skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Or am I going to take your word for it?

Not necessary, but I'm just going to assume you aren't a biologist nor do you follow the Bio-hacker culture, right?

Start with Josiah Zayner's talks from the time of that event. I think it was in the conference ahead of the trailer release of 'Code of the Wild' that stands out. But he's on record talking about it as well, I think Dr. Church also touched on it as well. The Bio Hack the Planet conference talks might also have more details, as I recall him talking about the events leading up to Dr. Doudna's misplaced/misunderstood role in CRISPR that eventually got her a Nobel Prize and it segued into that discussion, too.

Back on PC Edit: This piece [0] is also worth a read, here is an excerpt from Science:

> Yet opposition was not unanimous. A few months before He met the couples, a committee convened by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) concluded in a well-publicized report that human trials of germline editing "might be permitted" if strict criteria were met. The group of scientists, lawyers, bioethicists, and patient advocates spelled out a regulatory framework but cautioned that "these criteria are necessarily vague" because various societies, caregivers, and patients would view them differently. The committee notably did not call for an international ban, arguing instead for governmental regulation as each country deemed appropriate and "voluntary self-regulation pursuant to professional guidelines."

>> That circle included leading scientists—among them a Nobel laureate—in China and the United States, business executives, an entrepreneur connected to venture capitalists, authors of the NASEM report, a controversial U.S. IVF specialist who discussed opening a gene-editing clinic with He, and at least one Chinese politician. "He had an awful lot of company to be called a ‘rogue,’" says geneticist George Church, a CRISPR pioneer at Harvard University who was not in the circle of trust and is one of the few scientists to defend at least some aspects of He's experiment.

The questionable stance, and reluctance comes when academic researchers know that their grants and good standing with a chosen University (and the prestige and clout they garner) comes under threat. Maybe its because I've seen this kind of thing play out in real time when I was in School and then entered the Industry that I'm not all surprised by it... but it's also a sense of remorse mixed with dread and despair as a person who was on track to be a lab Clinical Lab Scientist but what disgusted at what 'really happens' internally that shaped my view(s) and made me leave the Industry entirely.

0: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/untold-story-circle-...
Where on the license? Please.

It explicitly only allowed the use of JavaSE on desktop deployments, OpenJDK was yet to be made available.
Why? Do they need to pass all of it on? If they made billions, wouldn't 10% be enough for a lifetime while 90% could be returned to the public?
And the site itself is slow.
>In America, at least, we have historically rejected the idea of a hereditary monarchy.

Just looking at history of presidents...George Bush Jr and George Bush Sr. Do you think George Bush Jr would have been president if his father wasn't? I'm not saying that GWB isn't competent or anything like that...but is your assertion that if he didn't have the name (and inherited wealth and connections), he would have been a viable candidate?

Same could be said about the Clinton's, so I don't think this is partisan.
She didn't offer to resign immediately. Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just accepted her actual offer.
sure but also keep in mind that a professor in structural biology is not necessarily a consumer of structural biology (versus me, plus I have citations proving that I have consumed them) ;)
What's even worse is that Google ignored Timnit's attempts to figure out what went wrong, handing down a decision by fiat. I am surprised that this doesn't violate Google's standards! It would certainly violate mine.

OTOH Timnit sounds like a down-the-middle SJW type, which means that every conflict is about identity, privilege, and so on, which honestly hurts her message. To me, its enough that Google shut her paper down and wouldn't tell her why or give her even a chance for a different outcome -- perhaps it is, ironically, her SJW nature that makes it risky for Google to engage her in the way she wants to be engaged, because a deeper conflict cannot look good for Google in the current cultural climate. (E.g. sounds like she's got strong intellectual integrity points, and weak SJW points to make about Google, but they couldn't engage the former without also dealing with the latter.)
I mean, that's not really the point though. It would be nice to be able to use the notifications that make sense without the spam. Way to many apps do this these days.
That’s really not at all what these studies show. It’s direct airflow, over short periods of time. Your smoke theory would have everyone in both restaurants infected, which is not what happened.
So when we have switched to electric car you will be happy with more parking slots to be added?
There are many types of test coverage measurement. I believe path coverage ("Has every possible route through a given part of the code been executed?") is your latter example. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage which also says:

> Full path coverage, of the type described above, is usually impractical or impossible. ... a general-purpose algorithm for identifying infeasible paths has been proven to be impossible (such an algorithm could be used to solve the halting problem).[14] Basis path testing is for instance a method of achieving complete branch coverage without achieving complete path coverage."
> what's the general consensus on x movie

If found Reddit kinda unusable for something like that, at least compared to the old school IMDB forums.

