skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think that Dreyfus has unfortunately set back the cultural understanding of computers by decades, by confidently declaring certain tasks impossible for computers to do, because minds have "insight" or "tacit knowledge" or are "holistic", each of which functionally lets a mind be a ghost in the machine.

A lot of the rhetorical momentum comes from pointing at the progress of technology at various stages in human history, especially the fits and starts of AI/Language research in the mid 20th century, and remarking at how little progress has been made.

And the terms used to define how computers were are also vague.

>Given the nature of inference engines, AI's representations must be formal ones

When AI trained on images of dog faces "dreams" on an image, and progressively twists flowers and purses into dog faces and noses, is the connection made between patterns and dog faces "formal" ? Are the images generated by ThisPersonDoesNotExist informal? The ways computers work on data now deals with abstractions & fuzziness in a way that I think Dreyfus did not imagine to be possible. I think Dreyfus wanted to say that the higher-level methods that we now employ to generate images, human-like language, transpose art styles and create nearly photorealistic faces are on a foundation of principles that are new and distinct from the characteristic principles that he understood to be central to computing. But all of our new progress is implemented on a foundation of silicon and bits, too, which simulate neural networks, meaning those are just as computational as the desktop calculator app. I think Dreyfus just couldn't imagine that 'computing' could include all this extra stuff, and, to take a term from Dennet, Dreyfus mistook his failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
> The only solutions I can think of involve limiting the dissemination of false or exaggerated information and fact checking.

Everyone seems to agree on the need for this except the people who are spread the most misinformation and the people who want to make them happy.

Again, it seems like we're all hostages of the whim of a few social media CEOs.
Show HN: DotYouTube – A tiny Chrome extension to block YouTube pre-roll ads
They did make class B shares to bring the price down.

And how did he make expensive insurance?
Walter Bright founded Dlang and continues to be the primary author of its compiler frontend. He is the sole author of dmc++/Zortech C++, the world's fastest C++03 compiler.
We've got surface pro 7s at work. Pretty solid. I like the fact that it has both USB-C and USB-A. That means you can hook it up to a 4K screen easily enough and still attach whatever old school USB-A dongles required.

It is a full windows OS though so the temptation is to use it like one...and it does grind to a halt if you open enough big spreadsheets etc and run out of RAM.

Also bought the surface pen that goes with it. Pretty decent - but I'm no artist so hard to evaluate
> And the most disappointing thing about Rust is that it probably won't ever be seen as a prototype that should be thrown away.

Can that ever happen with a language that lots of people use?
duh, add content?
Or it could be a language issue. Africa speaks Portuguese, French, English, and local languages, more or less in that order. It doesn't speak Chinese. And while many Chinese speak English, there are far fewer Chinese managers with the time or the interest to learn yet another language. (Especially not Portuguese, which is one of the hardest Euro-based languages.)

Anyway - Africa will be developed after Asia is exhausted. It will take longer, but it will happen within a few decades.
SpaceX doesn't pay any tax and it never will. To pay tax you have to make a profit. They're definitely not doing that now: both Starlink and Starship are each estimated to cost well over a billion dollars to develop, yet their revenue per launch is at most $20 million if you're generous. (edit: SpaceX has advised that Starlink will cost 2-3 billion to develop and Starship will cost 10 billion)

Once Starlink gets going many expect it to rake in the cash but Musk has said quite explicitly that they're going to spend it on going to Mars. It wouldn't be hard to structure that spending either as expenses or charity. So again, no profit to be taxed on.

This is of course why he's keeping SpaceX private. Investors have to understand that SpaceX's future profits are going to Mars, not back to the investors.

edit: this isn't completely true. They do plan on spinning off Starlink, so if they do it should be profitable and pay taxes. Musk may shuffle his Starlink profits into a Mars expdition, but Starlink itself will pay taxes and other owners will end up paying capital gains taxes etc.
What are the symptoms of that allergy?
> It seems to pass faster as you get older.

