skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not only about the money but also the power they have. The way political campaigning at least in the US it seems the top x % can buy access to political leadership through fundraising dinners and other things whereas the majority of people will have no chance to ever get heard. I find this pretty troubling.
Ah no he was tyrant and killed many of his own people but he was not harboring so called terrorists. That was the excuse Bush jr used to get into Iraq for it's oil ironically instead tech improvements got America over it dependence of foreign oil because of fracking. The so called terrorists were harbored in Afghanistan where USA wants to exit as soon as possible but it wants to stay in Iraq
It's difficult to argue that this isn't at least a big part of the problem.

The mathematically ideal solution may be something close to Partial Common Ownership[0]: you self-assess what your property is worth, and you get taxed based on that number. However, that number is public, and if someone wants to buy your property at that price, you must sell to them. This system encourages optimal allocation of resources and penalizes hoarding.

[0] See Glen Weyl's fantastic book "Radical Markets". Full chapter here: https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s11222.pdf
And if I have a copy of your work already, and I want to distribute it myself, what is to stop me?

For hundreds of thousands of years of human history, nothing. Copyright is a fairly new invention. It doesn't take a law to allow me to distribute works I have a copy of that are not my creation; it takes a law to stop me.

The law was created to stop me so that you, the creator, -could- control how it was distributed, for your profit. For a limited time. Those are the key bits; it was to allow you to profit from it, and it was to be a limited time. Mickey Mouse lawyers and "forever minus a day" notwithstanding, that was the goal.

If a work is no longer sold not because the original creator(s) decided it should be 'limited', but because the original creator is no longer determinable, i.e., an orphaned work, it's perfectly reasonable to put it into the public domain, as quite clearly, the goal of allowing the creator to make money from it no longer applies. It's also why extending copyright makes no sense.

But that's neither here nor there; my point was simply that copyright is an unnatural thing, one created by society with the idea that it better society, and in instances like this that breaks down.
> how

Well, looks like it doesn’t... (Not that it’s the point of this research.)
There is more to it than that. Another possible explanation is simply the Pareto rule (80/20 rule) where most revenue/consumer spending is going to the top 20% brands/companies etc. This is occurring for obvious reasons - those top 20% have better products/marketing/technology and so on so of course wealth is going to flow to those top 20%. So even if you did re-distribute the wealth then the top 20% would still end up with the wealth because the consumers would simply spend the money on buying products/services from the top 20%.
Have you seen the news on Sonos upgrade policy? They just throw away fully functioning devices.
This is a funny mistake, since Picasso is a contradictory example: he was immensely successful during his lifetime.
Yea. I take the ancient part as a personal attack!

I used SoftIce to crack some blowfish licensing scheme of a company that went under.

It was eye opening to be able to pause Windows 95 completely. That sometimes I’d be stepping through code and all of a sudden the code style, memory locations and format all changed because the OS had interrupted and was doing something like painting the mouse.
Intel's Mitigation for CVE-2019-14615 Vulnerability Obliterates Gen7 iGPU Perf
IT Student Competitive Guide
> Linux - none yet

There was https://github.com/justinmcp/react-native/tree/ubuntu, but I've long since stopped working on it.
Do we use the same AWS? The one where new features are half-baked, old features are still half-baked, and the only redeeming factor is convenience?
> As a coffee lover myself, how/why did you make that jump?

My reasons are right there in the original post: "bathroom trips... bad breath... stain your teeth". Those things become more obnoxious as I aged.

Throw away java ;-)
How would this help anything? It would make the blackhat SEO even easier, if anything.
That seems non-sequitur to the claim. Maybe we're missing out on equality-dollars.
I don’t remember any scripting or even great tutorials or anything in the softice days. If you were using softice, you were definitely a step above a script kiddie.
> I thought that extreme poverty has been steadily declining for years according to several reports

A couple chosen paragraphs from this opinion piece written during last year's Davos summit [0] :

> What Roser’s numbers actually reveal is that the world went from a situation where most of humanity had no need of money at all to one where today most of humanity struggles to survive on extremely small amounts of money. The graph casts this as a decline in poverty, but in reality what was going on was a process of dispossession that bulldozed people into the capitalist labour system, during the enclosure movements in Europe and the colonisation of the global south.

