skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think they must have put more effort into getting that review taken down than they put into the entire series so far.
This is the answer, but it opens up another line of questioning: do we force people to live in dense urban areas? Sometimes I wonder if pro mass-transit commenters (I'm pro mass transit, FWIW) have ever lived outside of a major metro. There are so many places where people live where mass transit is never going to be viable in way that replaces the car. Who gets to decide when/if we invalidate their way of living? Maybe I'm not seeing all the angles here.
Patch for car stopping way too often:
catch (NotUnderstoodException)
{
- SlowDownAndStopLikeAnyoneElseWould();
+ // FIXME TODO let the safety driver handle it for now
+ // SlowDownAndStopLikeAnyoneElseWould();
}
Often times recruiters are not allowed to probe any further once you bring up a medical issue. The difficulty then becomes, being able to draw upon relevant and timely situations to answer questions in an interview.
Well, it really depends on what your current stack is. If you're doing .Net then F#, if you're doing Java look at Closure and Scala. You can look into or Erlang Haskel as well.

I'm saying this because functional programming has the potential to simplify software architecture in some cases and make you a better developer or architect. Learning a new paradigm makes you question current practices more and that is a good thing imho. Recently I've been looking into Racket and I'd probably never do production stuff on it but it's been a real eye opener to me. I also like F#. There are a lot of resources out there, one of them is Scott Wlaschin, look him up on youtube.
"It seems that
whatever “crap” we put into graphene, electrocatalysis
increases. One may exaggerate only a little by saying that if
we spit on graphene it becomes a better electrocatalyst."

lol
Artist wheeled 99 smartphones around to create fake traffic jams on Google Maps
You were right: https://twitter.com/NSAGov/status/1224456957622472706
We tried to attack the market with a Github model: share your open source data and docs publicly (our true passion) and pay to have private repos.

Our mistake, as I said elsewhere, is that there was no market. We had many sales conversations and zero takers. For context, we were fully under the spell of The Great Big Data Hype of 2011 (see the current AI hype for reference) and convinced ourselves that there would be so many opportunities that we'd have our pick of which path to take.

In fairness to our past selves, for a while this seemed true; valuations were insane for companies with vague value props in the space. And we met with dozens of influencers in the data world and they all professed to be excited to use it. Most of them ultimately logged in once, realized they had no hair-on-fire problem for us to solve, and stopped returning our emails. It was frustrating in the extreme.

I just found one of our product videos on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWMjQhhxhQ4
It is quite wordy but the SQL solution for this is "WHERE a IS NOT DISTINCT FROM b".

https://modern-sql.com/feature/is-distinct-from
Also New Hampshire (sort of, sans capital gains).
lol, if our cock sucker polititians didn't sell this country out, china would still be a fucking third world shit box.
Rust doesn't by default, though you could certainly make a wrapper type that does. You could do the same in any language that has algebraic data types (rust enum's), or another sensible way of forcing you to check certain kinds of errors.
Cards Against Humanity buys Clickhole, turning it into an employee-owned company
Apple has never mentioned any SDK for programming the FPGA, AFAIK. Source?
deep tangle
That's just a matter of a specific language's syntax, type-checking, or linting. Pattern-matching in OCaml [0] will in most cases warn about non-exhaustive checks. It seems like TypeScript has something similar, although I haven't used it [1].

[0] https://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/keith/ocaml-class/pattern-matc...

[1] https://dev.to/babak/exhaustive-type-checking-with-typescrip...
And the answer is yes, they are less safe than human driven cars(https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/in-2017-the-feds-said-t...)

"activating auto steer increased crash rate by 50%"

Tesla safety stats are ok when compared to the average car on the road. But that's because they are expensive, high quality cars driven by middle aged people. It's the safest car demographic on the road. When comparing auto drive teslas to equivalent luxury cars they look terrible. Though i think if you ignore the autodrive they're perfectly good cars.
Vote in politicians that will tariff any country that doesn't have carbon pricing.
> the "Picard" show is depressingly bad and derivative. I've only watched the first ep,

I don’t understand how you can pass judgment on a series based on one episode.
> According to that same article, the reason for retiring the note was because the people who benefited the most from its existence are criminals, who need to do their business in cash -- the fewer notes, the easier for them. That includes storage, I guess.

And then, they tell bitcoiners they are crazy for denouncing the overreach of central banks.
Or they're all poor, the data doesn't say either way and it's kind of the problem.

Suppose you have a well run society with good safety nets, high standard of living and 'investment in innovation' which leads to some great startups and a host of wealthy people. Well, you have 'inequality' ... but is that bad? Some might argue that, but I'm not so sure.

