skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't buy that. it's not reality.

To me it's two fold:
- The US would not have a relationship say similar to Britain/US because of the fundamental differences and problems with CCP's behavior
- Vis a vis the CCP's habitual covering up of anything embarrassing and Xi's / CCPs singular focus on maintaining and growing their own power. see COVID, SARs and the many examples from business to free speech & 'press.'

It's circularly not possible.

CCPs behavior must fundamentally change, (or scarily the US becomes like CCP)

The hiding was squarely on CCP. Maybe you could argue if COVID popped up in US first it would have been the same.

But if the tables were turned I don't believe there would be any attempts to hide facts and not offer support beyond Trump's own incompetence and pathological personality disorder wishing it would 'magically go away' so he could get elected again.

--

And to the parent parent there are plenty of facts both ways but it's impossible to separate effects of policy from the HUGE negative pain caused by Trump's abdication of responsibility. Trump has undeniably left us in a horrible place, far greater than any gains from policy.
It can manage the full 31 minutes of flight time if you are just flying at a moderate speed.
Curiously hovering over a spot requires slightly more battery
Beating Nyquist with Compressed Sensing
Did social media kill the open web?
The question is not whether it’s immoral. The question is whether it’s “voluntary” when the alternative is punishment. If pretending that this kind of work is voluntary is the only way you can make it morally palatable to you, then maybe you have a deeper issue that you’re blinding yourself to. It’s better to be realistic about what’s happening, and then decide whether you can live with the reality.
You can derive the type of a zipper by “differentiating” the data structure type
I'd take a shotgun over a marksman. Buckshot is designed for objects in this size range.
> Given the "disagreement" between Domingos and Anandkumar, who as others mention, sits on the ACM editorial board, this could be an attempt to censure or "cancel" her for her personal views. This is antithetical to the values held in the letter itself, and leaves a sour taste.

Shouldn't her actions at least be censured? Her behavior has corrupted the science community, limited speech, created a culture of fear, and is ultimately inhibiting others' from freely disseminating their findings to the rest of the community (at NeurIPS and elsewhere) unless the author and/or their work passes a political purity test, effectively. If that's not discouraged, then I think science and open discourse will continue to be under attack.
Also, Pedro Domingos wants to fight against cancel culture by -- supporting boycotting Nvidia until they fire an employee who supports cancel culture... which sounds an awful lot like cancel culture to me.

I've been vaguely following this, and neither side comes off well -- a few people decide winning Twitter points is more important than anything else, and ramp themselves up into a frenzy by Tweeting dozens of times a day.
How can you know that all of your suppliers comply to some rules?

Do you know all the saas you buy was not made by exploited people?
> It's my personal bias but I see every group this way.

I have the same "bias".

What people seem to forget is that the scientific method was supposed to be a way to develop theories that made good predictions in spite of the fact that humans, both individually and in groups, are unreliable and do all sorts of crazy things for all sorts of crazy reasons. Calling oneself a "scientist" or having an advanced degree does not make one less susceptible to that. One has to set up institutions that will harness the craziness of humans and human groups in a direction that, on average and over the long term, is productive.

But what most people call "science" today is not such an institution. For example, the real message of the "replication crisis" is that most of what the average person is told is "science" is actually nothing of the sort. A sane institution of science would never have labelled that stuff as "science" in the first place; it would have said "sorry, we're still working on this, no results yet". And a lot of times it would say that and there never would be any results, and science would say "no results from this line of research; that's to be expected since many lines of research that initially look promising don't pan out".
Thanks! If the vaccine can get ahead of the new variant, then we should be ok. I wonder how long testing would need to happen before they can know for certain.
> As far as I know, those are for experiments that directly interact with humans as part of the experiment itself.

Or use certain kinds of data from humans. For example, a machine learning project on medical data (even anonymized medical data) probably needs an IRB approval to gain access to, say, a dataset of cancer imaging. A facial recognition model doesn't. What makes those fundamentally different (arguably the facial image is more identifying).

> However the incident in question is really about a different kind of thing - it's asking researchers to speculate on the future ramifications of their research as it pertains to progressive ideals

I see no actual support for this claim in any of the actual documentation on the broader impact statement or its use.

The Neurips docs link to 4 blog posts and papers for inspiration/advice to a broader-impact-statemet-author[0][1][2][3][4]. None focus on minorities or the environment in the way you describe, unless you mean "environment" in the broadest sense of "society".

