skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>So, anxious people (depressed or grandiose) feel they have to lie, manipulate, abuse to stay where they are at

As someone who has anxiety and knows several people with anxiety, this has not been my experience at all. Like I am probably in a lower paying job than I should be despite my performance because I am too anxious to ask for a raise or interview around. I am not good enough socially to manipulate people, if I had those skills I would probably not be anxious. I have learned at a very young age to treat people very well because I need long term relationships, I can't quickly charm someone new if destroy my current relationships. My anxiety makes my sensitive not just to criticism but toward the feelings of others. Some anxious people are assholes just like some charming people are. But most are just normal people trying to play the hand they were dealt.
Since the article calls out Waymo engineers:

I'm a software engineer at Waymo, speaking for myself.

I agree with the premise of the article. Humans are remarkably good at driving, and making a computer better will be hard.

Where I may disagree with the author is, I think the project is both feasible and worth doing.

It's worth doing because we drive a remarkable amount. Even at human safety level, more than a million people die every year in car crashes.

As far as feasibility, Waymo is, today, running a fully autonomous, no-human-behind-the-wheel ride hailing service in Arizona. It's not a dead-end demo, it's there. I know, a Phoenix suburb is not the same as NYC or Mumbai. Trust me, I know -- probably better than you! Nonetheless, what we accomplished was impossible a few years ago.

The history of AI is a history of moving the goalposts and then blowing past them. AlphaGo solves what was considered one of the hardest problems in AI, but now that I see how you did it, eh, it's not that impressive. GPT-3 passes the Turing Test and can almost pass a coding phone screen, but come on, nobody really thought that a machine that passed TT would be intelligent. It was just a few years ago that respectable people were saying we'd never solve protein folding. Now that we have, the goalposts have moved again. Don't worry, we'll blow past those, too. Except this time people will yawn.

So give us some time. This too will happen slowly, and then all at once.
"4. Human-centric thinking"

Every organism alive now evolved over millions of years. What's so special about human thinking? Why not cat thinking, dog thinking, cow thinking, insect thinking?

Evolution isn't about truth. It's about survival and reproduction. Which often involves lying and deception. Sometimes even deceiving oneself.

[Edit: To clarify, I quoted the linked article not to criticize it but to criticize the point I was replying to, which I took to be a human-centric fallacy about evolution.]
doesn’t make it easy to implement. Microsoft definitely hasn’t done great.
Yeah, Phosh is probably one of the better options right now, especially for smaller tablets. It's still very much focused on phone-sized displays though.

There's some concept art[0] for a tablet/laptop mode for Phosh with tiling window management, but so far it's just a concept. (It's one that I'm a huge fan of though and that I hope will happen; I'd absolutely use it with a docked Librem 5.)

[0] https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2020/04/gnome-mobile-convergence...
One of my incomplete-but-functional quarantine projects tries to tackle this "raspberry pi project" problem: How to reproducibly set up these community-maintained projects, with homebrew-like simplicity.

https://github.com/berrypatch/berrypatch

(I guess I've reached the inevitable "build your own package manager" stage of one's hacking career..)
I have a regular 16:9 monitor, 2048x1152, in which I have Windows font scaling set at 150%.

The reason I prefer AA off (with fonts that were designed for it like Verdana or Bitstream Vera Sans Mono) is because I find it less tiring on the eyes. With AA off, the edges are all sharp and crisp, there's no blurriness. It looks closer to print. When AA is on, they look smeared and don't have clearly defined edges.

What is also a puzzler, as displays become increasingly higher resolution, now 4K and heading toward 8K, the need for AA is supposed to disappear. You don't need to fake smoothness at high pixel resolutions, yet many OSes are actually now making it harder to turn AA off.

It gets dumber.. OSes that used RGB subpixel AA (cleartype) because they're now on tablets and other devices that rotate, they can't count on the RGB stripe, so they stopped using RGB subpixel AA and went back to greyscale AA.
We've banned certain types of streets and many, many types of cars. So... yes?
'Slide' on Android. They got an iOS version too, but it's not as polished and not that sliding...

Slide is the best Android app I ever used and it's FOSS too, available on FDroid.
> while he implied half his co-workers were unworthy of their jobs.

Why do you and other keep propagating this myth?

If anything I think you are making it harder for women in IT:

You are building a narrative that many respected people doesn't respect girls in IT which probably makes it even harder for them to choose IT.

Also I think you are building up under the idea that men and women are enemies in the workplace.