The first results looking for any media are usually the official subs attached to the IP, and there you will rarely find anybody being critical of anything, it's often just a giant fandom circle-yerk.

Bigger things will sometimes have their own threads on r/movies, with more diverse takes, but that feels more like an exception than a rule.
I bet they would be quite similar actually.

Plenty of areas you can only move either with own car or calling taxi.

The next bus stop is a couple of kilometres down the road and only crosses a couple of times per day.
Man pages improve discoverability. You only find --help contents if you already know which command you want. Man pages are searchable (with `man -k` or `apropos`).

This is most relevant when it's a tool that isn't going to be immediately obvious anyway (if I'm trying to figure out how to do XYZ on heroku, it's not unreasonable to expect me to look at the heroku program I installed), and especially when it's a tool that might be installed by default or installed and forgotten about.
The long-arm sewing machines to do the actual quilting (where the top gets sewed to the backing over the whole face of the quilt) are pretty expensive and not really the domain of typical hobbyist, though. You'd have to find someone in your area who's willing to quilt it for you for a fee, which can be hard if you're a newcomer and not in any classes or forums. Or, you could hand quilt it, but that takes forever, especially for a beginner.
Runner: a lightweight wrapper for cron jobs
I believe she basically sent an email to fellow employees basically telling them to stop working. That alone is a firable. That is completely nuts and unacceptable work place behaviour. The fact Google didn't fire her for that should speak volumes.

This is little more than gossip unless you can point to something specific that people can judge for themselves. Saying “she basically did X” is a clever way to influence how people feel about her.

I’ll admit, I had negative thoughts till this thread. Now I’m not so sure. She’s definitely passionate, and one might say aggressive, but more and more people are saying that it’s extremely unusual for Google to demand a rejection for academic reasons rather than business concerns. Whether she was a good employee is kind of beside the point now.
We don't know the exact language, but by Timnit's account she made a numbered list of demands, which is pretty inherently direct.
Really? You want to strive to test that logging logs and observability observes? You want to test constructors, getters and setters?
Testing trivial code brings negative value, why would you do that?
FYI the internet archive is currently having a 2-to-1 matching campaign.

https://archive.org/donate/
100% is the way to be. Once you get there, then you can start having useful conversations about how to make the coverage more meaningful. But first, you have to make sure that every line is run at least once without crashing (except for the lines that are supposed to crash things - those you need to verify DO crash things).

Interestingly, once something is designed for testability it is more likely to not have bugs. But saying that therefore you don't need the tests is silly, because without the tests you wouldn't have designed for testability.
See also GitHub Catalyst

https://github.github.io/catalyst/
> Plain MD5 is pretty much the fastest thing you can find.

Faster than BLAKE3?
Don't make ultimatums unless you're ready to accept the consequences of those ultimatums.
I would say not being able to solve fizzbuzz without the modulus operator would be an indicator of lacking programming ability.
Unless she lied in her first e-mail, which it doesn't seem like she did, the reason she made those demands is because they asked for a retraction of the paper without indicating why the paper should be retracted.

Asking for the identity of people that have the authority to ask for a withdrawal of your research without stating their issues with it seems understandable, if excessive.

But maybe I misunderstood something.
It's less "your product is exploitative" and "you underpay (exploit) your workers for their labor."

Bill Gates didn't write Windows 95. Steve Ballmer didn't write Microsoft Office. But they owned stock in a company that employed people that did (and all the various other labor that goes into building software products). Why did they make so much more money from it than the people who were more directly involved?

This dynamic is reducible. If Person A starts a software company, Person B, C and D build the product, and then Person A gets $10,000 while Person B, C and D each get $1, something is off there.

The capitalist defense of this is more or less, "B/C/D agreed to those terms", but this ignores the context. If every B/C/D wanted to be As, there would be no B/C/Ds to build things. And it's not always possible to choose to be an A--it usually requires a fair amount of privilege to start a business. But nonetheless, their work is equally important, and even if it isn't, it's certainly not the case that A's work is 100,000x more important.

