skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wild accusation:

Follow the money. There are a lot of people making a lot of money off of private prisons, generally in red states.
Sounds rapey only if you are ignoring the fact that people have a right to consent or not consent to sexual things that happen to them.
Because Republicans don't need 50% of the support. They need way less because of imbalances built into the system. If your core support still does not support legalizing cannabis then it's not worth it to do it.
Valley billionaires used to build, now they mostly extract value by using their financial leverage to starve out the competition, operating at a loss and screwing the workers in the process. Their money is not made on profit margins, instead it is based on ballooning valuations, propped up by turning other peoples money into artificial growth.

Raising billion dollar funds and living off of the carry while you pump and dump the next monopoly is a much better life than "building".

Even the "builders" like Google and Apple are moving away from building and are starting to embrace rent seeking.
Is this true? Is urban commuter traffic a significant contributor to carbon emissions (compared with carbon-based power, shipping goods across the world, etc)?
This article is basically about how that entire part of the recycling chain is shutting down because it's cheaper to just manufacture new.

Regardless, even when they were shipping them out, the environmental cost of shipping and repurposing was always higher than the cost of just using what you had.
What do worker protections have to do with taxes? Again, what is stopping California Democrats from putting into place similar workplace protections as exist in the EU? In Germany for example, it's illegal for worker's to be surveilled using spyware apps that are permitted for use by every business in California. Why are Democrats incapable of addressing this?

Housing and healthcare are more difficult problems, but ones that have, again, been solved in just about every other developed country, including many with smaller economies than that of California. Hypothetical capital flight is just another among a litany of excuses used to justify their failure.
I look for what comes after "the key here is ...". Indication of where the key lies means nothing to me if the key is nowhere to be found in a video/article. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".

Most content is useless mostly not because of malice, but simply because people who put content about what interests me mostly never have worked on actual real world projects. They'll write about experiment tracking and ML project management and will just snatch the marketing brochure of whatever library pushed out by some company at a summit, never having used that library for actual work, heck never having run the getting started, to notice the cracks. They'd have relevant content if they had. Oh, well. Nobody "got time" for that, need to churn out a Medium post/YouTube video.
I share some of the same issues, I have found that ERB templates work better than HAML for lots of data attributes.

Basecamp seems to use liberal newlines / spacing when creating html tags (like one line per attribute) so that might help.

Server-side "component partials" still don't have a great story, but view_component is one emerging option.
> O(30 minutes)

So, O(1)?
Right. I still prefer terse help text from the command line, and more in-depth in the man pages.

I find commands with copious -h output and having to pipe that into a pager or using scroll back a far worse UX than just opening up a man page that’s easily searchable / scrollable.
Reading your other comments you say you have a PhD in biophysics so yeah you know a lot more about this than me, so I'm interested - are there reasons to believe it isn't just a matter of scale (obviously we are talking about exponential scaling here aka completely infeasible but you know)? The field of quantum computing has also tied a lot of its value to efficient hamiltonian simulation and what that can do for biology & material science.
> she submitted the paper for approval right at deadline. If that's true, that is poorly handled.

That's not poorly handled on her part. If she'd submitted it late, that would be her problem. If getting a submission right at the last valid time to make a submission (the deadline) is an issue then it's a problem caused by whoever set the deadline, not the submitter.
The house isn't the branch of government holding up the stimulus. McConnell has been sitting on a stimulus bill since July.
Where is this from? Googling "How will people know the mannequin is female?" has only one result and it's this comment.
> With pittances.

Bill Gates is giving away the vast majority of his wealth

You don't know what Elon Musk will do with his wealth, but given his track record -- probably something good for humanity
I think it's funny because on the Dem side of the house the opinion is that these things are pushed by Republicans to have something to hold over everyone and target "undesirables".

Who actually wants this?
Same advice as when using Tailwind CSS, or anything of this sort: refactor your application-specific front-end parts at the point of generation, into purposefully named units. For Rails, that means shifting your boilerplate into helpers, partials, and partial layouts. If you're ready for a sharper leading edge, look at ViewComponent.

Once the boundaries of your server-side parts for something are congruent to the client-side parts, you have reached the nirvana state of wondering, "can I extract & package these into a library and share it?".