[0]: https://nips.cc/Conferences/2020/PaperInformation/NeurIPS-FA... ("How should I write the Broader Impact section?"_

[1]: https://brenthecht.com/papers/FCADIscussions_NegativeImpacts...

[2]: https://brenthecht.medium.com/suggestions-for-writing-neurip...

[3]: https://medium.com/@GovAI/a-guide-to-writing-the-neurips-imp...

[4]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06979.pdf
You seem to want to kill flies with nuclear weapons.

The vast majority of third world workers benefit from free trade and freely choose the jobs it produces.

Protectionism sentences people far poorer than you to far worse economic lives. Taking away Apple assembly jobs doesn’t increase third world wages or worker protections, it makes them worse. Those workers are consigned to work back in brutal rural jobs that not only pay less but are far more dangerous.

Globalism is how the third world living standards catch up.
Yeah, this is my problem with "barricading". I have no doubt I can bust through one of my interior doors with one kick pretty easily. Front and back door are a bit more sturdy of course, hopefully between that and my alarm I'd be able to get to my pump action before the burglars got to my bedroom. My alarm will call the police
I wrote Pegao last year to save and publish my own links organized in lists so that it would serve as a blog of links for others who might be looking for information on a topic and I released it as open source. This is the link to my profile https://pegao.co/@zakokor
Well the idea is that thread creation itself is not really cheap. For most
software I would say it is not really a problem, but if the "work" to be done
is short enough, that creation of thread becomes the most costly factor. True,
that can be solved by thread pool usually.

So I guess as with most things in software engineering, if there is something wrong with threads or not depends on your use case.
Why AI is so power hungry
I've been to NZ in the last 10 years(2015), and used Here maps (because I was able to download the entire country map and use them all offline) and had no problem there. I was in the south part of the South Island, from Dunedin in through Roxborough and Alexandra, so not the case of just sticking to Auckland or anything.
> Each time someone raises serious issue especially against gov or big corporation, s/he is scaremongering?!

No. What is scaremongering is spending 2/3rds of an article playing up how teflon poisoning our blood is some tightly-guarded secret by nefarious actors twirling their mustaches and laughing at birth defects.

That is: this particular article in question is written in a way that puts scaremongering over actual actionable information, to the point where it ends up crossing into unintentional comedy by reading like the crazed ramblings of someone taking "dihydrogen monoxide" pranks at face value.
It's truly a piece of incurious writing. Basically a mashup of all the Andy Rooney type "California, am I right?" gripe articles you've ever seen. Turns out that everything wrong with California is all the things it tried to do to protect consumers and residents. Nevermind that state and local government is not a monolith and lots of bad consequences stem from competing interests creating a stalemate.
That's a good callout. The prevalence of sugar in the American diet is pretty insane.

Fried food doesn't help either ...
I had not heard of this, can you point me to string theory enlightened measurement that has shown the accuracy of string theory above other theories?
I was under the impression that the military were the main funders and intended clients; the robo mule in particular for offloading some of the increasingly heavy tech and supplies for infantry.

What happens in 20+ years when surplus ones are handed out like MRAPs to careless police departments?
Which actions?

What specifically has she done that "corrupted the science community", that "limited speech", that "created a culture of fear", and that is ultimately "inhibiting others from freely disseminating their findings"? List the particular actions she took that did such things. I don't think there are any.

The closest you can get, I feel, is that Domingos and perhaps some anonymous others felt that her list of people who she wished to educate and discuss with was going to be used to attack them. This never actually happened though. Domingos claimed that the list would be used in such a way, and then it was deleted.

I could just as easily claim that Domingos created a culture of fear by making hyperbolistic claims about the things that Anandkumar would do.
Hmm, that is what I was getting at in this thread.

The other user claimed that physicists are making a mistake when they explain with friction rather than compression.

Looking back, I think your first comment was meant for the other user.
Why ease up?
Examine for a minute why people remain bullied with such a simple solution. I am certain that every bullied child has heard about the solution of "just punch them in the face". They choose not to do so. Why? Is it just purely fear? A cursory glance would probably tell you no.

I'd argue that the number of bullied people who could give a bunch of bullies "multiple beatings" are.... few.
Entertainment, sport (remember the robocup?), and police of course
they're going to be coming through your doors not your walls I would posit. Do you have thick solid hardwood doors internally in your home with really sturdy hinges and locks?
Very illustrative example. So in this thread, I'm reading the opinion that "it's not the fault of government, it's the fault of the voters". But your point (hope I'm not misrepresenting it), aligns more with "it's actually the voters who are fickle and don't always vote in a way that's aligned with their best interests".