> Moreover, the few gains that have been made have virtually all happened in one place: China. It is disingenuous, then, for the likes of Gates and Pinker to claim these gains as victories for Washington-consensus neoliberalism. Take China out of the equation, and the numbers look even worse. Over the four decades since 1981, not only has the number of people in poverty gone up, the proportion of people in poverty has remained stagnant at about 60%.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-g...
"Literally" has been used in the contemporary colloquial sense since at least 1769[0].

[0]: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109061 definition 1c
This hit me hard too. Heading into college, I was so confident that it was not only possible, but correct to be an emotionless decision maker. That somehow you could navigate the rational path through every problem.

Turns out I was just an asshole who wasn't self aware enough to understand my own feelings and was making other people around me hurt.
shhh. redistribution of wealth is the solution. let’s raise some more taxes while we’re at it
I don't doubt a rep told you this. My question would be: Is this their policy, or something the rep figured out to make customers stop complaining?
Because they’re the creator and not some random internet punk?
IDK.

I had a problem because a company snuck their encryption scheme into their device driver. No problem with softice, today/now, it might be harder.
What if we required that people leave videos instead of writing up issues? I'm not seriously proposing that, but it's harder to be a jackass when speaking than writing. Especially to someone's face.
The answer to all your questions is all "yes" technically, but the way you've worded them makes me think just saying "yes" will be a bit misleading to you. So let's take a real-world example. I'll use pseudo-Scala syntax since that's fairly similar to a lot of imperative languages.

Let's construct a tree data structure from scratch and see how to update it.

abstract class BinaryTreeOfInts
final class Leaf(final value: Int) extends BinaryTreeOfInts
final class Node(final value: Int, final left: BinaryTreeOfInts, final right: BinaryTreeOfInts) extends BinaryTreeOfInts

All fields here are by reference.

So because everything is final here, we've constructed an immutable tree. You cannot update any of these values once it's been constructed.

Let's see how you might construct the following binary tree

5
/ \
6 1
/ \
2 3

myTree = Node(
5,
Leaf(6)
Node(
1,
Leaf(2),
Leaf(3)
)

I want to modify 5 now to be 10

newTree = Node(10, myTree.left, myTree.right)

Done. This is effectively one operation. newTree and myTree are both still immutable, but there's a ton of sharing going on. Now this is the best case scenario. Modifying a leaf is the worst case scenario, but even there only requires as many operations as there are levels in your tree, which, as long as you have a fairly balanced tree, only grows logarithmically in the number of elements you have.

To illustrate let's make another change, this time changing 3 to 30.

anotherTree = Node(
newTree.value,
newTree.left,
Node(
newTree.right.value,
newTree.right.left,
Leaf(30)
)
)

Note I've had to instantiate a new Node for each level of the tree, and I've made a new Leaf, but otherwise everything else is shared. Now this is the low-level way of performing these changes. There are various APIs and tricks to make this look a lot cleaner in code so writing this out isn't as tedious, but I figured I'd present the low-level way to make things less magical.

BTW, the logarithmic time factor to update a leaf is why you will often see logarithmic factors in time complexities of various operations on immutable data structures.
Great perspectives!

I wanted to make a point more on getting positive feedback in whatever you do in order to build self-esteem.

Toastmasters is great for that. Everything you do will receive positive feedback. Members are trained to always look for things to praise (with suggested improvements, of course).

But great insight on Second City. I might check it out.
I love Weird Al; but there's rarely confusion with the word "literally", else it would have fallen out of usage long ago.

When someone says "it's literally a printing press" about something that is obviously not a printing press, you know that they are using literally as it has been used for hundreds of years[0]: for strong emphasis.

[0]: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109061 definition 1c.
The code evaluation is not the problem. The fact all evaluation takes place in a single global interpreter context is the problem. When a file that defines a class A is required, the A constant of the Object class gets set to a new instance of Class:

# a.rb
class A
end

# irb
require 'a'

Object::A.new

All code evaluation modifies global interpreter state. Honestly it's not much better than the C preprocessor's #include directive.

A better design: files are always evaluated with a clean interpreter state and they can return values just like methods.