At this point I think it is well established for anyone that cared to read what he actually wrote that he was trying to help bring more women into Google, not saying that those who were there were somehow unworthy.
Adopting TypeScript Will Make You Suffer
I am. https://member.cash/
The author also says this, but also basically claims literacy hasn't improved humanity. So you repeated him without adding anything (in fact subtracting much), and I repeated myself. If anything, we've either supported my point or demonstrated your lack of deep literacy.
There are plenty of other alternatives. The simplest (but least flexible) would be hardcoding an IP of the final server.

Somewhat more sophisticated would be hardcoding an IP to a server with a REST endpoint that returns the real final IP. (Basically just like what DoH does, but without calling it DoH).

Even more sophisticated would be hiding the final IP on some kind of public web service like Twitter or Github.
Christianity revolves around the fact that Jesus replaced the Old Testament with an entirely new one, and his teachings in some cases directly contradicted what the Old Testament says. It's not really fair to judge Christianity by version 1 of their book when Christian teaching about morality derives from version 2. That's why they're called Christians.
Mystery Couple Found in Undeveloped Roll of Film from Nearly 70 Years Ago
That's right, except that the opposite of "local" in this case is not "global". (This is physics, not software engineering.) The opposite of "local" in this case is "non-local", which refers to state that propagates faster than the speed of light. Bell's theorem shows that describing reality requires some kind of non-local state. In the case of both Copenhagen and Bohm, that non-local state resides in the wave function. But here's the thing: you cannot know the state of the wave function because of the no-cloning theorem. The best you can do is prepare sub-systems in known states. So QM really is different. You cannot predict the outcome of a quantum experiment even in principle and even with arbitrarily advanced technology.
> Can records implement interfaces?

Yes.

> Can records be variants in a sealed class hierarchy?

Yes.

> Can records have a private primary constructor?

The accessibility of the constructor is roughly at least that of the record class itself. If the record class is public, then the canonical constructor must be public. However, thanks to the positive answers to the two previous questions, you can have a readable-though-not-publicly-constructible record -- make it a private implementation of a sealed public interface.

> Can I customize the getters (to e.g., make defensive copies)?

Yes. Although in most cases, defensive copying in the constructor is sufficient.
It sounds like we’re confusing two things.

What you’re describing in this comment sounds like a consortium. These often an embargo on publication of independent manuscripts until the primary paper(s) have been published. However, once the data’s out, each investigator is free to publish whatever secondary analysis they like.

I understood the Google process to be an _administrative_ approval, based on the conclusions of the paper and unrelated to the quality of the science. This I have never heard of at an academic institution. The final call that a manuscript is ready for publication has always been made by the corresponding/senior authors, not admin.
It would be really great if there were something like a hub for science. Wondering how one would call it if it were to exist.
There are a variety of places you could look further on this topic, but I’ll throw in a recommendation for the book Seeking Wisdom by Peter Bevelin.
The best solution from my perspective for the community would be to have a standard that handles issues/prs and the like that could be taken from one code hosting solution to another. Just like how you can take your code with ease from one solution to the next by cloning.

It’s the same idea that we already use for our code but applied to all the other bits that are necessary for maintaining projects.

There are some pretty obvious problems with actually implementing this, however. One of which comes down to getting all the existing code hosting solutions to agree on a standard. As they could simply create ancillary standards to differentiate thenselves. Not to mention all the work involved in implementing this when most people are accepting of what we have now (until it bites them somehow).
I think I must be some weird outlier on HDR. I recently upgraded to a display that supports it, and when I turn it on, everything just looks darker to me. As though the brightness went to half at the same time that contrast was cranked up high. Playing with color and exposure and other settings just made things worse.
I try to get out for a drive once a week to keep my car in working order (slosh some oil around, keep the tires from getting flat on one side). Maybe it's good for my brain, too.
>The author eventually puts some thought into it and subsequently adopts a public stance matching what was privately true all along—revealing how little they value the things they said they did.

I wouldn't chalk this up to irony just yet, but the lack of benevolent gatekeepers has allowed this to happen. And it will happen time and time again and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You've had a good run in your basement using something that the suits didn't pay much attention to, because they couldn't connect at the time how this seemingly boring machine called the computer could lead to money. But rest assured, your hard work has demonstrated it to them and has brought them over.

Slowly but surely you should make amends with some utopian idea of a decentralized, apolitical, and not-under-control-of-some-state web. Anything less than that is being delusional.

A free society has so many enemies from inside and outside who wish to force their hand upon everyone, that it's best to stay out of the way of the herd unless you believe getting trampled over is worth it.

When we were "battling" for net neutrality last time (or was it two times ago?) there was a good meme image floating around that showed a handful of different "packages" of websites you could have access to:

https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-...

But if you really look, this has already started to happen. Netflix once had a decent library of movies, and then everyone caught up to them and now it's Netflix, Amazon, Hulu/Disney, HBO, and the list keeps growing.

