skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interesting thing is, this message is universal. You can drop it in at any time, any place in history, and it will make sense and be supported by a significant demographic, quite possibly everybody.

So if you have the tools to amplify this message until it's all that anyone sees, and everybody knows that it's all that everybody else sees, you can cause revolts at your convenience.

You don't even need to dirty your hands with direct message shaping - which comes with consequences such as getting your head chopped off - just moderate all the competing messages a tiny little bit harder, and bob's your uncle.

As a direct example, notice how the author judges the size and effectiveness of revolts based on how prominent they are on youtube. Which is just an algorithm tweak away for the right people.
The writer mentions the corporate user, but then never mentions them again.

I use a Linux desktop. If I want old versions of open source stuff, Wine running the Windows binary is where it's at.

We now have a complete, futureproof free software stack with decades of backwards compatibility! It just has win32 in the middle.

This article makes the case for the advancement of OS development, but not for what people use computers for.
>A human brain can learn to recognize cat pictures given a relatively small amount of input versus a convolutional neural net

To give the ANN a fair go, I think you should pretrain on another dataset while evolving the architecture. Let that chug for, say, 500 million years. Then refine its performance on your cat dataset and see how long it takes for that step.
I need to stop reading these comment sections. They get repetitive, and whenever I see the word "female" online now, I wonder if black pill shills are deciding to jack the conversation.
>ACCC to lead development of a code of conduct to govern dealings between tech giants and media businesses.

Murdoch country is doing his bidding and tapping themselves on the back, all these attempts against US tech firms is protectionism and should be countered as such.
>> ...AI systems whose actions cannot be closely scrutinized and explained...

> Author is one of the large group of people who are in for a shock
> when they try to scrutinize and explain a humans crazy actions. I
> can't even explain why I get the wrong result sometimes when I add
> numbers in my head.

I was just rereading Asimov's I, Robot, and was struck by this passage:

"The cotton industry engages experienced buyers who purchase cotton. Their procedure is to pull a tuft of cotton out of a random bale of a lot. They will look at that tuft and feel it, tease it out, listen to the crackling, perhaps, as they do so, touch it with their tongue, and through this procedure they will determine the class of cotton the bales represent. There are about a dozen such classes. As a result of their decisions purchases are made at certain prices, blends are made in certain proportions. Now these buyers can not yet be replaced by the machine.

"Why not? Surely the data is not too complicated for it?

"Probably not, but what data is this you refer to? No textile chemist knows exactly what it is that the buyer tests when he feels a tuft of cotton. Presumably there's the average length of a thread, their feel, the extent and nature of their slickness, the way they hang together and so on. Several dozen items, subconsciously weighed out of years of experience. But the quantitative nature of these tests is not known. Maybe even the very nature of some of them is not known. So we have nothing to feed the machine. Nor can the buyers explain their own judgment. They can only say, 'Well, look at it. Can't you tell it's class such and such?'"

Asimov wrote this in the 1940's and in this passage he tried to illustrate how unquantifiable and impenetrable human judgment was compared to artificially intelligent robots, which he saw as ultimately rational calculating machines. Ironically, today AI techniques such as neural networks are criticized for making much the same sort of impenetrable judgments.
FriendFlights: Get alerts for cheap mutual destinations
"The early interpreted BASICs did make it difficult to write good code. All source editing was line editing”

You have to see this in historical context. That Basic had an editor was a huge step forwards. That it wasn’t a full-screen editor was because full-screen editors didn’t exist yet (who wants to wait for their teletype to print 24 lines, and waste half a page of paper on it?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC#Origin:

"The first version BASIC language was released on 1 May 1964”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_editor#History:

"One of the earliest full-screen editors was O26, which was written for the operator console of the CDC 6000 series computers in 1967.”
You wouldn't believe it anyways.
Model Deployment for Data Scientists Using TensorFlow: Part 1
You were definitely living in the future with NT 4.0. But the memory requirements were way too high for the average home user to afford it. Win95 was a bridge into this modern new world of applications protected from each other.
Λιλ vs. Μονπελιέ, σε άνοδο η γηπεδούχος
Think of lists as a way to collect multiple possible values of a computation. See: https://www.schoolofhaskell.com/school/starting-with-haskell...
The rise in complaining has not been correlated with a drop in "sexism", even the kind that is a bit of a stretch.
Great point, not that I agree with your conclusion that we shouldn't care about privacy, but good point that most supposed privacy people are living in cognitive dissonance.

This is why I always lol at people putting duct tape over their laptop webcams when their phone cameras are completely exposed always and taken to much more private places than their laptops. (Phone microphone too.)

