skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>This argument is fallacious.

Re-read my comment. My point is that fault is distributed sufficiently that accountability seems to evaporate. This is a systemic or organizational problem. Anti-cheating software is just the form this specific instance has taken.

>Your argument assumes that “blaming the gun” is condoning the users

Well until now you weren't throwing even the slightest bit of shade in their direction.

>and this is a false dilemma.

And you've created a false middle ground.

>Imagine how dangerous air travel would still be if, after an accident, investigators looked for only one cause to blame, and tacitly condoned anything else they came across in their investigations.

What's the difference between "dangerous harmful cheating software" and "cheating software that's being shoehorned into use cases in which it was never expected to be used"?

That's why you don't blame the (metaphorical) gun. Everything is just tools.

The FAA doesn't go off half cocked about the evils of grade-2 fasteners because once upon a time an engineer thought a grade-2 would be enough when he should have used a grade-5. I can't believe I have to defend (invasive to the point of being unethical) anti cheating software but these sorts of software tools are just tools and can be used either wisely or poorly. The software doesn't know or care how it's being used. In an industrial setting they can (and are, same underlying tech different companies) be used to design more effective interfaces to reduce errors (which I think we would all agree is a net positive contribution to the world).
I use Here maps along with OsmAnd and they work fine for me. But I'm in EU and OSM data is quite solid here though.
On the other hand, they do exist as a separate case, and have instructions that treat them as an individual register.

There is precedent for all this too.

Take the 6809, having 8 bit A and B accumulators. These can be addressed as D, a 16 bit register.

D is not generally counted as it's own register because the D addressing does not point to anything new.

A and B are counted as two registers.

If somehow D brought new bits, say it was 24 bits long, then it would need to be counted.
Not to mention the fact that two years ago they took it from 45% to >60%. If they can continue improving, even with an exponential decay in rate of improvement, this is certainly a stunning example of technological disruption.
Fair points, but I think we can be 100% certain that Apple has modelled this and made their architectural decisions based on this modelling - especially as they are no the 10th or so iteration of their designs.
You missed the actual outstanding question in their comment:

> the outstanding question ... is going to be how good is the confidence metric at telling the user to trust or not trust the results.
By this metric, nothing has been ever solved in natural sciences. So this is not a useful metric.
> Think about all those people who always worked more than everybody else and sacrificed everything just to fail.

> But always remember, romanticizing hard work only does good for society but very rarely for the individual.

If you dont think hard work does good for the individual, then you are not only mistaken but most likely trying to justify your laziness more than anything else. And if you think the input size of your labor has to be proportional to the output size of success/failure, then you´ve completely misunderstood the relationship between labor and success.

Hard work on its own is insufficient to success - there are many other factors required (timing, capital, support/network, etc.) - yet it is required for success because having all the other factors come together without hard work to bind them leads to abject failure most often. And sure, you can talk about the few exceptions to the rule that got lucky, we can all envy those. But unless you are one those people who got lucky, you have no better strategy available to you if you want to succeed.

Besides, hard work has an insane amount of benefits to it even if failure is the outcome. You learn new things all the time, you connect with people that may become your greatest supporters in the future, you grow as a person and most importantly when you look in the mirror you come to respect yourself because you choose to bear a burden that few are willing to. Most people dont take risks, most people dont work hard, and most people would rather smoke weed and chill on a couch rather than work on something that will enrich their lives be it financially or otherwise. Hard work is the only reliable strategy available for the average person to become a better version of themselves and with that create a better future for themselves AND society.

So no, hard work does not "rarely" do good for the individual. It most often does good for the individual. The probelm with your statement is that you are equating "good" with "success" (mostly financial) and those two things are very very different from each other.
Hooli Chat
No I meant actually what I meant. Did you actually read the paper itself, which was supposed to be debunking the experiment? You probably should:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761876166...

It does not debunk anything, the effect does not vanish, it just diminshes to 1/3 of what was originally calimed. Which means, that within a single socieconomical group, the effect will still be quite noticeable.
>"Even though the threads don't do anything, just running this on my MacBook forces it to reboot after a few seconds. This makes it impractical to have massive concurrency with threads."

That is a problem of your MacBook. I can run thousands of threads when testing some servers sustainably and with no problems on my Windows and Linux laptop, never mind desktop and real servers. So it is pretty much practical. Whether it makes sense pretty much depends on what are you doing in particular. Your conclusion means zilch without context.
I had a Romanian stats teacher that sneered at Americans' preoccupation with fairness. She would say, "Why do you use this word fair? Life is not fair. It is a useless idea."
I've taken many personality tests, have a lot of experience building tools in the psychology space, and can say without a doubt, their ~10 question personality test is incredible. (I'm hoping it's adaptive, because I'd hate to think it was just that appropriate for me by chance.)

