skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The speed limit is simply irrelevant from a safety perspective.

The number on a sign is just that, a number. Sure you can use it in the absence of all else but it should be tossed if there's any other information to use.

Self driving cars should be going as fast as whatever is normal for the rest of the traffic in those conditions and at that time. Creeping along at 55mph in the right line while 75mph traffic dodges you is anything but safe. Safety is achieved through homogeneous traffic flow and in practice that means not having a minority of traffic that's going very fast nor very slow nor a bimodal distribution.

Modern civil engineering doctrine is to set the speed limit based on traffic speed and to control the traffic speed with the road design/features so "but the law" holds about as much water as a net if the goal is safety.

That said, the court cares about the letter of the law (as it should) so your proposed defense may in fact be beneficial.

Edit: Whether I care matters not.
I like Pearl's work a lot more than his opinions on who invented what, and who is right about what. For that reason, I would wholeheartedly recommend his books but I would also recommend skipping any sideshows about related literature.

Fact is, Pearl selectively picks literature concerned with causality and, in particular, literature not successfully tackling the subject.
He does ignore many other approaches to the issue, especially parallel developments to tackle problems in fields that he specifically critiques. In other words: Pearl, next to being a great researcher, is also a showman who knows how to build a following.

The essence of the debate is this: Neither Pearl's framework, nor anyone else's capture all valid approaches to causal inference. One can construct cases in Rubin's framework that DAG can not solve and vice-versa. The downside to Pearl's approach is that it is - right now - more difficult to implement. The cases where DAG undoubtedly succeeds better than other approaches are, in a sense, unlikely to succeed as a practical research projects.

That being said, a great strength of such graphical models is that they allow quite sophisticated reasoning in several well-known simple but non-intuitive cases. Such reasoning otherwise requires an immense amount of experience and / or education on the pitfalls of causal inference. That is also a reason why I would like to see this framework taught more in schools.

All in all, as another great post in this thread has pointed out, much of the debate is in violent agreement on base issues. Once this issue transcends the egos involved, much progress will be made and that is, in my view, very exciting.
This. Keep in mind, they rotate lifeguards every 15 minutes, specifically because it's boring and hard to hold attention. It was negligent of Uber not to have some kind of countermeasure like this, even if the driver takes some responsibility.
How is NVIDIAs Linux driver hard to use? Are you referring just to the fact that using the driver means installing and maintaining more packages?
Please write some more about this, I think it would be very interesting to hear more about how you are still able to provide value to the business while being able to push back on scope creep and velocity. Does the guild encompass all of the programmers in the company?
Chinese defector virologist Dr Li-Meng Yan publishes report Covid-19 made in lab
Required reading on that subject: https://www.reddit.com/r/valve/comments/8zmp07/former_valve_...
Not really; taxation is compulsory. If you steal everything I own and distribute it to try to improve other people's lives, I don't suddenly have any kind of charitable moral high ground because of where my money went, and neither would I be complicit if it were used to hire puppy hitmen or whatever evildoers like to do these days. The end effect is similar, but intent matters.
New England's Dark Day
There's various liability schemes for civil suits to settle the issues of partial fault. The states vary in which one they use.
Isn't one using his extreme wealth for (what he sees as) the good of the people just the baseline amount of "not being selfish" required for not being a terrible person?

I think that one person is much worse at charity than a public organisation dedicated to it would be.

So, these people are (1) simply not being evil or extremely stupid (2) there are much better ways of having charity done. Therefore, I don't see why these people should be revered.
> I completely agree with the assertion that the grey area in between is where a bunch of people are going to wind up dead.

But will more people end up dead than in the scenario where we had no ‘self-driving’ cars at all?

Humans are much more accident prone than robots in all the research on this I’ve seen.
This is something I really like about the recent direction of JVM languages. It takes a bit for useful things to make their way into Java itself, but by the time they do they're well-shaken and we can see how they got used in practice.
Sorry, I guess i interpreted anonymous donation as a Truly Morally Selfless act, and the fact that we're talking about it now would be some weird flex.

But sure, if you put out a call for solicitiations when you announced you were giving it all away, you probably also need a big announcement when you're done or you'll be dealing with development officers all day every day.
No comment on her particular case, but interesting to think that buried in the End User License Agreement is fine print that says (to some effect):

"If you rely on our product for autonomous driving and accidentally kill someone, images from your car's internal cameras will be used against you in the court of public opinion, as well as the court of law."