I equate this to each year being a smaller period of your overall time. When you turned 5 a year was 20% of your life, at 50 it is 2%. Perceptually that is huge.
Well, that goes to show it. Not every country has gotten rid of small-scale family farms. I used to visit a place just like that in Brazil, and a friend's parents also still live in such a setting in France.
For some time I used a Samsung Galaxy Book 12 (similar computer to a surface tablet computer).

For my use cases it was definitely the wrong choice. The tablet is quite heavy, so use as a tablet was very limited for me and due to the keyboard design it is also bad as a notebook.

I think the integrated stand of the Surface would at least allow you better use as a drawing tablet when you detach the keybord.

My sweet spot is a decent Notebook plus an iPad Mini for Notetaking (Goodnotes) and drawing.
I hope it works out. I was excited to get my kids interested in programming like I was in the early 80s. What I discovered was some combo of my kids are their own people and not my clones, but I think more importantly, the bar for computer magic has risen. When I was 8-12 just making a computer do anything was magic. Computers were mysterious and still a bit rare. Today my kids are growing up in a world of total computer saturation from phones to pads to laptops to the cloud. Much as I wished programming would capture fire for them like it did for me, there is no magic for them in making the computer do a few simple things. The world still sort of awaits the next paradigm to spark the next generation of inventors and creators.
I would argue that chromium is slightly more funded
>>> We know this phenomenon from everyday life. Most of us are experts on walking. However, if we try to articulate how we walk, we certainly give a description that does not capture the skills involved in walking.

All the article is based on statements like the previous one. Scientifically is possible to nullify it with a counterargument.

[1] Boston dynamics Atlas. https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY

[2] Boston dynamics parkour. https://youtu.be/_sBBaNYex3E

QED.
I think many would argue regulations are also reactionary (I.e., there were no laws to prohibit an action because it wasn’t anticipated until after it happened).

Example: there were no laws preventing diluting stock during a hostile takeover until after Vanderbilt tried buying out the Erie Railroad and diluting stock was a way to swindle him [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_War#Watered-down_stocks
I worked on an unrelated market study - look at Upcloud and Raptr as well.
This locks toy companies into a challenging bet. Every year, they have to a) predict trends, b) invent them, and c) commit capital to them. All without knowing how the rest of the year will turn out. Since toy trends exist, but don’t last for very long, they have to invent new products every year—but the technological state of the art doesn’t advance very fast. It has all the volatility of tech, without the progress.

Insightful post. This succinctly explains why most toys are movie-related. It's the easiest trend to predict.

EDIT: This article keeps getting better and better. I had no idea Skyrim was almost set in Game of Thrones. https://www.tor.com/2011/09/16/how-skyrim-was-almost-set-in-... It left me wanting more.

The author is apparently Byrne Hobart, and they've written a variety of things: https://diff.substack.com/people/112633-byrne-hobart Looks like I'll be spending too much time reading them.

They also write a post ... double checks ... every day?! For a week straight, sometimes? Wow.

Sadly, most of their work appears to be locked behind a $20/mo paywall. It all looks very interesting though: https://diff.substack.com/p/dropbox-information-asymmetry-an...
If software developers are opposed to security theater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater), then it's not unreasonable to be opposed to "equality theater" as well, which is what language policing is. It's just not a worthwhile use of time, however minuscule.
Don't you need a large group prepared to enact revenge on people for voting "wrongly" for non-anonymous voting, in general, to be a problem? That seems like it's not a problem until you've got a large group of fascists/totalitarians already?
Here's a shot at explaining it in terms similar to your explanation for E_1.

-------------------

As above we'll have some value of s_2, and a set of points x_1 < x_2 < ... x_k < s_2 < x_{k+1} < ... < x_n. We define E_2 = \sum (x_i - s_2)^2.