To expand a bit why that's meaningful: Baselines are the most important part of beginning a training regimen, and if you have junk baselines, your goals and exercises will most likely follow. This baseline is unlike any other, and I believe quite thoughtful. So, I'd venture to say the tips from 2mins a day will be just as potent.
No one should pay for it. It's within the margin of acceptability. The prime priority was to get lots of money to lots of people in the US to keep the economy going. The secondary priority was to ensure that very little money disappears into the ether. The first was met. The second was met.

It's a common principle in engineering too. Cost is monotonically increasing in failure rate, and (1-failure_rate) is asymptotic in cost, so you always make systems with failure rate > 0. The actual rate you pick is dependent on the constraints you operate under.

I used to think this was a non-engineer/engineer difference but in the past few years I've noticed it's a mindset that's actually independent of that. It's a risk modeling vs binary modeling difference. Everyone who has to make meaningful decisions does it to a large degree (engineers, architects, doctors, lawyers, assembly line workers in Andon).

I don't think I'd ever want to work with binary-modelers.
As long as you don't have lots of C or Cpp dependencies, Python packaging is apparently totally fine.

Unfortunately I don't live in that world :(
To me the biggest value octave gives me is its ease of use. When you are trying to learn a new mathematical concept and are manipulating matrices and vectors, Octave/ Matlab is a breeze. Compared to other languages that require you to call the `dot()` function.

Additionally compared to python's matplotlib, Octave / Matlab's plotting syntax is much simpler. Not faster but its functional.

In short, its a great educational tool, prototyping mathematical / engineering models. Bad for production use where you are using the code base to actually solve an engineering / science problem.
That's kinda a big deal.
Determining what a protein structure does might be even harder than folding. Right now we can't really do that ab initio, you have determine the activity in the lab and then look at the structure. And that allows you to potentially identify this motif in other proteins.

If someone produces an AI that you give a sequence and it tells you what the protein does exactly, I'd be extremely impressed. I don't see that happening soon.

The specifics matter a lot here. We can often determine rough functions for subdomains by homology alone. But that really doesn't tell you the full story, it only gives you some hints on what that protein actually does.
Hunting Down the Ruby 'Inplace' Bug
It's pretty helpful for the average human. Most people can't blast out 15 moves of theory correctly for every possible opening, so you'd avoid a lot of bad middle games or losses to traps.

It probably isn't as helpful to a grandmaster, but that's true of engine analysis in general
They trigger an immune response, priming the immune system to be ready for the virus, preventing or limiting infection and disease.

I'm not sure what information beyond that will actually be received and comforting to a lay audience that is skeptical.
What does that compensation have to do with whether nesting of level 3 is fundamentaly wrong code or not?
Two years ago, after DeepMind submitted its first set of predictions to CASP (Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction), Mohammed AlQuraishi, an expert in the field, asked, "What just happened?"

https://moalquraishi.wordpress.com/2018/12/09/alphafold-casp...

Now that the problem of static protein structure prediction has been solved (prediction errors are below the threshold that is considered acceptable in experimental measurements), we can confidently answer AlQuraishi's question:

Protein Folding just had its "ImageNet moment."

In hindsight, AlphaFold v1 represented for protein structure prediction in 2018 what AlexNet represented for visual recognition in 2012.
Mistakes are not always crimes. Certainly not just because it happens to be a government employee making the mistake.

How exactly does an agency rushing to comply with a directive from Congress reach the level of "this structure of governance [which matches the structure in almost every other developed country in the world] is failing?"
I agree with this. I did quite enjoy the article.
How about sending it to actual Americans. I know few people who actually got checks.
There was a service I tried for something similar that had this obnoxious "AI" interface that would pretend to be a secretary, telling you about upcoming meetings in several emails a week.

I can only imagine they started with something like this and brought in a VC to infect it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having vision, but sometimes it feels like people are just chomping at the bit to get the next "How I got to X million AAR" article. When even a few dollars a month would make them plenty happy relative to how much less work it would be.
So long Slack. It was great while it lasted.

I have yet to see anything that got better because it involved Salesforce.
Contribute patches for all the blockers mentioned towards native homebrew in this post?
I have no reason to be there. Came there for the "startup scene" but realised after a while how weak, unoriginal and underpaid most of it is
So what? The DNA only codes for the RNA and amino acid sequence. Structure determination is yet another topic. When we determine the protein structure we already know the sequence. Neither DeepMind has to look at the DNA to train their DNN.
In this serie we will see several symptoms and situations that makes us doubt the quality of our developments.

We will present possible solutions.

Most are just clues.