Spotify, Apple, Google Music. Eventually this exclusivity card will be played by them in a much greater scale. At which point, the necessity of most people having to _ration_ what web they want to see will inevitably resemble having those packages up there.

So in closing, you're out-financed, out manned, and to make things worse, you've got so-called "leftists"/"liberals" as front line soldiers working free of charge (Mark Zuckerberg was right - they're not just dumb fucks, they're _gullible_ dumb fucks) for these corporations to further erode your chances of having any semblance of a decent internet.

As Morgan Freeman so eloquently put it in The Dark Knight: "Good luck."
Yes I understand that, I just wanted to give an extra credit do the "regular" drivers that sometimes make an extra active effort to save themselves and others, sometimes putting themselves at risk (which at the time could be a perceived as "less-riskier"), yet it's decisions made in fractions of seconds.
One benefit from this is that some Android versions aren't receiving updated root certs anymore, and older ones will encounter issues when browsing secured websites using LetsEncrypt.[1] Because Firefox stores its own root store it is unaffected by this, and Chrome will likely be unaffected to when this change happens.

[1]: https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/11/07/many-websites-will-...
> Outcomes of measurements are absolute, objective facts for all observers.

Seems easy to reject, it's just an extension of what Einstein's Relativity already showed (time is not objective), which is an extension of what Newton already formalized (velocity is not objective).
You're making a fallacy here, forcing the issue into black and white - if you mention first 'dataset bias', it must mean you 'offer some superficial causal mechanism that sounds like an explanation to that public'
As I recently posted on the "CLI standards" post here, I tend to use this on macOS:

pman() { man -t "$@" | open -f -a Preview; }

This opens a nicely rendered version of a man page in the macOS Preview tool.
Their predictions of future human behavior are bunk. First, look at the heterogeneity in behavior across the epidemiologists - indoor dining, hanging out without social distancing and going to gyms! This lack of consensus indicates that epidemiologists do not think alike and hence that field is not a settled science. Second, life has mostly returned the normal in the far east where they have successfully contained the virus so far. This is before a vaccine. Human beings have short memories otherwise humans would not indulge in repeated destructive behavior on an individual (alcoholism) or societal level (bubbles, mass hysteria). Finally, after past pandemics like the Spanish flu, life did return to normal. The great depression more scarred human behavior than the Spanish flu ever did.

Epidemiologists are essential during a pandemic to help us understand the virus, the properties of its spread and build models of human behavior along with risks/costs. We need to factor in their input along with advice from others. However, the notion that Epidemiologists are the best mediators of our behavior during and after this epidemic has been falsified. Why?

Exhibit 1: Masking

The consensus at the beginning of the pandemic and through most of the summer was that masks are not essential because we lack the evidence of it. Folks like Taleb et.al, Zeynep, Balaji, Howard et.al in the US who understand complex systems argued for masks back in Jan/Feb. This skepticism of masking because of lack of evidence probably bumped up death count by 50-90%.

Exhibit 2: Epidemiology Models

The models have been greatly off and as a modeler in an unrelated field, I could see the heterogeneity in the model predictions across models and intra-model volatility. When a bunch of models differ, the question is not which is right but are they all wrong? A lot of the models like the one from Imperial had predictions that moved by a lot and never converged to the observed behavior.
‘Magnetic illusion’ can create magnetic fields at a distance
So a lot of philosophical writing references a sort of general canon, at least as far as western thinking is concerned. Other traditions I'm sure have their own details but I can't speak intelligently to them. The field is enormous, and without more specific information regarding your goals it is difficult to pinpoint the classics in subfields that may interest you. That said, there are a few highlights I think you're bound to come across reference or allusion to in many, many other works that would benefit you to get some exposure to. I am strongly biased toward a western analytical philosophy tradition--you'll want to check into things far more broadly than I'm recommending to find your own path. My little list is not meant to be exhaustive and is coming from personal memory of "aha!" moments in my own life, but will perhaps serve as a useful beach head for your own investigations:

* Descartes' Meditations

* Locke Essay Concerning Human Understanding

* Hobbes Leviathan

* Kant Critique of Pure Reason

* Kant Prolegomena

* Kuhn Structure of Scientific Revolution

* Hegel Phenomenology of Spirit

* Foucault Discipline & Punish

* Sellars Epistemology and the Philosophy of Mind

* Sellars The Scientific Image of Man

* Quine Word & Object

* Davidson On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme

* Nagel What is it like to be a bat?