# a.rb
class A
end

A

# irb
a = require 'a'

a.new

This makes all state local to each script by default. Users will only have access to the returned value which can contain anything or nothing. If a module needs to modify existing classes, they could return modules that can be mixed in or metaprogramming methods that perform the modifications when called with the targeted class as parameter. Perhaps existing classes could even be passed as parameter:

require 'extensions', Object, Kernel

Of course, these changes would break compatibility with all existing gems. The result would be a completely different language that happens to also be called Ruby.
I'm going to write this out more clearly, because I'm still getting downvotes for my correct answer.

Why neural networks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theore...

Can polynomials do this? (Yes)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theo...

What is transformer and attention?
https://pathmind.com/wiki/attention-mechanism-memory-network

Attention = Polynomial (x2,x3 etc.)

Polynomial = interaction. VW flag -interaction

1 layer transformer = xx. (x^2)

2 layer tranformer = xxx. (x^3)

3 ... etc

What is reformer?
Transformer where LSH is applied.

One type of LSH is SimHash. ngrams of strings, followed by 32 bit hash.

Vowpal Wabbit -n flag for ngrams.

vw -interact xxx -n2 -n3 and you get ngrams + 32 bit hash doing SGD over a vector.

This vector is equivalent to a 2 layer reformer.

Non-linear activation is not needed because polynomials are already nonlinear.

So vw + interact + ngrams (almost)= reformer encoder. (if reformer uses SimHash, then they are identical).

Transformer/Reformer have an advantage, the encoder-decoder can learn from unlabeled data.

However, you can get similar results from unlabeled data using preprocessing such as introducing noise to the data, and then treating it as noise/non-noise binary classification. (it can even be thought of as reinforcement learning, with the 0-1 labels as the reward using vw's contextual bandits functionality. This can then do what GAN's do - climb from noise to perfection).
I´d be happy with something like Searx [1,2,3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searx
[2] https://asciimoo.github.io/searx/
[3] https://stats.searx.xyz/

featuring the semantic map of [4] https://swisscows.ch/

incorporating [5] https://curlie.org/ and Wikipedia and something like Yelp/YellowPages embedded in Open Streetmaps for businesses and points of interest, with a no frills interface showing the history (via timeslide?) of edits.

Bang! Done!
Yeah, assigning open/recently solved problems seems to be relatively common in graduate theory/aglo courses, at least relative to other subfields of CS and math. Not sure why. It always struck me as not the most productive use of problem set time. But then, what do I know about teaching theory :)
Extreme poverty can decline while wealth inequality increases.

"The World Bank defines “extreme poverty” as living on less than $1.90 per person per day." [1]

So sure, less people live on $1.90 a day then ever, because the world as a whole is richer. The richest at the top are still seeing the vast majority of the gains, it seems.

From my understanding wealth inequality started skyrocketing in most developed countries in the 1970's.

[1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/06/08/ending-...
What do you mean by "fans"? Should I check it out if I actually like the way he asks question, or if I like the guests and wish somebody else asked them better questions? I guess I can find out for myself after listening a couple of episodes of what you recommend, but it still would be nice if you could elaborate.
I managed to find a beautiful binding of this book in a small case with a marbled cover. It's something I take out and read now and then in small doses, and almost always brings cheer. One of my favourite definitions is:

INTERREGNUM, n. The period during which a monarchical country is governed by a warm spot on the cushion of the throne. The experiment of letting the spot grow cold has commonly been attended by most unhappy results from the zeal of many worthy persons to make it warm again.

and

INTERPRETER, n. One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.
Ruby on Rails' Active Admin is my favorite https://activeadmin.info
It’s one of great misunderstandings (or more likely - very effective way of getting money) to claim that machine learning is a data problem. We’re so far away from that point, that we have literally no idea what’s needed to make ML a data problem. Algorithms are extremely simple, and it’s all more or less curve fitting.

Media (and surprising amount of tech people as well) tend to claim that ML learning is like human learning - repeat something enough times and you’re done, you know how to do it. ML is no where close to that point.
I did it on my first debugging project where I had to teach myself assembly. Had no idea it was a special task! Just knew it had to get done, got “some program called soft ice” to do it, got to work.
it's noteworthy that even when it's on, this laser is mostly off. its duty cycle is 0.00001% (50 ns at 2khz).
Lack of new antibiotics threatens efforts to contain drug-resistant infections
I thought I remember hearing that he worked on high-altitude suits at some point in the 40's, ie with some of the same people who would design space suits, which explains the loving detail in the book 'Have Spacesuit, Will Travel.'