This is general advice for all development but particularly and specifically true for Rails devs.
And all of that needs to be weighed against the huge worldwide negative PR resulting from the payout, the global walkout of tens of thousands of employees expressing their anger with the decision, and the depressive effect on hiring that has for specific targeted groups. You can't just analyze the payout in isolation; you have to analyze its sum total effects. Turns out, the payment wasn't worth it. Google has said as much and won't be doing it again in the future.

> If the general developer public thinks that Android was acquired for too little, then we will all be reluctant to sell our projects to Google. That's the whole point.

I'm still not understanding the point here. If you agree to sell your company for price $X, it doesn't matter who you're selling to; you've sold for that amount. If you think you should get more than $X, then don't sell to Google, or anyone else for that matter, for only $X. If you want less up front but more money over time as part of an incentive structure, then negotiate for that as part of the acquisition (which Andy Rubin did do and was paid out for). All of this is independent from a severance payout fully 15 years after the acquisition.
It's been pretty incredible to watch the transformation honestly. I can't recall what post it was earlier that made it pretty bare. I think it was his reinterpretation of "things that can't be said" to be the exact opposite of speaking truth to power, but instead was along the lines of "people in power are having to deal with consequences of their actions that their money can't save them from. And that's bad." Yeah and people without money/power also have to deal with the consequences of our actions. That's a normal facet of life.

All the above is very loose of what he said and I honestly stopped paying attention to his posts and barely remember the details now. Someone else likely can make many corrections to what I wrote above. But honestly the plight of the billionaire gets even less empathy from me right now given what people are living through in 2020.
Americans don't make laws (or approve judges), Senators do. <16% of the US population elects 50 senators.
It is democratic, just not the sort one might expect. It’s a democracy of the states. That’s by design. The House is an approximate democracy of the people in the states (with some weighting so that the most populous states don’t have a complete monopoly) and the senate is a democracy of the states. Together they form an approximate republic of the country’s opinion... in an ideal world.
The idea is you render the html as is. The data attributes take care of the interactive parts, with the js scripts loaded after the page renders (as opposed to render html within js that executes on load with, the reactjs render() call).
I agree, that's a terrible deal.
This is exactly how I feel; protein folding is almost chaotic in the sense that tiny differences in specific atomic locations end up having huge functional impacts, which is completely unlike, say, neural machine translation, where a slightly garbled translation is still intelligible for the most part. I don't quite see how this approach to protein folding helps if you can't actually be sure about the predicted structure's functionality without doing the expensive experimental verification.
> Consider - the children of musical prodigies are likely to be more musical then average

Is that true though?
You made a big claim, without backing, to support your other claim.
As with traditional newspapers, lately if you examine a topic you know something about, the entry is fundamentally misleading.

However, the reasons for the discrepancy are different. Many articles are defended by petty tyrants, against improvement by people who know better than they do, but have less free time to spend un-reverting work. Often enough the tyrants are self-righteous tenured or emeritus professors who imagine themselves holding back the deluge as they enforce interpretations they picked up decades ago and have not kept up on.
The government is capable of multi-tasking. There are talks going on for continuing stimulus. Vaccines are now approved by the CDC and will roll out shortly. Plus, state & local governments are continuing to provide updates on the status of their hospitals.

COVID-19 is still a dedicated category on Google News, and other news sites. Nobody is ignoring it.
I assume you mean "partisan"?

It's because the people who want it will still vote for you if you keep it criminalized. But a significant number of the ones who want it to stay criminalized will totally write you off if you decriminalize it.

In the US, how motivated people are is usually even more important than how many of them there are. Combine that fact with the electoral college and gerrymandering, and there is a constant threat of minority rule.

EDIT: Private prisons. Can't believe I forgot about that. Everyone else who replied has got the main reason nailed.
There is a pre-requisite article that is missing from all these how to learn better: how to change the way you learn. The way we learn is like a habit, and by someone telling us this is the new way to learn is like someone telling to to break that habit because is good for you. We all will regress to the habit eventually unless that person has a way to break that habit of learning
Moving Away from UUIDs (2018)
Just about any modern book on QM interpretation will tell you this, though not in so many words. (They won't necessarily endorse this point of view, but they will tell you about it.) Here is my take on it:

http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf

(Or the movie version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc )

(These are now a wee bit dated, but still defensible.)

For something written by an actual physicist I recommend anything by Tim Maudlin (he's a Bohmian, but his pedagogy is without peer) or David Z. Alberts, "Quantum Mechanics and Experience."