Now you have another state with bad social conditions, and the wealth generated is mostly through aggressive anti-union tactics, low wages, and power leveraging etc.. This is generally the kind of 'inequality' that nobody likes.

So in the former case, we want to see surpluses from such innovation 'help everyone' and they usually do: for example Netflix for $10/month is one of the most massive consumer surpluses imaginable, it's such a great deal for consumers. Innovators usually only capture a small chunk of the surpluses they create.

So while we can still argue that 'asset/income inequality' is a problem in the former case, it becomes more difficult.

But it gets worse. I hinted at 'consumer surpluses' which are the 'profits' individuals make when the exchange money for something more valuable than that money i.e. the thing they buy. For most people, Netflix is worth vastly more than $10/month. The delta between 'that upper range value' and $10, is called the 'consumer surplus' and it's never measured! Essentially, societies can get really rich, without any monetary measure of such wealth at all!

Suppose the founders of Netflix, and employees weren't making that much money ergo you maintain basic asset/income equality with the rest of the population. But regions that have access to Netflix are materially wealthier than regions that don't have access to Netflix - because they can watch 100's of movies on demand for dirt cheap - but again, that differential in surplus is not measured at all, it's nowhere to be seen in the GDP or on our books! (Caveat: we 'kind of measure' the increase in real value of a product with inflation. If tomatoes one year are 'riper, fresher, redder' than the previous year, they try to account for that. But for most products it's just impossible).

A more extreme case is vaccines. A nation with strong vaccination stays healthy, a nation without gets sick and that direct measure isn't really part of the GDP. In fact the sicker nation might require more healthcare spending ... which increases the GDP in a really perverse way. Due to the odd artefact that vaccines are priced irregularly (people will only pay a few dollars for a vaccine which could save their lives, over $100's of thousands for a cure once they have the disease), they don't work well on the free market: it makes more sense to make expensive cures than cheap preventative vaccines, even though in the later case the surpluses are much, much more vast.

Raw measures of inequality are only rough data points and they really don't say a whole lot.

We need to understand more qualitatively how that wealth is distributed, how fairly, and the kinds of surpluses being generated by those in higher income brackets: are they just capturing rent on labour, or are they really 'growing the pie'.
Your belief about Barr is fundamentally incompatible with Barr's belief about Barr. The real Attorney General, in words and in deeds, favors a unitary executive who, by dint of national security argument, has almost unlimited power including the ability to spy on anyone they please.

While you may believe he is taking on the FISA court, and there are abuses there to fix, by Barr's own admission he doesn't seem to think there are any restraints on an Executive's power in the realms of national security or foreign policy. It seems to me the motivation around FISA is strongly motivated not by sincere belief in the limitations of executive authority, but because of a sense that they (read: the President) were wronged.

When Attorney General William Barr spoke to the Federalist Society in a memorial lecture just a few months ago[1] he lamented the transparency Congress has forced upon the Executive, "There is no FOIA for Congress or the Courts. Yet Congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the Executive Branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to publicize the Executive’s internal decisional process. That process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when, rather than doing the work of the people."

Barr then attacked the judicial branch directly, claiming they are "encroaching on Executive responsibilities in a way that has substantially undercut the functioning of the Presidency" and in particular, those darned judges keep finding that they can review the acts of the Executive! Isn't that frustrating?

He writes in such an example: "Courts are now willing, under the banner of judicial review, to substitute their judgment for the President’s on matters that only a few decades ago would have been unimaginable – such as matters involving national security or foreign affairs.

"The Travel Ban case is a good example. There the President made a decision under an explicit legislative grant of authority, as well has his Constitutional national security role, to temporarily suspend entry to aliens coming from a half dozen countries pending adoption of more effective vetting processes."

Do you think that a surveillance state reformed by Barr would really rein in the courts, or simply remove them from the picture?

[1] - https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-...
Generating random permutations uniformly is a nontrivial problem that I have solved in (probably) close but incorrect ways using RNGs directly. Knowing about `shuf` would have helped a lot!
There is a difference between perfect and better.

If your standard is that self driving must be perfect then i'd argue you're being unreasonable.

If your standard is that self driving cars must be better than that is something that can easily be tested.
How it helps FB is that it is trying to expand its market into business software - aka using Facebook Groups and FB Messenger, on your own shard. It competes with Slack and other similar worksplace IM systems. Drew Houston's experience at Dropbox is greatly helpful as Facebook tries pushing harder into that market.
Breaking those causes you linked individually:

#1 was speeding. Self driving cars would be trivially programmed not to do that, of course. But this one is tricky to interpret, because Americans habitually speed. That means two things: Speeding is trivially something that can be listed as a factor; it wouldn't be a lot less meaningful to say that bucket seats are a factor. And not speeding might actually be more dangerous. That leaves me thinking this one is equivocal for the purposes of the debate.