You basically have to accept that nation-states know everything about you and will always know everything about you. Therefore the only practical goal of personal opsec is protection against other civilians.
I like this. I've become a huge fan of using Go for web stuff since it's baked in to the language and I can get solutions really quickly. I'm more likely to go through this code though because it looks interesting.
I don't see how the phone format is so much worse? To be honest, most of my recent investments have been limit orders submitted from the can. Of course by that point I've already done a lot of research on a desktop computer, but if I get a price movement alert I'm double checking for recent news (often with a twitter cross reference) and submitting an order as fast as I can... which often means using the closest device, which more often than not is my phone
"children of time" & the sequel "children of ruin" by Adrian Tchaikovsky; sci-fi with AIs, uplifted species, uploaded personalities, space travel et al.

Very entertaining, and quite optimistic, compared to a lot of stuff I'd been reading recently.

(I discovered it by someone's comment on HN, by the way.)
I don’t follow this logic, at all, and I’m honestly trying to understand it, even if I disagree.

How is attacking someone for what they do an insult?

Is there an ethical line?

If someone kills my family, certainly I am not insulting them for calling them a murder?
I’m not sure that ML’s success in AlphaGo generalizes well.

For example, Transformer architectures may be able to generate seemingly realistic text, but after a couple of paragraphs a human can pick out the incoherence.

Furthermore ML still struggles with out of distribution (ood) samples which humans are able to navigate easily.

> ... but computers are now on the same threshold as humans

This parity is still extremely limited and far from general. Computers were developed in the first place to handle fast computation with ease. What we are seeing with ML is an extension of that computation by encoding complex information (such as images) extremely well. This is still in the same computation plane as calculators (performing operations on floats and integers), but forgive my pun, only deeper.

Human cognition is much more than computation. What we have today with machine learning is still very much computation.
Ironic thing here is that it probably doesn't matter because Russian law regarding copyright assignment is very different and much more employee-friendly than the US law. It will be interesting to see how the case develops but my understanding is that unless there was a very specific and documented work assignment from his boss to write nginx code, the copyright still belongs to Igor even if it was developed on the company equipment and on company time.
Yes, this time we actually have a chance of fixing the mess we've gotten into with China. They tried to lord rare earths over the rest of the world, and it backfired massively, that's a great sign.
FCC Votes to Establish New 3-Digit Suicide-Prevention Number 988
I also stand with sibling post from big_chungus.

I'm a staunch supporter of both self-defense rights and of the ability to protect one's privacy.
I would say so. It works.

Partners working is not always a profitable endeavor. People often forget to include housing costs in the calculation. If you are forced to live in a large city, your costs go up.
A friend of mine had his car broken into something like 4 or 5 times in 6 months in an underground gated parking area at his apartment. Each time they would break the side window to get inside the car. They would do this with half a dozen cars at a time.

It wasn't a particularly bad part of town, but the entrance to the parking area wasn't in a high traffic area and there was some green space nearby making it pretty easy for people to sneak into the parking area.

He eventually just stopped leaving anything at all in his car, rolling down the windows, and leaving it unlocked. As soon as he did that, the thieves would simply move onto the next vehicle without damaging his. Once most people started leaving their windows rolled down, the thieves stopped visiting to move onto more rewarding victims...

So sometimes the solution is to not lock your car doors. :(
Couldn't agree more as a former bicyclist and now often a pedestrian. It's amazing the number of times I've almost been hit in my short 1 mile walk to the local coffee shop. Apparently getting to work 2 seconds faster is more important than a pedestrian's life in many people's minds.
I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with fewer frameworks and more well documented prescriptive lists of libs and how to use them together.
ActivityPub
WordPad was included with Windows.

Works was included with computers. You could also buy it separately, but a lot of users got it with their computer.
"Maps apps" consistently give me crazy directions in Seattle, in particular things like trying to turn left onto a busy road from a side street when one block over there's an arterial with a light. I really think the prevalence of crazy directions and Uber/Lyft drivers blindly following them must be hurting traffic flow in aggregate.

Not so much actions that break the law, but rather actions that are just pointless and stupid.
I think the old way is simpler in the sense of building on fewer concepts, and therefore allowing an easier learning curve, if you grant that understanding the React component lifecycle is required and inevitable. Once you understand the lifecycle, running code when certain lifecycle events happen is a very small, concrete conceptual leap. Names like "componentDidMount" tie directly into your fundamental understanding of React. If using them to maintain state forces you to deepen your understanding of the component lifecycle, that effort will pay dividends when you have to debug, optimize, understand someone else's wacky code, etc.