UPDATE: There's also https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616
Is this journalist untrustworthy?
People have so many misconceptions about the measures in Sweden! Some are much stricter than elsewhere!
Since my project doesn't use this, you could say... it has no Hope.
No I’m saying not many COTS access points can spoof MAC addresses.

Windows can act as a hot spot, but there’s group policies to solve that.

I don’t think whitelisting is a solve-all, but it’s not easy to work around for unsophisticated actors.
The unfortunate reality is that most people don’t have a choice. If they refuse the work, they’re fired because it’ll be easy to find someone who will do the work even during off-hours.
Yes, often even intentionally to reduce the changes of a bill passing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_amendment
So are you suggesting that Yann has more expertise on what you're working on now (which I know, and would consider to be an ML subfield in the same vein as Timnit's), and therefore would defer to his expertise when he says things that show nothing more than an undergraduate level of the topic?

Because I'm only a dilettante in the AI ethics space (and admittedly ML as a whole), and I can describe the flaws in Yann's reasoning. Blind deference of that level isn't rational.
The header image really makes it look like the secret to quieter drones is getting someone to carry the drone around :P
Another academic professor trying to undermine something that just makes their entire way of doing things look stupid, that's all there is.

When the human genome was sequenced another entrepreneur came in (Venter), said "You guys are morons to spend billions over decades, let me show how an actual smart team would do it" and bet them to it in a fraction of time and cost. Yet the consortium that spent billions on the human genome project still got congratulated. What's ironic is that when they said they sequenced the human genome they still had as many asterisks to that statement as this broad DeepMind statement has. In fact, the sequencing of the human genome claim was probably more disingenuous than DeepMind because, and this is important, they didn't make up this definition - the CASP organizers did. This team just met a pre defined standard as what's accepted as "solving of protein folding" and this brilliant team met this challenge.

Academics calling this hyperbole should fire every university's PR team because the amount of hyperbole they add to every press release about a paper where they "cured" cancer in mice is 10x larger than this.

Academia is fundamentally broken; the cracks started appearing in the sixties (read Hammings lecture notes), and have all but metastatasized throughout, especially in biology. We are all dying faster because of this (Google the Alzheimer's cabal). Academia is now just bunch of overperforming hacks who are honestly not that good at anything except sitting in circles in NIH grant review panels giving millions to each other while giving "constructive criticism" like this to what is clearly a monumental achievement, because if they don't then they reinforced how useless they are together as a group.

Going back to this hacky article, of course this is the first step, and there is much to be ironed out. But in the words of Sydney Brenner, a great scientist from a time when actually smart, humble people became professors, "The entry of large numbers of American ... into the field will ensure that all the chemical details ... will be elucidated." [1]

We are definitely now in a fairly deterministic path towards figuring out protein folding for all practical purposes. The few academics who still have humility and foresight see this. DeepMind is obligated to release enough results and there are still some sane minds left in academia that they will do what they are okay at, which is filling in the details.

[1] http://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/General/Biographies/SBrenner.htm
Parliament can't propose new legislation (except in one or two very narrow areas provided for in the treaties), but it is a legislature.

In nearly all cases (except again in narrow areas defined in the treaties) Parliament must pass the legislation first, before it goes to the Council. They then must agree any changes made by the Council.

And yes, Parliament can - and almost always does - amend legislation as it goes through the legislative process.
> Is this how things are usually done?

Yes, you pack the politically tenuous stuff in with the widely supported stuff so you put the opposing side in an optically bad position if they reject it.

The headlines will be “Senate rejects marijuana decriminalization bill supported by majority of population” rather than “Senate rejects criminal record expungement”.

Politics are fucked in this country.
Upvoted for having a controversial opinion and sourcing with links.
Isn't it what "bipartisan" usually means? When both parties find common ground? I would expect most laws widely supported by the population to be part of a bipartisan situation.
Alcohol manufactures have also dumped massive amounts of money in lobbying against marijuana decriminalization because they don't want the competition.
this is not CASP13. It's one of 3 deepmind models from CASP 13 (and doesn't contain any feature-related code). And not even the most interesting imho (Variational LSTM/CNN-Autoencoder which generates structures from sequences). Just be aware that they are doing this for $$$s and PR - not for the good of the people like their website suggests - although they really try to put a smokescreen around this.
Could you shed some light on the 66% part, too? As a layman and general sceptic of hype topics, this one is the biggest obstacle for me. How are we going to procede with models that are 33% wrong? In other engineering areas, uncertainty is usually covered by the modeler. But how would that work here?
Thanks for mentioning this! It looks super interesting, but I hadn't heard of it before.
It’ll be DOA at the senate.
you're not the only ones who care! I've been collecting CLI design thoughts and nodejs utilities for a couple years: https://github.com/sw-yx/cli-cheatsheet/blob/master/README.m... just added yours!
The problem is you would have people doing 5-20 (or whatever) for something that is no longer illegal. It seems unfair, so when the law is changed like this I think it’s common to adjust the sentences of people currently in prison.
Look at the time of arrival/departure for the customers. Case A arrived before Case B and Case A left before Case B left. On both sides of the door (or any other surface), Case A would have touched it before Case B. Despite this, Case B spread it to Case A.
The only thing the new interface is better for is for scrolling through image-heavy subreddits. It's a lot better for that use case.