We need to recognize this kind of bonkers concentration of wealth is a huge problem, and fix it with profit sharing and taxation.
True, but it's also the norm that peer reviewer's feedback is provided to allow the author the address issues. In Timnit's account, she received neither identities nor the feedback itself.
Available at https://new.mta.info/schedules

If you dont have one, how do you measure performance of the system?
If they ever remove old Reddit they're done. So many communities use it exclusively and will just walk if forced into the new shite.
It sounds like Norwegians were involved in building this, and they have precedent for this look. "hardanger bridge roundabouts" is a search term which will get you some pretty images for roundabouts like this. Admittedly they're not under the ocean, but they are underground at each end of the world's longest tunnel to tunnel suspension bridge. Underground funkily-lit roundabouts are pretty amazing!
How about the value destroyed? Im thinking of online retailers and the killing of the brick and mortar stores with lots of local economy and jobs murdered. Who decries those? The destitute become voiceless while the voice of the ones who got to the top becomes a strong unison and myths to riches are created so more people could be exploited.
Yes, the did.
From a certain narrow, selfish perspective it's reasonable for Google to not want to have an AI ethics department placing a check on their leading edge research at all. Fortunately, we don't live in a world where corporations are the ones to determine right from wrong with total impunity.
But in this scenario, shielding Google from liability is actually a primary concern given that Timnit is discussing ethics/bias. A paper on say novel transformer architecture, the lottery ticket hypothesis in a new setting, a new RL benchmark suite, etc is not going to expose Google to legal risk the way ethical AI research often can.
> Jeff gives the impression that they demanded retraction (!)

In paper reviews you can often see reviewers asking the authors to rewrite, clarify, add extra experiments, add missing citations. It's all normal.
They are more like fundamentalists, though, i.e. fanatics who equate non believers with enemies.

Jeff not only has a monumental reputation and wealth, he's also under Brin's and Page's protection who own more than 50% of Google.
If your work is suddenly and unexpected roadblocked at the last second by internal review, the only way to make changes that prevent that from happening in the future is to clearly understand the situations and criticisms that led to the roadblock. This is why understanding who raised these concerns is important. Anonymous feedback blowing up a project at the final moments is sure to frustrate anybody. If what she has said is true then it was also very difficult for her to even have access to the substance of the critique in the first place, with the initial story from her management being that she would not be able to see the documents explaining why the paper was to be retracted.

The critique here appears to have been fairly minor, too. Failing to cite some recent research is rarely grounds for rejection.
Thank you for your comment, visual design has always been challenging for me so I was overjoyed to see my layout described as elegant!
> as long as you have a sane set of regularization techniques (or have we even ditched those too?).

Maybe. In the context of natural language at least, Transformers require less and less data to reach the same result as you increase the number of parameters. No regularization needed. See Figure 2 in the paper Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models (2001.08361).

It's quite odd. Who knows if that will hold for other domains, like protein folding. It may very well be the case though, since AFAIK DeepMind's folding model used attention to reach these landmark results.
I appreciate the cleverness of just adding AutoClosable to ExecutorService. But I definitely think returning a specific subclass/interface of ExecutorService would be a great help. I think at the expense of an extra class, something like this is a lot easier for people to wrap their head around:

try (Nursery n = Nursery.spawn()) {
n.submit(() -> foo());
n.submit(() -> bar());
}

try (Nursery n = Nursery.spawnWithDeadline(Instant)) {
...
try (Nursery nx = n.spawn()) {
nx.submit(() -> foo());
nx.submit(() -> bar());
}
...
}

...
Not very many, these days. There are a handful, like Escape from Tarkov, that are super hardcore and have no matchmaking. It will probably never be more than a small niche game as a result, since any new player has to contend with an extremely rigorous onboarding process in which you are unlikely to have much success for dozens of hours until you get the hang of things.
In technical infra I saw papers rejected that were deemed to be not interesting enough (not a big enough novel contribution).
The problem isn't that we're a representative democracy. The problem is the ratio of representation is very far off from the ratios present when the country was formed. The population growth in urban centers combined with the addition of many states with low population has shifted power significantly to a minority.

When the United States was formed and the compromise for 2 Senators per state and house representatives by population was agreed to, the largest state population was 11x the smallest state population. Today, California is 70x Wyoming. This has the effect that Senators from smaller states have way more power in today's world than they did in the 1800s. The ratios are unbalanced and need to be adjusted just like we adjust the apportionment of house representatives via the census every 10 years.
Paris is denser than virtually every American city, and it's not even close. I honestly can't tell if the comment is supposed to be taken seriously. Density does not equal high rises.

Barcelona's 'superblock' structure boasts the highest density in the world (exceeding the world's densest city overall, Manila, and looks like this:

https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/news/shutterstock_...

A good chunk of Parisian suburbs is already among the most densely populated areas in the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_popul...
Have you checked out Surface [1]? In a recent interview [2] Chris McCord hinted at merging at least some of Surface into LiveView.