They are no hard rules.
I was wondering the same thing. But I also wonder if having good guesses makes the x-ray crystallography and other experiments to verify a given protein easier/cheaper/quicker? I don't know enough about the actual techniques to have an informed opinion but I would think it would be helpful.
How Can a Punch Knock You Out?
Fair enough, that calculation is still a bit off if they used 128 cores (16x instead of 8x). Not that it really matters...
Start small, stay constant and make it a habit to improve: chances are you’ll end up a better leader than if you try to “sprint rush” your learning on this topic.
It’s also crazy times to live in, people spend a lot of time on their screen. We couldn’t resign to designing a learning app that would make users spend even more time away from their team. Learn a bit, and spend more time applying what you learn with real humans
I take the IFR (infection fatality rate) for age < 65, and multiply by 10 to get a worst case of IFR+long term harm. Note that we're talking about severe long term harm - such as autoimmune disease etc. Not "it took me 3 months to recover" stories.

For example, IFR(age<65) in geneva[0] is 0.0045%. multiply by 10 to include also long term harm, you get 0.045%.

[0] https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099...
New monolith identical to Utah desert monolith appears On Romanian Hillside
OK, but what about the "absolutely remarkable" part?
Those were the requirements for training it.
According to this site, Slack operated at a $138.9 MUSD loss last year.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/012616/how-d....

And Slack themselves are expecting something similar for 2020.

https://slack.com/intl/en-nl/blog/news/slack-announces-recor....

People who actually know how to reason about business finances will elaborate, I'm sure.

What I'm wondering is, what are some realistic scenarios for how a new owner will pursue more aggressive revenue generation for Slack?
Here's a source from CNBC if people are doubting the tweet, "Additionally, there was one Covid-19-related death in the study that occurred in the placebo group, according to the company (Moderna)." https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/30/moderna-covid-vaccine-is-94p...
You can't just multiply the cost for 1 person by the number of people in the population. If it's mass produced it will be a lot cheaper.

e.g. if you want to pay a chemist to synthesise Aspirin in a lab for you it will be very expensive. But it costs pennies in the store.
See also the piece in Nature about the topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4
https://live.sympy.org/

You can play with it here! (Not this latest release though, apparently)
A lot of non-Americans pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems without ever being able to collect from those contributions.
I take it you're doing a lot of greenfield projects with the latest versions of Python then. I've encountered issues with Setuptools as recently as ~3 months ago:

https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/2352

I've also had to play the pip version pinning game a few times in the past.
If you're near an Apple store, and if you're comfortable with the local covid risks.
Agreed. I was in the boat of if it's working, don't change it and just using pip and setuptools over the years.

Switched to poetry for one of my libraries as a test a few weeks ago, noticeably more painless!

One other thing I liked about it is the community, I distinctly remember digging into the setuptools source code once to find something that was undocumented. With poetry, that was one Discord message away.
We’ll know ten years from now
No I do not.

Plus, I don't see a reason to attempt to mind read. If you write something angry for fun, the result is angry text. It is ok to interpret it as such.

Ok asked us to contrast two arguments. That is what I did.
Well, it's not. Nature does not have a committee sorry. Proteins are delicate "machines" where even a a small change in the sequence (and thus the 3D structure) as small as a few amino-acids would change effectively the structure and the function of it. On top of that, proteins are dynamic beasts. In any case, it's a great advance, but DM, as many companies likes a little bit too much to tout its own horn.
I gave a more involved example in a sibling comment, but I need fast, interactive plotting for large datasets; not necessarily the prettiest. And as another user mentioned, MATLAB currently has a lock on fast scientific plotting. It really is in a league of its own for now.
Also maybe worth mentioning the PyPI team has 1-to-1 UX feedback/study for `pip` https://www.ei8fdb.org/thoughts/2020/03/pip-ux-study-recruit.... I'd be more interested opting in for open web survey (question and answer field) though. Nevertheless, great to see they're open to user feedback in forms other than Git issues.
All of the Apple products that have achieved broader success have been derided by ‘Alpha Geeks.’ The original candy coloured iMacs, iPods, iPhones, iPads, were all attacked by geeks.

If Microsoft is less successful in the home market now, it is because Windows is seen by many consumers as too techy, and too difficult.
It's an important distinction that is often obscured by the number of products that aren't professional equipment/software, and don't have this kind of attitude, but affix the word "Pro" to their consumer product line for marketing reasons.
The forward folding problem lets you determine structures from a known genetic sequence. So for example you could very quickly sequence the genome of a virus and figure out how it worked much faster than current methods allow.

The reverse folding problem lets you specify a structure and then make a genetic sequence to produce it. For example you could look at this virus to see how it infects its host, then design a custom protein to act as an anti-body stopping it, which is a capability we don't currently have.