Like, not sure this is something people who buy 1996 Toyota Camry really have to worry about.

https://images1.phoenixnewtimes.com/imager/u/blog/11494117/v...
My buddy too thought it was normal to easily pass out from too much cardio and eventually found out he had a serious mitral valve prolapse.
(minor clarification: not too wrong in the linked article, but definitely on the side of very wrong in those past statements)
> Once better jobs exist for workers, sweatshops should be disallowed

why do they need to be disallowed, if workers are given the freedom to pick their best option?
Even with filters, it annoys me from an environmental perspective that the default flow leads you into having them ship you the exact number of filters your house needs, every two months.

Do filters have a shelf life? If not, or if it's sufficiently long, I'd rather they just send me six filters once a year, instead of one every two months, or something like that. I get that some people might not have enough storage space to pre-order like that, but it's otherwise completely unnecessary to send one at a time.

(The only plus I can think of to the one-at-a-time model is that getting a new one in the mail is a nice reminder to replace the filter. But I also have this thing called a "calendar" that I can use.)
Upthread [0], you can find some notes and an explanation from one of the devs that they actively work around the GC, because the approach it uses just... Doesn't work for this kind of workload.

> This percentage can be configured by the GOGC environment variable or by calling debug.SetGCPercent. The default value is 100, which means that GC is triggered when the freshly allocated data is equal to the amount of live data at the end of the last collection period. This generally works well in practice, but the Pebble Block Cache is often configured to be 10s of gigabytes in size. Waiting for 10s of gigabytes of data to be allocated before triggering a GC results in very large Go heap sizes.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24485931
Text Recognition Simplified. Capture any text from your Mac's screen
R package "daggity" is excellent.

http://www.dagitty.net/
I hadn’t considered this before but you’re absolutely right. Driving is a continuous operation so it’s almost impossible to pick up without the prior context.
It's a good book, but some may be turned off by the first chapter or so that reads like he's trying to rub his victories into the faces of his academic adversaries. It had more than a little air of gloating to it, in my opinion, and the book would have been better without that. (Though he spent considerable time on the earlier precedents for his work, which I had previously thought was entirely novel.)
Your dichotomy may make sense in theory, but in practice where the average driver makes a fatal mistake at rate X, a level-4 autonomous vehicle with a failure rate Y<X (including when human override is required) is an win.
Checkout our open source ESP8266 dev board with 16MB flash
A few years ago I read an upsetting news story about a girl who was sexually abused for three years by her stepfather, up until the age of eleven or so. She was so traumatised by it that a lasting symptom was a fearful, hysterical reaction to sausage.

It was an upsetting, almost cartoonish detail in the story, but it might be helpful to you here. On a rational level she should not be afraid of sausage. But years of abuse meant that she was. It's sad, but understandable. It's just how trauma and conditioning work.

One doesn't need to be a victim of racism to empathise with the fact that it has a profound and traumatising impact on people. Maybe you know something about OP that I don't, but if you are right, and there's no reason for them to be talking about race in this instance, it's unlikely you'll persuade them with incredulity that they hold the point of view they do.
Ok, so I’ve read the comments here and from a business perspective, none of them really hit the right answer.

I noticed in your post you mention that your clients are really big companies. Which leads me to wonder how you haven’t seen a SOC2 request yet as it’s fairly prevalent among larger clientele.

The real answer here lies in what your offering and who your target client is. If they’re large clients, going through a SOC2 audit and compliance cert is more than worthwhile as you’ve likely been lucky so far in not needing it. You’re going to need it once you’ve hit that stage where you aren’t just selling demos to team leads anymore and actually negotiating contracts with legal departments.

I have 2 buddies that have built SAAS type solutions for enterprise (both ex enterprise engineers building solutions for the same jobs they left) that are solo and have gone through SOC2 because the clients they’re selling to require it.

The real answer to this is more about who your building for and selling to.

At the end of the day, it’ll be an annoying process, but not overly complicated for a 1-person company to go through. It’s largely documentation based, which most of that is easily c/p from a template all the overpriced consultants use. I don’t mean to downplay the integrity of the cert, it’s that the experience for just you isn’t going to be the compliance nightmare that it is for large teams of people that need to worry about door access control or group policy defaults.

As long as all of the underlining tools and platforms you use are also Compliant, you’re audit will be easier. Just plan to have to spend a TON of time in MS Word.
If you’re interested in learning more about causality, you might be interested in my blog series working through Pearls “Causal Inference in Statistics: A Primer”: https://github.com/DataForScience/Causality (Jupiter notebooks and links to blog posts)
How do you define and determine whether a consumer "chose on price" or "chose on safety features"? Surely consumers consider both the price and the desirable features when they purchase a car, just like for every other purchase. I suspect that most consumers wouldn't buy a $100 car than has a 50% chance of exploding every time you enter it, and most consumer wouldn't buy a $500,000 car that was 5% safer than a $40,000 car.
> I think it’s useful not to label this person’s job “driver”, but instead “fall guy”.

