysis.

Conversely, maybe others see value in a technique that doesn't start from square one every single time.

I mean, knowledge is a thing, yes?
> Airbus is still working with a proper adversarial regulator

I'm not sure this is true in a practical sense. For example, Airbus does the same unbelievable things with AoA sensors that Boeing did with MCAS: even if they have two or three of them on an aircraft, they don't compare them before allowing one sensor to drive automatic functions, so a single failed sensor can cause the airplane to do unexpected and dangerous things (for example, multiple uncommanded pitch down events on Quantas Flight 72). A true adversarial regulator would never have allowed such design flaws.
That certainly is the best way to maximize luck. One such type of event is getting to know people, be it through work, networking, online w/e.
Let's say you perform a maximum-likelihood estimate, you still have an assumption baked in, that maximizing the likelihood given the data is the right way to make your estimate.

In fact, it's very interesting to reconstruct a Bayesian prior for a maximum likelihood estimate. For example when you calculate probabilities for a binary event, 10 head flips, 8 tail flips. The ML estimate is 8/18 = 4/9. A Beta-Binomial bayesian model leads to a posterior distribution of Beta(a=8, b=10) with a mean of (8+a0)/(10 + 8 + a0 + b0), with a0 and b0 representing the prior distribution Beta(a0, b0). Now you can see that the maximum likelihood estimate is identical in this case to assuming a bayesian Prior of Beta(0, 0).

I am not saying by this that frequentism is Bayesian inference in disguise, rather, you cannot escape the assumptions.

Also, frequentism is not that straightforward, there are many kinds of frequentist estimators and it can be complicated to choose among them.
For me, the cost/benefit ratio of cell phones far exceeds that of Alexa/Google Assistant/etc.

Also, there's a well-established framework of laws governing under what conditions and by whom your telephone conversations can be monitored. For Alexa/GA, you're at the mercy of the TOS.
That's not a good thing! People have gotten mesmerized by the cool aesthetic and miss/forget the whole corporate hellscape aspect of cyberpunk.
cupsd asks for my admin credentials when I try to add a new printer, but admittedly that might not be the preferred way for people who run DEs like gnome or kde, I just tend to prefer a more barebones experience.

But that's not really my point anyway, the point is that the cupsd process runs sandboxed with its own permissions while my text editor, my password manager and my web browser all share the same UID. If there's a security vulnerability in Firefox and some attacker manages to hack my printer it's pretty bad. If they hack my password manager it's really, really bad.
My Worst First Dates on Elon Musk’s Mars Colony
> Europe has not legalized corruption to the same degree as the US

Surely you jest. EU law is written by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to an even larger degree than US law is.
And they are. Look at what NYT articles showed and also how the information collected by the Telcos ended up in the hands of bounty hunters and private investigators.

Information which couldn't have existed without a) wide spread usage b) incentives to turn them all in to surveillance-lite devices
Full disclosure: I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has cancer".

:Would you really prefer it if Wikipedia allowed David Miscavige ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige ) to edit the Wikipedia page on Scientology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology )?

:Wikipedia's policies on writing about yourself are spot on. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Best_practices_for_e...
Can someone explain what these two companies do?
Cold start of an instance is still slower and larger grained.
Zeroheight (YC S19) is hiring engineers to build a new product design process
Just for context, Andrew Gelman is one of the creators of Stan[1], one of the most popular probabilistic programming platforms for Bayesian interference. He has written a popular textbook on Bayesian methods, Bayesian Data Analysis[2].

Everyone hates picking priors in Bayesian analysis. If you pick an informative prior, you can always be criticized for it (in peer review, for a business decision, etc.) The usual dodge is to use a non-informative prior (like the Jeffreys prior[3].) I interpret Gelman's point as saying this can also lead to bad decisions. Thus, Bayesian analysts must thread the needle between Scyllia and Charybdis when picking priors. That's certainly a real pain point when using Bayesian methods.

However, it's pretty much the same pain point as choosing regularization parameters (or choosing not to use regularization) when doing frequentist statistics. For example, sklearn was recently criticized for turing on L2 regularization by default which could be viewed as a violation of the principle of least surprise, as well as causing practical problems when inputs are not standardized. But leaving regularization turned off is equivalent to choosing an non-informative or even improper prior. (informally in many cases, and formally identical for linear regression with normally distributed errors[4].) So Scyllia and Charybdis still loom on either side.

My problem with Bayesian models, completely unrelated to Gelman's criticism, is that the partition function is usually intractable and really only amenable to probabilistic methods (MCMC with NUTS[5], for example.) This makes them computationally expensive to fit, and this in turn makes them suitable for (relatively) small data sets. But using a lot more data is the single best way to allow a model to get more accurate while avoiding over-fitting! That is why I live with the following contradiction: 1) I believe Bayesian models have better theoretical foundations, and 2) I almost always use non-Bayesian methods for practical problems.

[1]: https://mc-stan.org/

[2]: https://www.amazon.com/Bayesian-Analysis-Chapman-Statistical...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffreys_prior

[4]: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/163388/l2-regulari...