[1] http://surface-demo.msaraiva.io

[2] https://thinkingelixir.com/podcast-episodes/024-liveview-upl...
I considered it for a bit. I think I wouldn’t, because they’d presumably run proprietary, un-auditable software that could surveil many innocent bystanders — if they ran verifiably decent Free software I likely would. There are similar risks with the DEA et. al., so I think we should push for high transparency from them, preserve oversight and due process such as requiring warrants before search and seizure, ban no-knock warrants (pass the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act), and otherwise make them much more accountable than a typical surveillance camera is. Edit: and make this a local issue, and let each locality deal with it as suits that locality best.
Dean writes:

Our aim is to rival peer-reviewed journals in terms of the rigor and thoughtfulness in how we review research before publication.

But Gebru writes that HR and her management chain delivered her feedback in a surprise meeting where she was not allowed to read the actual feedback, understand the process which generated it, or engage in a dialogue about it:

Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback” on a paper through a privileged and confidential document to HR?

A week before you go out on vacation, you see a meeting pop up at 4:30pm PST on your calendar (this popped up at around 2pm). No one would tell you what the meeting was about in advance. Then in that meeting your manager’s manager tells you “it has been decided” that you need to retract this paper by next week...

And you are told after a while, that your manager can read you a privileged and confidential document and you’re not supposed to even know who contributed to this document, who wrote this feedback, what process was followed or anything. You write a detailed document discussing whatever pieces of feedback you can find, asking for questions and clarifications, and it is completely ignored.

(from https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...)

I've been through the peer review process at Physical Review Letters, SIGMOD, and VLDB. You get a document containing all the reviewer's comments, plus a metareviewer's take on the overall decision and what has to change. You can engage in dialogue with the metareviewer, including a detailed response letter justifying your choices, highlighting things the reviewers may have missed, and explaining where you plan to make changes. You get additional rounds of comments from the reviewers in light of that letter on later drafts.

I'm not a Googler, and I have no idea what the standard review process looks like there, but what Gebru describes does not sound at all like peer review. I also note that Dean does not contradict Gebru's account of the meeting or feedback process. If I had a paper rejected in this fashion, I would also demand to know what the hell was going on and who was responsible.

This feels off.
ASP, the original one before .net, had a language called jscript that ran the ie js engine on the server. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript
TIL these two lines (to get an integer absolute value without branching) are _patented_:

int const mask = v >> sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT - 1;
r = (v ^ mask) - mask;
I don’t think you’re incorrect on any particular point.

Just anecdotally, I don’t think a man sending a “do x or I’ll quit” email would be met with the same response. I think issues of race and gender are playing a role here, and that’s a shame, because while firing (accepting this resignation) of this researcher might make short term business sense, it seems like it does harm to Google’s long term credibility in trying to engage with reducing the barriers faced by (among others) women and people of color.

It’s a shame there wasn’t a pathway to keeping the dialogue going, for example by getting in touch with her and letting her know that some things she was asking for wouldn’t work, but that you could work with her to accomplish her goals in some other way.

From my privileged outside point of view, that seems like it could have been a more humane response which could have disarmed the conflict. I think opportunities to pursue options like that are de-emphasized when management are put in an all or nothing position.

A missed opportunity for leadership.
>Your smoke theory would have everyone in both restaurants infected, which is not what happened.

Not everyone who's exposed gets infected, and most of those who do remain entirely asymptomatic. But some die. That's why this thing is so dangerous to the population as a whole.

There's endless amounts of computational fluid dynamics research being done on this. It's pretty clear that the virus particles are suspended in the air like smoke [0].

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092575352...
True. Giving for-profit organisations charitable donations however, is a bad idea, unless those organisations are the intended recipients of the charity.
Maybe a logical progression for the TPU chips and having on-board cores to manage the TPU side of things for performance does make sense and if they can scale this for other products, then why not. Given the whole mobile CPU performance caught up and power usage become the biggest saving area on the table PR financially as well as direct financial savings. Then I'd hazard a educated stab that maybe what is afoot here.

However it pans, the Linux kernel is sure going to see some nice ARM optimisations over the comming years out of all this drive.
It is. It's not a request you're ever going to get when you're dealing with the HR department, though.

Which puts you in a no-win situation when you suspect that HR is doing shady stuff against you...
Yes. I probably didn't use the word "resign" as such but there was a time in my career when I went to my manager's manager or maybe another level up the chain and basically said I could not work for my direct manager. I got my way even though it involved working in a bit of a backwater for a time. But I was prepared to leave if I didn't get my way. (Didn't hurt that I knew said manager was a bit on the outs with the exec who I knew quite well.)
I think we'd sleep less, but we wouldn't be deprived

Exercise and absence of artificial light would probably have us sleeping much more deeply and much more quickly

In modern hunter-gatherer societies there is also a lot of free time and play, so perhaps there would also be less stress to recover from at night
Remembering Beman Dawes