#s 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drunk driving, distractions, cell phones, and driver fatigue. Those are easy point for self driving cars, of course.

#5 is weather. This feels like an easy one in favor of humans, considering that all the major self driving car companies deal with weather by avoiding it. That's not much of a vote of confidence.

#6 is red light accidents. I would want to see more about override statistics before interpreting this one. It could be that self-driving cars literally never miss a red light. But, given that some of the intersections in my city have quite confusing traffic light arrangements - reflectors that make the light invisible outside of certain angles, lighted intersections spaced 40 feet apart that are separate lighted intersections nonetheless, printed signs informing drivers of non-standard semantics for that light, wildly varying yellow light durations, etc. - I have my doubts about self-driving cars being able to properly deal with the traffic lights. If there are any tests going on in a similar city, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that operator overrides are routine at lighted intersections.

Zooming out to the big picture, though - the ones that are a clear win for self-driving cars are all instances where the human's decisionmaking capacity has been impaired. Which implies that humans are really quite good at operating vehicles when they aren't being stupid. But it also implies something that I think doesn't get enough credit among many advocates of self-driving cars: the fact that, behind the wheel of every safe self-driving car, there's a highly trained human operator who is not drunk and not tired and not diddling around with their cell phone. And we've got evidence to suggest that, when the human operator is a bit more human, the self driving car's accident rate suddenly spikes considerably.

And that's a big deal. It's common to place those errors on the shoulders of the car's driver, but that's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't wave away every fatality involving a car on autopilot by saying, "Oh, that wasn't the car's fault, the driver was being an idiot," and also claim that we've got good evidence to suggest that we know how to make cars operate safely without relying on a human driver to act as a backstop for the fallibility of the human programmers. It may eventually come - I think we all hope it does - but given how, in AI, the last year or two's worth of R&D always ends up taking another decade or two before everyone just gives up on the whole enterprise and moves on to a greener field, a little skepticism is far from unwarranted.
Why does correctness matter, its not like anyone is ACTUALLY named "DROP TABLE users;"
You probably could, but I would say their machine learning isn't a core part of their product that drives profits. The machine learning at Netflix has a huge impact to the product. Streaming drops 20%+ when the recommendations are offline.
Texas also has the country's best medical center in Houston with many thousands of medical specialists.
> I just find it very hard to understand the perspective of those that are opposed to self driving cars.

Once you observe how these things behave in severe weather, you get a little bit more perspective on why it simply can’t work. Not with today’s infrastructure, not with today’s technology, definitely not in mixed human / autonomous driver traffic.
> We can also pickup on subtle clues in posture, through eye contact and even through the driving style of another person.

I think this is what a lot of people take for granted. Driving anywhere where there is another vehicle immediately becomes a social activity. There is a tacit agreement to work within the framework of the enforced driving laws, but beyond that there is a social agreement as to who is doing that. Even which driving laws we follow when and were is fluid, but relatively cohesive among drivers.

It's why pedestrians try to make eye contact with drivers. It's why drivers make eye contact when there is even an iota of ambiguity on who has the right of way. It's why almost no one drives at the posted speed on a high way and we usually go as fast as the fastest lead driver. It's why we gesture, flash our lights, honk, and sometimes curse. We've built vehicles to communicate as much as possible, but that is still not even an ounce of what we can communicate with our eyes.

And sure, when vehicles communicate with each other, that will be even better. In the meantime you've got different actors using incompatible protocols.
`GROUP BY` you align with the space between `GROUP` and `BY`.

`INNER JOIN` goes fully on the right side of the river.

The guide at https://www.sqlstyle.guide/ is almost perfect.
There is no inflation? You haven't seen the insanely skyrocketing property prices in pretty much every major EU city? And because rent/mortgage took the lion's share in increased cost in other products it manifested as shrinkflation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkflation.
At this point it would be easier to start a new company and import the positive things from Boeing. They've lost their "engineering first" mentality and that's not something that is easy to get back, and they may not be able to handle the financial losses involved in doing so after running as "money first" for so long.
Yes. Take SF, for instance.

EDIT: Rate-limited, so read response to request to elaborate below

San Francisco has multiple entities involved in the process of policy relating to transit. So, while the SF MTA and Jeffrey Tumlin may want more rail (perhaps underground), more buses, and fewer car thoroughfares there are also supervisors in charge of local districts who may oppose construction on grounds that they will hurt constituents.