Suppose we move s_2 slightly to the right, obtaining s_2 + epsilon. The first k terms of the sum will increase, while the last (n-k) terms will decrease. Calculus tells us that each term will change by -2 (x_i-s_2) epsilon + O(epsilon^2). If epsilon is small (infinitesimal) we can ignore the epsilon^2 term. As expected this quantity is negative for points to the right of s_2 and positive for points to the left of s_2. We can add these up to find the total change to be

-2 × epsilon × \sum (x_i-s_2),

dropping the higher order term.

If s_2 is too far to the left, moving it to the right will decrease E_2 as the decreases from points x_{k+1}, ... x_n will be larger than the increases from points x_1, ..., x_k. Similarly if s_2 is too far to the right, moving it to the left will decrease E_2. So where's the point where we can't gain anything by moving left or right?

If we look at our expression above,

-2 × epsilon × \sum (x_i-s_2)

as a function of s_2, it's negative when s_2 is small and positive when s_2 is large. Negative means we can do better by increasing s_2; positive means we can do better by decreasing s_2. It's just a straight line, so if it's negative on one side and positive on the other side there has to be some point where it's exactly zero. At that point we can't improve E_2 at all by moving in either direction. To find that point we simply set

-2 × epsilon × \sum (x_i-s_2) = 0

and then some simple algebra gives us

s_2 = \sum(x_i)/n

-----------------

There's also a purely algebraic way to see that E_2 is minimized at the mean, without requiring any calculus. Whether it's helpful for intuition or not I don't know.

Suppose we have some value s'_2 that we're interested in, and we think this might minimize E_2:

E'_2 = \sum(x_i - s'_2)^2

I'm going to prove to you that E'_2 is not smaller than \sum(x_i - m)^2, where m is the mean. We can write

E'_2 = \sum(x_i - m + m - s'_2)^2,

since adding and subtracting m in the middle doesn't change anything. Then split it up

E'_2 = \sum((x_i - m) + (m - s'_2))^2

and expand the square

E'_2 = \sum(x_i - m)^2 + \sum(m - s'_2)^2 + 2 × \sum[(x_i - m)(m - s'_2)]

The first term is the one that I said E'_2 was not smaller than. The second term is the sum of a bunch of [identical] squares, so it is nonnegative. The third term it turns out is zero, because we can pull the (m - s\*_2) term out of the sum and then \sum(x_i - m) is zero. So we have

E'_2 = \sum(x_i - m)^2 + {nonnegative stuff},

which proves that s'_2 is not better than m. In fact the second term is strictly positive unless s'_2 = m, so m is the unique minimizer.
Not sure why parent comment is grayed out; seems like it’s more for its viewpoint than anything else. Not that different in tone or broad assertions from lots of other posts in this thread.
Your first two links are for Alaska and Wisconsin. I'll agree that the latter is clearly not experiencing fair voting; their legislators need to step up and be better. The third, the survey, is quite interesting. It shows two problems: First, people are filling out other household members' ballots; and second, ballots get lost in the post, usually on the way out to voters.

There's nothing that can be done about that first problem. Being pressured to vote in a certain way is as old as voting, as are laws against pressuring others. The survey claims about 5% of voters are so pressured in Oregon, which is a dreadful but realistic number. Worse, though, it says that about 2.5% of ballot signatures are forged. We could do better at detecting forged signatures, but since stylometry is already such an imprecise art, it's probably not great to rely further on signatures. Ultimately, though, forcing people to the polls doesn't solve this problem at all; it just hides the problem behind layers of people telling each other behind closed doors to vote in certain ways.

Edit: Oh, right, and this survey's source doesn't work. They link to KVAL, a real news station in Eugene, but their link is dead and has never been seen by the Internet Archive. I have no problem believing that humans are so horrible to each other that the rate of voter intimidation is over 5%, but hard data would be nice.