The old interface is a lot better for discussion.

Unfortunately, any subreddit that does not ban memes/low-effort media gets flooded in memes/low-effort media, so scrolling through images is how most people use reddit.
Rust-GPU v0.2
Not sure why you are being downvoted. I see how reasoned your response is to what I said. It is a clear contrast to how the AI ethics researcher engaged in the Twitter thread. Two totally different hypothetical conversations:

A: Training data is a cause of this bias
B: But not the only cause
A: True

vs.

A: Training data is a cause of this bias
B: I am so sick of this. You are not permitted to speak.
A: I am deleting my Twitter account.
> FTA: For one thing, only two-thirds of DeepMind’s solutions were comparable to the experimentally determined structure of the protein.

This seems to be the core of the article's arguments. Is this ratio high enough to claim the problem is "solved"?
There are jobs where you have to provide the service, it's a crime to interrupt it for futile reasons.

They are not liable if they don't go to work on their free time, ever.

Healthcare, public transportation, firemen, etc. they can't not provide the service, it's called (sorry the bad translation) "interruption of public service"

Yes, they can be re-called on duty, but it happens rarely.

They are payed extra time if that happens (sometimes the hourly pay is double of the regular one)

Soldiers can't even be sent on a war mission if they don't volunteer to it.

They usually do because the pay is astronomical (4-5 times the regular one, sometimes more)

But they are not supposed to.

They can still not show if they have reason: in this 2020 for example being COVID positive or simply sick.

It happened the opposite this year, many doctors and nurses volunteered to help.

They are employees of the State after all and they serve the public.

In the private sector you have to be compensated for working extra hours, if they don't, the employers are liable.

If they ask you to work on your free time, a judge could (and usually does) condemn the employer and the employee gets a compensation.

My parents worked for the national healthcare and when my mom was expecting me, she discovered she had a condition that caused two previous miscarriages.

My parents worked shift of 12 hours 5 days straight, they assumed it was too taxing on the body of a pregnant woman with a condition, so between me and my sister the hospital put her on paid sick leave for 36 months.

My country is Italy, our salaries are lower than countries like US where such protections don't exist, but at least we are protected from abuses (they still happen of course, but it's a risk for the employer)

One of the benefit of the system is that people know they have rights and will stand up for them

If you accept to work gratis in your free time, you're doing a disservice to the entire category.

Of course there are people abusing of these rights, but in general it's a good tradeoff that benefits the larger population instead of rewarding only the workaholics.

And don't even get me started on why being a workaholic society is bad for those who can't work more because they are not in good health or worse...
I like Ubuntu personally (we used it for the Cyph logo), but not as an alternative to sans serif. I mean it's great for some things like headers, but I wouldn't choose to read a whole document printed in Ubuntu; that sounds terrible.
Url changed from https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1334641685154902021, which points to this.
All internet communities will be overrun with new users (eternal September effect), tend toward popular/sensational posts, attract trolls, have people post illegal content, run the risk of bad moderators, be astroturfed or have paid posts, etc etc. It's a living ecosystem, so it'll keep changing.
In the video on the announcement page, there was a short scene where they showed a Zoom call where the results were announced. I counted 20 people. The paper they published in Nature has 1 authors, so it matches up. Probably this is not the precise team size, but gives you a rough estimate.

What's important is I think which people they hired, as well as Deepmind-internal infrastructures. You can just walk over to one of the world experts in deep learning and ask them how to address some issue.

In pharma companies they have people who are really smart about drugs and biology, but ML experts would all have to be hired externally, and likely don't represent the top of the field as well as Deepmind does.