As an example, supervisors David Campos and Hillary Ronen at different times opposed the bus-lanes along Mission St. on various grounds including (paraphrasing) "speeding up transit does not improve things for the local community", "the transit lanes lead to gentrification", "local merchants will see decreased foot traffic".

That's just an example and the details are too numerous to list here but consider also that the SFFD opposes Vision Zero.
We already take risks of this type; cars have mechanical failures, and people die with things totally outside their control. Brakes fail, tires blow, and people have accepted these risks.

I know self driving cars feel different to us now, but they aren't really different in kind, just degree. I am sure people felt these concerns when cars were introduced in general.
... the ones that only IBM uses in their computers.
Sure!

Most of the RBOCs were purchased...by other RBOCs, or AT&T itself. The research output of AT&T halved. The well-regulated monopoly was sacrificed for what is now more or less unregulated yet governmentally-defended triopolies in every area AT&T was touching, and then some. The quality of the service has dropped dramatically, even if there was cost reduction (which arguably is tied to said decline in quality).

There was a great book written by two engineers working on the Bell System a few decades ago with a rather rotten title, but a subtitle that'll allow you to find the book just the same: The Criminal Wrecking of the Best Telephone System in the World. I found it really fascinating in many ways, although I'll admit that it served to justify my own beliefs, rather than making me change them, so I could be biased.
Tesla uses only cameras (some color and some black and white I believe) along with a radar system and perhaps sonar? But Tesla is controversial in their approach - essentially all other self driving systems use depth sensors. Tesla makes the argument that you can actually calculate depth from moving cameras, which is true. The technique is called structure from motion and it is well understood. However a lidar is a more direct and reliable way of measuring depth accurately, so others use them.

The difference being that all Teslas manufactured in the last two years or so have this camera sensor system installed on them, so they can all be upgraded to self driving with a software or computer upgrade. No one else is shipping cars that can be self driving. So Tesla has the advantage of collecting a huge data set of real world data now, and if they get the system working they can somewhat instantly “activate” a huge self driving fleet. Other companies have more expensive sensor systems such that the price is too high to sell the vehicles (only rent as taxis), and they will have to start manufacturing vehicles after they get everything finalized.

If Tesla and Waymo perfect their systems at the same time, Tesla will be way ahead.
But importantly, not required. Cable ISPs just make it easy to give them more money, which is the normal incentive for any business. You don't have to rent a modem to buy internet service.
The system exists but nobody is buying it. Probably because if your car has it first, there will be no other cars to talk to.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=car+v2x
Wow, that's such a terrifying experience. Do you feel comfortable sharing any details on the what actually happened?

A very common experience with psychedelics is that you feel like you're dying, or that you have died. In that sense I can totally see how the real experience of dying could feel extremely similar. (Although yours seems to be an order of magnitude worse, partially because coming back into consciousness brought with it immense physical pain.)

> and fully expect an eternity of that when I die

This is exactly what has given me the most amount of anxiety post traumatic trip. The fear that consciousness exists in a constant and eternal state of suffering post death (since that's what I thought was happening in my trip). It's given me sort of the opposite fear of most people -- rather than a fear of non existence after death, I'm scared of the POSSIBILITY of life after death, because I'm afraid that's what it'll be. I would much rather have my consciousness just cease to exist after death. I've learned this is an actual phobia with a name: apeirophobia.

While this fear is still kind of in the back of my mind, here are some of the things that have helped me:

* The experience of suffering is something that exists physically within our bodies and brains. If consciousness does persist after death, it would be without a body or brain, and thus not capable of the same type of suffering we experience on psychedelics or in a near death experience. During those experiences we can feel like we're in infinity or that we don't have a body, but we have to remember those are still just things happening in the brain.
* We have literally 0 evidence for consciousness existing after death. Why stress out about one unlikely possibility? From a probability standpoint, it's not really different from worrying that we're going die and be punished by Zeus or Odin or Ra. Can't prove it won't happen, but it seems unlikely.
* Other people have experiences like this that are positive, affirming, and full of love and peace. Why give more credence to the idea of eternal suffering rather than eternal joy / bliss / happiness?

I haven't totally moved on from that fear, but this train of thought helps. I want to believe (and I think it's more rational to believe) that those experiences really are just a combination of the brain's normal processing being severely altered combined with the body's survival mechanisms being kicked into an insane overdrive. That there's not really anything more to it than that.

I have no idea if any of that helps (or if it's actually something that bothers you on a day to day basis), but it's the thing that has helped me the most with coping.