That second problem, though, where ballots are lost on the way to and from voters? That's easy to fix. Just have a notification system that tells voters when their ballot has been posted. And that brings us back to the top of the thread; in Oregon, one can sign up to get text notifications about ballots. Checking my phone, I have notifications going back to 2016, in pairs; the first message is along the lines of:

> This is Multnomah County Elections, your ballot for the Month Year General Election has been sent, look for it soon in your mailbox!

And the second is like:

> This is Multnomah County Elections, your ballot for the Month Year General Election has been accepted and will be counted.

If I don't receive my ballot within a few days after that first text, or I don't receive that second text within a few weeks of voting, then I know that something is wrong and I can go to the elections office to try again. This hasn't ever happened to me personally. Note that, because voting by mail takes place over several weeks, there is time to remediate missing ballots!

I hope this was enlightening. And if you don't trust this system, then you can always go to pick up and hand-deliver your ballots or go to a poll. But on the whole, I'd just as much rather that you didn't vote in Oregon at all; if you don't live here, then politely leave us alone and let us vote in our preferred style.
Show HN: Tiny password manager with all data stored encrypted on your machine
I am impressed with my ring after having had it for about a year. The battery life seems to be as good as ever. The only concern I have is that I often have to wear it on a different finger. My hands are less bloated, which I credit partly to having been more active since I’ve had it.
> At the current pace of warming, much of the world will be inhospitable to forests as we know them within decades. The extinction of some tree species by direct or indirect action of drought and high temperatures is certain. And some recent research suggests that, in 40 years, none of the trees alive today will be able to survive the projected climate.

That is so ridiculous. Temperatures within 40 years aren't going to change by much more than they've already changed over the past 100 years. Did most forests die off and vanish? No, in fact the extra C02 in the atmosphere, and warmer climate is beneficial for tree growth - if only we weren't clearing the forests we'd have more trees today. The earth has been hotter than where we're headed with global warming. It was heavily forested at that time. To be extra clear, none of that is saying global warming isn't a huge problem, just that forests dying off probably isn't the part to worry about.

Articles like this do climate science a serious disservice and give people reason to doubt climate change - they're counter productive.
It's not entirely a given that consciousness is needed for intelligence.

It's also not clear what consciousness is. Plenty of animals are self-aware, but they don't have human level intelligence.

We only have a single example of general intelligence. It seems possible that there could be other kinds of general intelligence that don't require consciousness.
The problems described in the parent comment exist now. Why should we lower regulation given that starting point?
Like with the app? I can install the authentication app on any phone with the same number?
> The Oura Ring came out in May 2019

Wait, what? I got mine in Feb 2019. Did they re-release it or something?
you probably would have been fine with a walkie-talkie or some kind of pmr-466.

you being not interested in joining a club is not a good reason to blame the certification.

the certification is about being able to evaluate components to buy, both off-the shelf and for self-building.
Not all purpose of communication is political.

1. Information dissemination

2. Coordination

3. Persuasion

4. Feedback gathering

5. Social grooming (jokes, status updates, needs ...)

6. Artistic self-expression

All these are fairly reasonable in any social media.

Conflicting communication via threads is where they fail. Trolling is as old as threads.
Somewhere around taking the profit out of the corporation

See Estonian corporate tax
> Rust in Linux will be fantastic except for compile time. Rust (and the world) needs a Manhattan Project to build a fast Rust compiler (where by "fast" I mean both efficient and scalably parallel when compiling a workspace with many crates and long dependency chains).

A basic technique to parallelize sections is to split a project into modules. Is this not an option for the linux kernel?
The law says you have to get a license from the FCC to operate your radio, and getting the license requires sending them your name and addresses. It's that simple.
I think what we're seeing is that political activism on social media skews to the left. Left-wing politics has always been more activism-minded and right-wing activism has always tended to the extreme, so this is not exactly news. What's news is that social media platforms like Twitter (and even Facebook, due to "real names" and a focus on close social relationships) are more favorable to mindless activism than to careful deliberation, which benefits more from traditional blogs and BBS-like forums.
Thank you, this is helpful.