* Searle Minds, Brains, and Programs

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [0] has a ton of great summary articles and bibliographies that could definitely keep you busy for a few decades or so. I've never been tremendously into ancient or non-western philosophy, which is a deficiency I aim to correct one day, but there are a ton of great essays there as well.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/
I didn't like it at first, but it's grown on me since. It makes a bold statement and feels unique.
In Europe I buy TVs aimed at office dashboard displays etc.
No “Smart TV” with crappy software in my home.
I've always been mentally tickled by prologue type systems. I suspect but cannot prove that they would be very useful in conjunction with constrained optimization engines.

Specifically: many optimization engines give very arcane feedback about infeasibilities and singularities which cause optimizations to fail and users to be frustrated. I feel like plugging a datalog system into the optimization engine would give end users a really powerful way to ask questions about the sources of infeasibilities and singularities. If changes to the optimization problem were tracked I would expect these systems to be a very intuitive way to say things like "tell me all the rules which participate in an infeasibility that have been changed recently."
> Chinese are collectively more or less in the same situation, they are ethnically mostly the same people and live under the same rules,

Perhaps the ones you hear about are “ethnically mostly the same people”, but that's not actually true.
Twitch removes “Blind Playthrough” tag for being offensive to blind people
Do you doubt that plenty of people think that threat of homelessness is necessary motivation for people to work?

Those people also think that some people being homeless is acceptable trade off given the motivational value of the threat and cost of paying for everyone's accommodation.
Agree, this is the way to go.

On a separate note, if the fuzzy tests find something wrong, the data should definitely be integrated in the stable test suite to ensure non regression.
> But I don't think it's just a buzzword

I don't think it's just a buzzword either, in the same sense that 'AI' is not just a buzzword. But both "AI" and "explainable" are also buzzwords, or at least often used as such.

I have no objections to the example you made, some models are "obviously" more explainable than others. I'm simply refuting the claim that some models are inherently more explainable, because the entire concept starts falling apart when you take it out of its mathematical context. For example, it's easy to see what a DT does when it's small, but larger DTs are as "unexplainable" as a NN.

> trying to enforce political control

I'm not against political control per se, some political control is well-justified; but I find it pretty suspicious that everyone is jumping on this train when there are more glaring issues, (for example, if and when a branch of the government or a government-controlled agency decides to use a ML model, they should be required to declare that they are using it and make the source code public, so that it can be cross-examined) and my guess is that it's because "explainability" provides a nice narrative, unlike other concerns.
You can be tolerant of sets of beliefs that don't restrict the rights of non-believers (and that allow believers to change their minds).
Doesn't make the bar for Google publishing quality standards? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
I’m sorry, but your statement in this article is just wrong. Tesla autopilot has killed people when it’s malfunctioned, thereby making it significantly more unsafe (in the eyes of any sane person) than Waymo’s AV (which has not killed anyone to my knowledge).

And the title is quite poor as well—it is in fact Tesla who’s gambling lives by aggressively rolling out their self-driving capabilities before they’re fully baked (and having paying customers bet test them), not Waymo (who runs very limited demos in very controlled conditions).
>anxious people tend to be immoral in their behaviors at work

I'm not claiming that

>My personal intuition is that "grandiose" and "anxious" people are quite distinct groups with very distinct behaviors

This is correct. But I was trying to refer to the link between grandiosity and depression when anxiety is the underlying cause (which I really didn't need to bring up in the original comment, don't know why I wrote that). I mainly had this book in mind when I was typing my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Miller_(psychologist)#Th... which was I guess the first book to link grandiosity and depression if you want to look into that.
This sounds like a nice idea, but I wonder if it's backed up by historical fact? There are plenty counter-examples of countries with stable peace as well as some restrictions on freedom of speech. The discussion in the linked article seems to be about absolute vs. semi-restricted freedom of speech, as opposed to absolute vs. none.
It seems the current pro-censorship group has a fairly homogeneous political slant as evidenced by the author's statement:

> It’s offered a megaphone to those promoting dangerous ideas like white supremacy, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia and other anti-LGBTQ positions, and sometimes outright Nazism.

This group always seems to willfully ignore or is ignorant of 20th century history WRT Russian and China.
I think it is extremely hard to generalize here.
Ironically the biggest cognitive flaw is believing that these apply to other people but not to yourself.

I saw a comment from someone at the center for applied rationality a while ago that said that one of the top reasons why people want to take their workshop was to be able to pinpoint issues in other people's thinking.
‘High-value’ business travellers to be exempt from UK travel quarantine
China builds jet engine capable of flying at 16 TIMES the speed of sound
In VSCode and Neovim there's a visual debugger but in general you can compile with `--debugger:native` and use GDB, for example:

A guide to debugging and profiling: https://nim-lang.org/blog/2017/10/02/documenting-profiling-a...

Guide for working directly with GDB-Nim: https://internet-of-tomohiro.netlify.app/nim/gdb.en.html

A walk through and extra info with the language devs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmYOPkI_LzU