Hooks, on the other hand, have to be learned as an additional and separate concept. In fact, each hook has to be learned. You won't have a clue what "useState" and "useEffect" do just by having a knowledge of React fundamentals. If using hooks allowed developers to avoid knowing the React component lifecycle, an argument could be made that they provide a simpler alternative, but I don't think anybody is going to get very far without being forced to learn about the component lifecycle. If someone were to say, "The React lifecycle is hard to understand, so use hooks instead," that would be a false promise. Hooks are something extra to learn, not an alternative to understanding the lifecycle. To the extent that a programmer can avoid understanding the lifecycle by using hooks instead, they are just putting off that learning curve until they have to traverse it later, probably under the pressure of debugging some nasty issue.

Hooks seem to win from another perspective, though, which is that by accepting the cost of adding this new concept to your mental model, you can write simpler-looking code that is easier to keep error-free. To me, that's the trade-off. Hooks are an extra complexity to understand, and each new hook can encapsulate arbitrary complexity and behavior that isn't obvious from reading code that uses them, but the code that uses them can be more concise and perhaps easier to read and keep correct.
There could be a physical switch on it that keeps it turned off. The owner could then turn it on when they want to activate it.
There is a universal law which dictates that messaging clients must get worse.

There is no shipping messaging client that is a material improvement over what was available in 2000.
I'd go for the fun one, and basically just work out all the fun out of it. The excitement doesn't last forever, but you'll get something out of it. Use that excitement to get you somewhere.

Once the fun is done, switch to the problem solving one.
It is, because you can't get a continuous stream of payment with ownership.

Services have been profitable partially because it eliminates volatility in the amount of demand.
Yup, and that's why Rails is what I still use :). Phoenix was pretty great too, but its real benefit came from doing bigger back-end stuff on BEAM.
First of all, note that this argument works both ways. You also can’t put exact numbers on how many women we’d expect there to be in the industry in the absence of any sexism whatever. So how do you know that there’s no problem?

But actually, the question is quite easy to answer for me. I am more interested in sexism per se than in the gender distribution. When women in the industry infrequently report that they are experiencing sexism, then I’ll consider that we’re well on the way to solving the problem. The current gender imbalance is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
Huh... hadn't hear of that... from what I understand after a quick search: 2 of the reactions/shots were not genuine thefts, but this was not exactly intentionally faked by Mark Rober, but by the people who he enlisted to help bait the porch pirates. Mark offered a reward if the people he enlisted as porch baiters were able to return the stolen boxes, and they took it upon themselves to make sure the "thieves" would "return" the packages somehow.
18-65 _would_ get them to a 5% hit rate and few false negatives
Could be more the other way around: in a really Xist field, there are fewer complaints because a) there are probably fewer [minority group] to complain, b) complaining feels riskier and less likely to achieve anything, c) complaints that do get made are more likely to be quickly shut down rather than amplified.
I am not upset because Metal replaced OpenGL. I actually like Metal's design.

What I am upset about is the removal of a standard that worked well. Just don't allow OpenGL apps in the Store and that would be enough.

Even worse, removal of 32-bit support in macOS. Now that's a extraordinarily bad move that confirms Apple does not care about enterprise nor gaming.
This looks very nice, I've been a fan of constraint-based systems for some time.

I was surprised not to see any reference to at least some of all the previous work, such as the arc from ThingLab[1] to Cassowary[2] that led to commercial systems such as Apple's Autolayout[3]. Or the Garnet[4]/Amulet[5] systems, with lessons learned[6]. Or Feiner's Drawing with Constraints[7]

You also initially write that the alternative to constraints is to position manually/numerically, but that obviously isn't true, as you have link to the code to do it procedurally later. In the same vein, you initially claim that you can't have abstraction without constraints, but that's also obviously not true when you have procedural abstraction.

You do say that the constraint code is "nicer", and I would probably agree with you, it would probably help to focus on that difference.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThingLab

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary_(software)

[3] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Us...

[4] https://medium.com/@donhopkins/constraints-and-prototypes-in...

[5] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~amulet/amulet-papers.html

[6] https://www.isi.edu/~szekely/contents/papers/2001/lessons-le...

[7] https://research.cs.wisc.edu/graphics/Papers/Gleicher/CMU/br...
I think the error is including experiences.

I am the sole source for what I'm feeling. Whether I admit that or not is another story, but if I think I feel sad, then I feel sad.

Now, whether that emotion is justified is another story and whether the related experience should induce sadness can be up for debate and if I'm interpreting the situation correctly and all of that.

But we can't argue that I'm not feeling sad. I would probably have said that "The only realm in which humans are an unimpeachable source of truth is that of their own feelings and perspectives"
Works sold for $30, but was often bundled by OEMs.
Nah.