Or "sacrificial part" -- designed to break first to protect the rest of the system. The NTSB report (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...) is an interesting read, by the way.
Why? It was his money and he could have bought diamonds and shot them into the sun if he wanted. Instead it seems that the vast majority of the spending was a net positive to society and will do some good.

Yes, there was probably a more impactful way of spending it from a humanitarian perspective, but presumably there wasn't a more satisfying way to spend it for Feeney.

Nearly everything that everyone does is a negligent homicidal waste if you view it through the lens of opportunity cost. Unless you are living the life of an acetic, working every living hour, and donating it all to charity, you personally are hundreds if not thousands of people a year.
What giant advances has Elon Musk made in maths/science?
> Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?

We have to assume that in the given scenario the other person needed it more and nobody else was stepping up.

> Why praise sacrifice at all?

You don't even have to praise the concept of sacrificing in general to praise caring enough to help those less fortunate even when helping has a cost. The alternative is for nobody to help except those for whom money no longer has any meaning, ie billionaires, and I don't see Jeff Bezos building homes for the homeless.

> Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it. Maximizing positive impact should be the goal.

The first sentence is false. Donation is zero-sum in absolute dollar terms, no money is gained or lost, but money _does_ have diminishing utility to the individual, so the raised person can gain more than the lowered person loses. So a person can sacrifice AND maximize positive impact.

For what it's worth, I think the right approach is to eat the billionaires instead of waiting for the person with $25 to sacrifice even further for the person with $5. Clearly eating all of the billionaires would maximize positive impact.
This is exactly right.

This job is a wage against a (very nasty) lottery ticket, to sit there to absorb the legal fallout for decisions made far away.
It is hard to imagine they weren’t aware that their job involved doing nothing (but pay attention to the road).

I’d be inclined to give them a pass if they were looking at the road and just inattentive (because that’s expected, like you say), but I find it hard to sympathize with someone watching a show on their phone, explicitly ignoring their one job.
Well, no. My claim is that donating to individuals doing work in the field is almost always a better path for individual donors than working through megacharities, or even through charity aggregators like this one.

For large-scale work of the type you describe, family foundations do a pretty good job. Gates, Schmidt, CZI, etc. all have exceptionally competent staffs who are able to take in grant applications, sort through those, and support quality projects in a way in which you or I can't. Program managers are top people in the field hired to rigorously evaluate projects.

They have billions of dollars to throw around too. If you want to fight malaria in Ghana, be Bill Gates. Or if it's something you're passionate about, take your next family vacation in Ghana, understand the people, context, and culture, and THEN donate to good people or organizations you know there. Combine your vacation with your giving.

What family foundations don't have are the cost structure to support individuals in the field or small organizations. If there is a good project in a school in Ghana, there is no way they are raising funding through Gates/CZI/Schmidt/etc. On the other hand, if you see a problem and spend money to fix it, you'll fix it. If you see an organization in need of resources and donate them, they'll have them. It's really not rocket science to do that.
Snowflake completes largest-ever software IPO
Maybe not a prerequisite, but certainly necessary to prevent certain type of long-tailed events. For example, I can anticipate by the look of a neighborhood that it's more likely that there would be jaywalking and poor infrastructure, I can feel that the driver riding ahead is drunk or on drugs and keep my distance etc.

It remains to be seen if a automated drivers can make-up for increased risk in such scenarios with good performance in areas they excel, such as reaction time, highly distributive attention, near perfect physical predictions and decisions made on that basis, vehicle-to-vehicle coordination and vehicle to road communication etc.

What is clear though is that any practical system in the near term (non-general AI) will approach driving quite differently than a human driver. Hence the jury is still out of lidar vs camera-only approaches (Waymo vs Tesla).
What mechanism actually removes the content? I didn't see that in the lua or repo.
I suspect what we are missing is has to do with IP ownership. To greatly simplify, guilds had a straightforward way of handling the IP of the trade or craft -- it was secret and you couldn't tell outsiders anything and every tradesman was committed to a considerable term of service (decades) dedicated to the trade. Trades were fairly closed communities. You couldn't steal the IP, the IP you generated couldn't be stolen from you.

We have greater freedom in our lives today and lack the institution of bondage to the company/craft (remember that a guild effectively represented both things). It might be that trusts are an effective way to reintroduce meaningful ownership. Any IP a developer generates, they retain a certain residual interest in and right to; but it is administered by the guild (a trust management company) and on favorable terms since it is assumed to be the result of use of other IP managed by the guild.
We've started a co-op like this to build cross platform spatial web apps (MMOs, metaverses, online virtual storefronts, etc). The project is MIT licensed but we're going after big contracts, especially trying to fill voids in the events and retail space. While things are being developed, everyone is living on a bit of runway contributed by one of the partners to make the project a reality.