Forward folding is certainly useful, but reverse folding would be revolutionary.
Homebrew does not control the software that it helps distribute. There are hundreds of pieces that need to work together for this to work, so Homebrew developers can at most prepare their infrastructure, which I don't think is a big issue here. Moreover, the number of developers with access to an M1 chip until last month was very small. For most of these people, the M1 transition process is just starting.
I will agree that certain biases are almost certainly baked into the software and that they will disadvantage anyone (and any situation) that isn't considered 'normal' by the software's creators.

If your argument is that they should be paying a person to sit here and watching a class of students while they're doing the tests, I'm not against that. They probably should.

But humans will always attempt to make their own work easier and less time-consuming, and this is a tool for that. Eventually, something like this is going to exist for distance learning. This is unlikely to be the final configuration of that tool, but it's a step on that road, no matter how much people don't like it.

What's needed are proper controls on the usage of the tool. And proper training. And proper oversight.

If your argument is for something else instead of the above, then I don't know what your solution would be. "Don't have school" and "don't worry about cheating" aren't acceptable.
Cyber Monday deals on books for developers
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing -i.e. there is a solution for hunger, but it's not a solved problem.
Salesforce will have their sales teams push it alongside their other offerings, raise prices for those who want to use it, kill the free plan, and trim any fat (or strongly encourage cost savings measures, depending on how much autonomy Slack will continue to have post-acquisition) not needed to operate the product. I have no doubt they'll be able to make it profitable, even at the loss of market share (free users and price sensitive paying orgs).
> SOME lithium batteries are recyclable

I interpreted the original quote "Batteries are mostly recyclable currently, full stop" to mean "all batteries are mostly (i.e., >=80%) recyclable" i.e., even lith-ion batteries are ~80% recyclable and 80% constitutes "mostly". The original quote is confusing, and I think you might be interpreting it as "most batteries are recyclable" or perhaps "most lith-ion batteries are recyclable". In whatever case, I wanted to jump in and clarify.
That project also has code for converting from quite a few formats (https://coremltools.readme.io/docs) to CoreML.

Having that (3-clause BSD-licensed) code will help in writing the reverse converters.
That's fair. I wonder how many dev houses at the time had amigas just for the art (as some companies do macs now), or if they kept uniform hardware and used the DOS version.
One Danish newspaper covered this when the checks arrived earlier in the year. The issue they focused on was the fact that the checks are basically worthless. Most Danish banks had no idea how to handle them.

Part of the problem is that checks where fased out almost four years ago. To handle the checks the banks would need an American partner bank, but it’s still more trouble that most banks are willing to deal with and they aren’t obligated to cash in checks anymore.
I had this thought recently--is there a class of website where being being unstylish and looking like it came out of an earlier era of web design gives the site more credibility?
Tendies, the ‘Anti-Incels,’ Roleplay Failed Manhood Without Shame
Not sure where the FUD is (that's the third time in this thread that you've thrown the "FUD" accusation, just saying). Purism does not publish manufacturing files, with a specific claim that they want to prevent their product from being copied. They say so themselves, in the link you provided.

There's very little you can do with electrical schematics alone. It's probably just enough for someone to claim a product is "open sourced" while keeping it proprietary for all intents and purposes.
Just to add to this whole "It's not solved! Yes it is!" discussion. Note that

>According to Professor Moult, a score of around 90 GDT is informally considered to be competitive with results obtained from experimental methods.

So if we go by >= 90 as solved:

>In the results from the 14th CASP assessment, released today, our latest AlphaFold system achieves a median score of 92.4 GDT overall across all targets.

they solved for their targets, but

>Even for the very hardest protein targets, those in the most challenging free-modelling category, AlphaFold achieves a median score of 87.0 GDT (data available here).

They basically admit they still haven't "solved" it for "most challenging free-modelling category"

Take that as you will, not sure how useful the ">= 90 is solved" criteria is since they call it "informal" themselves.
>I dont know about the jogging prior to bed.

Really easy jogging, it saturates your blood with oxygen, and because your body just burns the carbohydrates you can sleep much better afterwards....but really just 10 minutes easy jogging.
It’s not really 2 minutes, they basically give you each day a small scenario based on what you signed up to combined with additional reading/viewing materials such as articles and lectures.

The scenarios are actually quite good.

Nothing here is super innovative but they give you a good structure/instructions on how to deal with certain events which at least to me has been valuable.

Another value of the app is that if you are dealing with a situation you might be included to go back to it and look for similar scenarios and tips that if nothing else forces you to think about the situation more carefully rather than respond immediately.

As far as all the pseudo science and life coaching junk goes this doesn’t seem to try to trick anyone the scenarios also don’t necessarily have good or bad answers just different ways of dealing with common issues.