[5]: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/nuts...
yes, it's not an obvious answer and reasonable people may disagree on what lines to draw, but I don't think there's any inherent line that says "interfering with corporate profits is off-limits" - I'd actually argue that pressure on corporations and indeed the entire supply chain of many businesses is an under-utilized and effective method of political pressure.

I would, for example, expect climate change activists to start actively interfering with shipping logistics (the ILWU has long used pressure at ports for political goals) causing the possibilities of large amounts of economic costs across entire industries if there isn't significant movement towards addressing their goals.
> I think they are stuck in the "When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" mentality. I see a similarly annoying tone in the more techie social media personalities too, they don't just explain what's not working for them, they actually lecture the engineers that made this thing.

Fair point.

>The number of followers is not an engineering degree’s GPA. It is like a flavour of anti-intellectualism.

I disagree here though. The engineers and product managers who make this stuff are often so detached from what's going on the ground or how people are actually using these products that someone who speaks for the layman is truly needed. There's also a wide variety of tech influencers out there, some who make cogent arguments about the product (Dieter Bohn comes to mind) and others who parrot those arguments absently mindedly. That latter group could conceivable be called anti-intellectual.
To add to the general din: Apple are the worst. They kept me waiting four months this year for a client's enterprise developer enrolment to complete.

When the client were enrolled? Surprise! You can't sign apps for in-house distribution for another two weeks. Not mentioned anywhere when you sign up.

I talked to Apple support and they told me to pound sand. My last enquiry to Tim Cook's customer complaints inbox went unanswered.
Maybe I’m wrong. I’d expect that orchestrating a deliberate MITM attack would violate some relevant laws.
Google's co-founders may not have the name recognition of say, Bill Gates – 2008
787 orders and deliveries are very nice, but the bread and butter of Boeing and Airbus remains the 737 and A320 families. As you say Boeing has 500 orders for 787 yet to deliver, but they most importantly have 4,500 of the 737 remaining to deliver. Same for Airbus, they have about 600 orders for the A350 yet to deliver, but they most importantly have over 6,000 A320 in the pipeline.

The biggest issue for Boeing is that the MAX sold about 5,000 frames vs 7,000 for the A320NEO, going from a 50%/50% market shares (737NG vs A320) down to 40%/60% market shares (737MAX vs A320NEO). On the other hand the A320 is practically sold out for the next decade (Airbus is aiming at a production of 750/year, and that's quite a challenge), so the ratio is unlikely to move much.
Yep, PHPStorm is a memory hog, but man is it handy in catching errors I didn’t think of.
Discussed five months ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20194952

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20201139

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20204625
Wasn't Ring always a surveillance network, just one that changed who has access to the surveillance data?

A "smart doorbell" with a camera is a surveillance device.
I wonder, that many people are scared of websites doing something they don't want them to do, but nobody is scared of extensions.

Extensions have much bigger permissions than websites. I never used any extension in my browser. I think it is already enough, that each website knows what I do on it, what I click etc. I don't need some third party to know, what I do on all websites.
The average person doesn't care about these issues because for the average person no issue exists.

If you initially pitched Ring as a device that was directly connected to the local police department MORE people would buy it, not less. In the 90s, monitored home security was a booming business. The average person wanted it but couldn't afford it. People would pay thousands for an installation and thousands more per year to have someone monitor cameras and call the police if there was an issue.
Redesign U – Stanford's d.school is redesigning the world we live in
> E.g. I’d argue that if China announced it would not repay its massive Treasury debts to the US

Other way round: US has “borrowed” money from China
I think the point a lot of other people make, is that you can simply use another camera network that doesn't sell your data, centralize it, and share with 3rd parties without your knowledge or [knowledgable] consent.

I have a camera system that is similar, I set it up myself, and I could do exactly what you suggested. All without also telling amazon my neighbor goes to-and-from their house 6 times a day (because my door camera faces them). Or that my daughter comes home from school at 3pm.
Indeed. People fear monger about the police's ability to request footage from a neighborhood (key point being request, the owner of the Ring still gets to look at the footage and decide to release it or not). Yet no one speaks about all the previously unsolvable burglaries and crimes that can now be prevented or solved thanks to this.

A lot of these articles make it sound like Ring gives unilateral full access to the police, which is just plain and simple FUD.
Can a Solutions Startup Scale?
Our AI startup has a complex product which usually requires us to assemble a slightly customized version for each customer. Using https://hackernoon.com/products-and-solutions-do-you-know-the-difference-4ff9169cefe3 as a definition, that makes us a solutions company. For the purposes of argument just accept that this is true.

We have gone through seed funding and then a successful bridge round. The next hurdle is the A round. At that stage, investors will be even tougher nuts than usual. I'm worried that they won't believe a solutions company can scale up.

We need to understand how investors think about solutions companies. What metrics do they apply? Are there standards that we should be looking to cover?
The only clear moral breach I can find in this article is the questionable assertions of Ring cameras reducing crime. This is definitely wrong if Ring does not have any evidence of the truth of these claims and they should stop doing that.