I also see from Wikipedia something I didn't know -- that he recruited Asimov to work where he did during the war! -- and those must have been very heady times, with all of them exposed to practical engineering at the intersection of math, circuits, early computing, design and fabrication.
LifeLabs Canada looses lab data of 85K customers and waits 1 month to inform ppl
Life Labs just sent me an email (Sunday 19th Jan. 2020 [0]) informing me that they became aware of unauthorized access to their computer systems. This was in the media a month ago [1]

The data that was accessed / copied / sold / we might never know, includes, as Life Labs email has it: Lab test results, your security question, phone number, health card number and everything else (address, phone email, etc).

This email says that I might not be one of the 85,000! lab test customers impacted. However, why would they wait a month to email their customers about it?

Based on the fact that LifeLabs paid ransom [1] should allow us to assume that they have been negligent about protecting our most sensitive data in the first place. No “proper” health company would need to pay ransom (they would have backups of their data)?!?!

How can the CEO of LifeLabs go on TV to tell a story of how they are a victim of cyber crime when they did not even bother to inform their own clients about the breach for a month? And this is very serious data, not just what ads you watch, it’s your blood work, it’s your health record, it’s data that was not online yet.

[0] https://customernotice.lifelabs.com/?source=pwr
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-lifelabs-pays-ransom-after-massive-data-breach-affecting-up-to-1/
According to this, the newspaper subscription only covered about 18%. The rest was from advertising.

https://idiallo.com/blog/we-never-paid-for-journalism
Yes? That means billions of people could afford a bicycle to go to the local markets, a trailer to fetch water, tools for growing food.
US Army has built a device to keep your hands warm without gloves
You say this as if they actually are actually having things go wrong on stream.

This test was exactly as planned. The one failure they did have unintentionally blow up (the dragon fueling explosion) was actually not on a live stream.

All that did kinda work for their attempts at landing the first stage a few years back though, however that was heavily wrapped in “experiment” and Was PR covered at every moment.
We need a taxonomy. In the old days finding links was done by going to a directory: dmoz or Yahoo.

I'm not saying we regress back to the past... I'm sure there is some hidden underlying directory structure in web search today. What I'm suggesting is making it more accessible to users as a way of navigating the web for good content.
> Extreme poverty can decline while wealth inequality increases.

I did not suggest that both could not happen at the same time. You should expect people who have large assets to get rich faster than those who have virtually none.
My first thought is this really needs an A/B test. Instead of just asserting that off-white fields are better than white fields, try it out on a real website and see if the conversion is improved.
Then it has been worth fighting for since at least 1769.
Then you would never recieve an issue from me. :(

I have a hard time conveying my thoughts properly without writing them down. You would watch me blubber about the process rather than the problem.

Beside, it being a privacy issue and not comfortable sharing something that might get memed or used for political purposes.
Then do the semi-unethical thing, and order the same thing again, and return the old one as 'defective' with the new order.

This is Scamazon we're talking about here. Lack of care is full circle with that lot.
If you took all of their money ($8.7 trillion) and gave it away to the 4.6 billion people, that would be $1891 per person. Now before you get excited, that's not per year or anything. That is if you took the total accumulated wealth of all those billionaires and gave it to everyone else. You would never be able to make such a distribution again, not for a very long time at least, so it's really peanuts in the long run.

These kinds of statistics are so bogus because they make it sound like accumulated wealth is what makes the world go around, and that is just simply untrue. All of this accumulated wealth by the ultra rich, $8.7 trillion held by billionaires, is NOTHING when you compare it to the world GDP PER YEAR, which is $80 trillion. Remember, you're comparing the total accumulated wealth, built up over many years and decades, of the ultra rich with what the global economy produces in income IN A SINGLE YEAR.

For the majority of people, and especially young people, their most important asset is not how much wealth they have accumulated but their ability to produce income year after year through their productivity. And you can't be pushing government pension and welfare programs on the one hand, which incentivize spending all of your income instead of saving it, and then touting stored-wealth as the important statistic.

Through the worldview of this ridiculous methodology, graduates of elite American universities, with their high paying jobs but substantial student loans, are among the poorest in the world. Ditto for the highly-paid San Francisco software engineer who spends most all of his income to live a very comfortable life in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Better start transferring wealth to them from the bank accounts of middle class third-worlders!