If you're interested, code is here: https://github.com/xr3ngine/xr3ngine

Happy to discuss more about structure on Discord or w/e
I guess I know what to expect seeing being posted on Facebook soon.
What else would licenses be if not contracts?

The could be something something else: documents granting you certain permissions and denying others in a unilateral way, whether you agree or not.

"Contract" could be defined in such a way that such documents are not covered under definition. If a contract is some agreement that two parties negotiate and sign off on, then a copyright license isn't a contract.
Which makes sense when you think about it for a moment. Being an expert Java developer doesn't make you good at--or necessarily even interested in becoming good at--legalese.
I think your claim is far more theoretical in nature. In a vacuum, sure, fewer deaths is better. In the real world, where people aren't satisfied unless someone can be held accountable in a clear way, we are far better off with humans driving.
> The driver was hired to perform a task that was almost guaranteed to result in a deadly injury while some driver was behind the wheels.

Every airline pilot is hired to perform a task that is guaranteed to result in a deadly injury while some pilot is behind the [yoke/sidestick].

Every Registry/Department of Motor Vehicles each weekday grants licenses to civilians which are guaranteed to result in a deadly injury while some of them are behind the wheel.

Every commercial truck driver is hired to perform a task...

That can't possibly be the standard by which we object.
If you had to assign percentage contributions to decision-making by the Clinton Administration regarding western intervention in Kosovo, where would you put them:

% decision due to horrified peers and constituents pressuring the President to do something to stop another potential genocide

% decision due to Neoliberal puppetmasters playing 3D chess
Very cool!

I currently use adobe acrobat to make pdfs accessible (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/pdf).

Are you planning on building in accessibility tools?
Please use HN’s reply feature to reply at HN. I do not reply to edit-replies as you’re using. I view them as a form of conversational warfare.
I think that’s what the extreme elements of various groups want you to believe. Creating Shibboleths out of so many things is yet another way to drive people apart. Fact is that many people have no idea what Gates does, nor do they care - regardless of which US political party they support.
The main takeaway message here is that the French court system is stupendously inefficient, taking nine years to figure out whether a case lands under counterfeiting or contracts.
I’m not the parent comment, but many undesirable things are not caught by the common carbon water filters.

Specifically it does very little for bacteria, viruses, and other organic compounds.
The only reason why motor vehicles require licensed operation is because of their extraordinary capacity to kill people. That is why it is regarded as a privilege and not a right.

The reason why Uber had a human monitor, one required to have a valid motor vehicle license, is because of the potential lethal outcomes. You learn all of this when preparing to test for a license. It doesn't stop being one's responsibility to be a vigilant driver because it's convenient to do something else. Even considering the general stupidity levels of American drivers, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It's pretty easy to find other sources that cover the same survey that is shown in the graphic of the grandparent's comment. (Business Insider, for example: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/republicans-bill-gates-co...)

Keep in mind this survey was in May and I'd be willing to bet the numbers have grown, as I've watched QAnon grow, multiple mainstream Republicans have embraced them (and won primaries) and the Vice President was slated to attend a fundraiser put on by a QAnon group until days of pressure forced him to cancel just days ago.

I've watched HN downplay gamergate. I've watched it downplay climate change (until recently, finally). I've watched it downplay anti-intellectualism at every turn, whether it be flat-eartherism, anti-vaxxers, or qanon, there's this purveying sense of "it will all work out", and that's just completely out-of-touch with reality.

Here's a fun one for some background on QAnon, and how the rest of the world perceives it/us right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7YPZxqJDYQ

And for a complete understanding of how Flat Eartherism proud anti-illectualism has DIRECTLY LED US TO QANON, this video is invaluable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44 It spells it out step-by-step and I'd love to hear someone try to respond to it.

I haven't even expressed any of my own political feelings but I'm sick of watching people use ovenmits to talk about the fact that the anti-intellecutual, pro-conspiratorial actors are by and large self-identified as "conservative", or "Republican" or "pro-Trump".

We can't keep acting like this isn't the case. All of these issues, politics, conspiracy theories, online echo chambers in the time of COVID? These are all issues of identity to a certain segment of the population. And acting like "public discourse" is going to sort it out, or ignoring the realities of the situation just isn't going to help.

Just in the last few days: "Antifa are lighting fires in Oregon" (this was repeated, inaccurately, by law enforcement official in OR, as well), there's some new USPS SMS phishing scam that is now supposedly tied to child trafficking according to QAnoners. It's fucking mental illness, I'm sorry, I'm tired of tiptoeing around it.
Nice add asshat.
Link goes directly to there subscription page.