I have been interested in this debate for perhaps a decade now, and to me one of the most important things to get clear is whether skeptics are just claiming X is really hard, or whether they are claiming it's impossible as a matter of principle, which are two very different things. I think this discussion is about the latter rather than the former, but that many people talk about the former as if it's relevant to the latter.
• Rust is an ML-family language dressed in a C-family syntax to look palatable to existing systems programmers. It's a byproduct of the C++ world only to the extent that it has to work on the CPU architectures and operating systems influenced by C and C++.

• Rust is mainly based on established research and existing languages from 80s and 90s. It's a distilled version of these, not a prototype.

I recommend checking out the first pitch deck for Rust: http://venge.net/graydon/talks/intro-talk-2.pdf
You’re absolutely right, I was being unrealistically conservative. In reality that many workers would almost certainly unionize and average labor costs could easily be $250-$300 a day or more.
It looks like they accept people from abroad. Nowhere do they say you need to be a US citizen. Is that possible?
Zuckerberg Never Fails to Disappoint
The easiest, but maybe the shortest. Movie toys cannot be sold for more than a year. While others can last for decades (think legos or kapla)
Please present some solid arguments in flavor of name changes.
These changes are just proposed without anything backing them up.
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" - Goodheart's law.

Give people a metric - any metric - and they will (conciously or otherwise) start optimizing that instead of the actual goal.
> Moreover, slavery was abolished more than 150 years ago, which mean it has been abolished for more than half the existence of the United States... that’s quite a lot of generations ago.

Yet we have so many people today celebrating the ideas, symbols and folks that were involved in a war to keep owning slaves. Many of the statues have been erected closer to today than the war.
Reserved instances? Instant 20-40% savings.
It's self reported. When you move you're required to update your address.

It is unfortunate that it's public, but you should also keep in mind that I can buy a CD of tax records with names, phone numbers, and addresses of the tax holder and the last sale price (and often previous owners and sales) for every property in the county for $50. Our names and addresses are much less private than most people think.
The only way we can have anything resembling a free market for labour is if those seeking to sell their labour can be assured that failing to do so for a given period of time will not result in homelessness, starvation, and death.

In other words, until and unless we provide everyone with a basic income sufficient to support a modest living.

As it stands, and as you observed, pay for work is based primarily on some very old-fashioned notions of the value of the people who do the work—which is to say, anyone doing menial jobs is obviously a lesser being than those who tell them what to do. Then anyone telling them what to do is a better human being than their subordinates, and so on, until we reach the logical conclusion that CEOs are like unto gods (or at least kings), and must be treated as such.

This is not an indefinitely sustainable model, particularly in the face of increasing automation and increasing income/wealth inequality.

A basic income would result in people only doing the terrible jobs when there's actually sufficient incentive for them to do them, since they're no longer driven by desperation. Thus, assuming other external pressures haven't come into play, the wages for such jobs would rise until they actually compensated for the extra (sometimes literal) crap people have to deal with to do them.
I think in the scenarios where the military decides to no longer respect civilian rule (a coup), it's not particularly hard to occupy the Treasury and the mint.
I remember watching a promotional VHS tape about the N64 that came from Nintendo Power magazine back in '96. I watched that tape over and over, I was absolutely enamored with Mario 64. For months after it was released, people would line up at Wal-Mart in the electronics section to get a chance to play it. No 3D game up to that point had quite nailed the exploration and freedom that Mario 64 had pulled off. The thumb joystick control (which no other system had at the time) was also part of what made it a much better experience.
Demographics is a big one.

As the population pyramid changes to a rectangle, the latent toy:child ratio continues to increase.

Every day I see piles of free toys around the neighborhood being given away for free.

People with 1-2 kids are drowning in toys.
I don't think there's a big difference between: 'there was one person out of 20,000 [smallest electoral ward in UK] who voted this way' and 'I think this person will vote this way'.

If you were going to beat them up you'd do it either way, I'd expect?