(prog ()
10 (print "hello")
20 (go 10))
I think we basically agree then. It just needs to all be transparent. There's just an awful lot of different ways things can go wrong and it's hard to know which ones will end up being relevant. I agree that it could be a good method for establishing clear separation. Just very tricky.
I don't have much personal experience in the matter, but I believe it's the mentality of working with very constrained systems, in this case limited memory, storage, processing. It was/is considered efficient and elegant, to shave off any possible unnecessary space or operations.

Those extra 2 bytes meant and "cost" a big deal more than they do now. At least, that's what I imagine is a reason behind the decision to use 2 digits to represent a year.

Future programmers will be asking us too, why we thought it was a good idea to use signed 32-bit binary integers to represent time - when we should have known it would run out soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
Persistent job scheduling in Java without Quartz
React components for conditional operators and cycles
From this thread it seems a lot of people aren't very familiar with React Hooks yet. I highly recommend diving into it. useEffect can replicate lifecycle methods in a way that's much more sensible and easy to read if done right (in my experience of course).
Thanks for the great project, it fixes the most egregious problems with bulletin boards - which reddit and hn are just fancier guis for.

There's a lot to unpack about the issues of p2p monetization. Probably a few books worth.

Before we get into the social issues I think the original sin of the internet was that IP did not negotiate payments as part of the fundamental protocol. Every layer above that suffers from the same.

This made sense in a government/corporate/university environment where the protocols were invented, but not for the wider world. I'm not going to try and give solutions because all of them are flawed in some way, but better than the current system where only surveillance advertising and altruistic services are viable business models.
I like this. Encryption is a shared language between two parties, that only they can speak and understand.

Analogous would be the government saying no one is allowed to speak Chinese, because the government doesn't understand Chinese
When should the Pentagon update its rules on autonomous weapons?
Using joypad.js for a better gaming experience on the web
I'm a happy user of Moneydance: http://moneydance.com/
Offline (but can download from banks or import files) and cross platform
No, see the source from Linux kernel:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/x86/Kconf...

For all x86 processors, now there is a name "X86_32" which "depends on !64BIT" (i.e. 64BIT flag has to be off).

and there is a name "X86_64" which "depends on 64BIT" (i.e. 64BIT flag being on).

Under new convention X86 is a common prefix for both 32 and 64-bit kernels for x86 processors, and the suffix _32 means the kernel uses only 32bit instructions, and _64 that it uses 64bit instructions.

And also, there's handling of an old arch name "i386" which is recognized to mean 64BIT is off and if only "x86" is seen as arch name then there is a prompt that asks 64BIT yes or no. It also notes that the old name used for kernel with 64BIT off was "i386" and the old name used for kernel with 64BIT on was "x86_64".

Finally, the support for X32 ABI (allowing running executables which use 64-bit instructions but only "short" 32bit pointers in 64-bit kernel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI) is enabled in my 64-bit distro:

~$ sudo grep -P G_X86_X?\\d{2}= /boot/config-$(uname -r)
CONFIG_X86_64=y
CONFIG_X86_X32=y

The first line means this is a 64bit kernel for x86 processors, the second that X32 support is enabled on that kernel.

In short, there are two kinds of X86 kernels:

X86_32 -- formerly known as i386

X86_64 -- formerly known as x86_64

and an option for existence of X32 ABI in X86_64 called CONFIG_X86_X32.
wittgenstein thinks private languages are impossible (though not illegal)
Because anyone who tried that got burned with child porn and the threat of real prison time.

p2p tech is fundamentally incompatible with American morals. You will never see a p2p based firm be successful in the US any more than you could have had the industrial revolution in Ancien Regime France.
Software developers have discovered that people are bad at measuring value and they are bad at delivering additional value over time. Subscriptions always cost more and force a decision every year.

I play Super Mario brothers on my old Nintendo every couple of years. No revenue has been realized since 1986 or whatever. Just a payment for the NES and game.

Today, you can get unlimited access to virtually all music made in the last century or every show made by Disney ever for less than a subscription to some goofy text editor.
The idea with index investing is usually to buy a total stock market index. The whole stock market is in the index, so saying the index is in a bubble is basically the same as saying the stock market itself is in a bubble.

Which could be, but isn't an argument for buying individual stocks instead of the index, since that doesn't avoid the problem.
They will
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1204952252747661312
There is a lot of weird stuff in Darwin that makes me wonder... Why do they deprecate useful things at other layers and keep this clunky Mach thing? They could switch to FreeBSD or Linux and probably perform better. It is hard to take them seriously when they say they don't like to maintain creaky stuff when there is Mach...
They have to _boot_ with a 32-bit UEFI bootloader, but can run a 64-bit kernel and userland. Fedora Linux even allows for this while keeping secure boot on; Debian supports it as well but the interaction with secure boot is buggy, so you need to turn it off. Not sure about other distros, however.
It sounds like we agree.