Everything else, to me, can be boiled down to the fact that the author is uncomfortable with the tradeoffs people are making between privacy and security. The author engages with this point only in passing, at the very end of the piece:
"But for ordinary people, like those in Northwest Baltimore, the reason for trusting Ring is simple: they are scared. Pastor Moore said that he understands concerns that people have about Ring’s use of data. However, he said his community didn’t share these concerns."
I work for a Bay Area company. We fired a hire shortly after finding out that there were issues on the resume.

As I didn't work closely with this person, I don't remember the details. What's clear is that HR will usually check up on employees after their start date, because it's assumed that no one's lying.

In another case, a company that I interviewed with ghosted me. (When I met the founder, he was late, had a bad attitude, ect.) They ghosted another friend of mine, and ended up hiring a rather unsavory person. When we were in school, their new hire was the campus drug dealer and cheated off of a friend of mine. They fired him a few months later when they found out he had a criminal record for cocaine.

So, yes, it's common for (Edit: American) HR to continue investigating new hires and then fire them shortly after due to issues with credentials or criminal records.
Yep, always been their goal. Get them on every door in a neighborhood so you can have eyes everywhere and crowdsource constant surveillance.

Listen to older podcast episodes on Twist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puP_D3k7vVI
Ironically the article that the example is from offers quite a nice rebuttal:

> None of these examples are meant to shoot down Bayes. Indeed, if posterior inferences don’t make sense, that’s another way of saying that we have external (prior) information that was not included in the model. (“Doesn’t make sense” implies some source of knowledge about which claims make sense and which don’t.) When things don’t make sense, it’s time to improve the model. Bayes is cool with that.
Show HN: I built a podcast app that skips over the ads
CCTV cameras have been around for decades and have none of the privacy issues associated with ring. Of course there's a little more overhead in setting them up which I'm sure turns the average person off, but they also won't brick if the manufacturer stops supporting them and don't need internet to work.
They're probably on their own proprietary CMS that's probably just as bad or worse than WordPress.
What about if you also can't be prosecuted or convicted for it?
So, everyones private information is now globally accessible, and handing it out to anyone who asks is already normalized: "Working as intended."
That's why your analysis shouldn't report posterior probability but degree of shift in confidence.
The Case of the Felonious Bread
Congrats on the launch and positive reception!

What have you found helpful in finding an audience for your show? One of the big challenges of a podcast is that it's relatively high friction to get new listeners, especially for a deep, complex show like The Program. I'm curious how you get momentum behind it and convince new listeners to check it out.
Any kind of flexibility on the syntax, metaprograming, reflection is so useless that it could as well not be there, high order constructions where the compiler can infer the idiom, well, really anything.

It has relatively recently gained usable high order functions, and seems to have stopped there.
> do yourself a favor and use Scala.

No thanks. Scala had a shot these past ten years but it failed and the world has moved on.
If you will, describe what exactly you think a "corporation's freedom to do business" entails? Where do you find such a definition? Is it in the same place you found a corporation's "freedom of association"?

It makes sense that you don't think my refutations are valid: I fundamentally disagree with your underlying premise that a corporation has any rights beyond the limited ones explicitly assigned in various bodies of law. And I specifically disagree that a corporation has a "freedom of association" or a "freedom to do business."

So of course I'm not engaging with your question of "is whether a corporation's freedom to do business is worth more than stopping the action you consider immoral". Why would I? I disagree with the whole, underlying, fundamental premise of your question. A company has no freedom of association! It has no freedom to do business! These things do not exist, so refuting your question is impossible!

(And, setting aside the whole absurdity of the central question: even if companies had these rights as you claim, how on earth would a letter from concerned developers infringe upon those rights? It's patently absurd to think that a group of customers sending a letter to a company somehow infringes upon its rights, unless you think that these "rights" entail freedom to do business without any criticism or bad press whatsoever)
Years ago the web was fast on a 1 GHz single-core with 512MB of RAM. What changed, other than ads and ad networks like Google becoming far more invasive by wasting more and more memory and CPU?
Glush: a robust, human readable, top-down parser compiler
I was in an RV park in Albuquerque during the big snow a week ago. The parks over there sit on the west side of town.

30 Minutes into the blizzard a loud SUV rolls up right next to us. My wife and I turned off the lights and opened the windows to watch. They didn't go near our truck. But within 3 minutes they were rifling in someone else's truck bed. They then opened the SUV's back hatch, threw a large box in and drove off, all at a super-fast speed indicating they've done this before.

The RV Park replied to the reviews about theft and kinda blamed various people for leaving their stuff outside, unlucked.

The larger park next door thought ahead and installed security cameras and security gates. The park next door is about $5-$10 more per night. Well worth it.
I’ve never understood how a passive camera is supposed to actually stop such a $30k heist. I get that it records it but it doesn’t stop anything. Unless you include deterrence but an unplugged fake camera does the same.
Amazon RDS Proxy for AWS Lambda
Can you imagine a Russian search engine having 90%+ market share in the U.S., making decisions on whether or not political ads should be allowed on it's US properties?

This is Google, an American company with clear political bent, indulging in election interference in a foreign country. Just defer to local laws Google, you are NOT a neutral third party, and definitely NOT local.