So what are we left with? :(
No need to pretend. I hate to break it to you, but millennials weren't the first gay people. Gay people were accepted in society for a very long time before 2000. There wasn't suddenly some kind of awakening and the world changed.

Yes, there was persecution, just as there is today. But nothing near what Hollywood likes to make you young people believe in other to sell tickets and streams.
We can quibble over words for sure, but you're certainly implying that if nothing is done, these folks will bully people into having a bad sense of humor. Like I said, that seems unlikely. Folks like being seen as funny, and will strive to be funny in front of people
The okay symbol is unique in that it was chosen to be as innocuous as possible by 4chan trolls in order to make their ideological opponents crack down on normal behaviour.

Ignoring trolls is a time-honoured and effective response to them, and would have been pretty effective in this case.
Every time I think code readability isn't important, I am inevitably proven wrong. Either I need to go back months later and need to figure out what I did, or I end up sharing with others. Even those one-off, "never going to touch this again" scripts.
>> robots still generally can't interact with humans or the environment in an unstructured way.

> I think this is pretty short sighted, and you're going to have your mind changed quite rapidly in the next couple of years.

Oh, I'd love to see that change. That would be a change in reality, not perception. It wouldn't force me to change my belief that as things stand now, walking have been an ongoing failure and disappointment.. See:

Edit: Also, I should admit I'm discounting the serious engineering challenge of just getting robots to walk on uneven ground by itself. Doing seeming simple stuff like has where the progress of idk 30 years has appeared. But anything more than those ultra-simple things really wasn't happened. I'd still stick with 90% of impressive is puppeting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Robotics_Challenge
It's all about the cube-square law, the same reason a butterfly can remain airborne for hours or days on a few milligrams of chemical energy.

Getting RC aircraft to fly in the more laborious, sedate manner of a full-size aircraft instead of like an insect fluttering through the wind is something of a challenge for scale model builders. When you build an airframe around tiny batteries as a design constraint, expectations from larger aircraft don't carry over well.
Reading through the 2 above parents, I was having similar thoughts. Problems are evident and if not addressed effectively, they become pretty serious. The solutions are not effective. Why not? The region is chock full of many of the world's greatest problem solvers.

It seems that the 'root cause analysis' is many times simply superficial. Too many homeless people? Give them homes. Too many addicts shoplifting to fund their habit? Decriminalize shoplifting. Cost of rental housing too high? Impose rent control.

This may be a consequence of the amount of time a politician is in office vs. the amount of time it really takes to solve these intractable problems. If a politician's term is 4 years, and it takes 12 years to solve a problem, actually identifying the root cause and devising a solution would be the end of their career in politics.

I'm pretty sure that if San Franciscans could elucidate what kind of a city they want San Francisco to be, no one would say they want it to be a haven for drug addicts and have the world's highest rents. And there are enough neighborhoods that just about all environs they'd list could be implemented somewhere within the city limits.

Given that San Francisco is not the kind of city that San Franciscans want it to be, I can only chalk it up to ineffective leadership by the persons setting and enforcing the rules. That's not solely the politicians. I'd guess it starts with leadership trying to satisfy everyone's issues without triage for practicality or an investigation of possible unintended consequences of their solutions.
Arguably one of the main differences between defence and consumer tech is dealing with the 'oh come on how often...'

You don't want to be caught needing your X or calling off operation Y because conditions are unfavourable.

It's kind of Pareto principle I suppose - they'll pay (say) 80% for that last rarer 20% of operational feasibility. (Likely more like 95-5, but I mention 80-20 as it's basically an 'aka' for Pareto.)
Some additional context is that is that one of the organizers of NeurIps put Pedro Domingos and his "fanboys" on a list of people who her Twitter followers should contact en masse for the purposes of re-education. She said that people on the list who failed to be reeducated should be "canceled". The people on the receiving end of this re-education campaign felt like they were being targeted for harassment, and I can certainly see why. I'm vaguely curious what it took to get on the list of people to be canceled but haven't seen any specifics. IIRC the person distributing the list had strong opinions about renaming the conference

Some of the tweets are still accessible via archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20201214014408/https://twitter.c...
Your theory is that if other large companies do something, it must be morally acceptable?

Even if that's true, which I'm not persuaded of, Amazon's enormous market power makes a big difference. As a consumer, I don't want Amazon to "optimize revenue streams" when that reduces the reward to market participants to be innovative and deliver high quality.
I mean its tricky to do an analogy between the digital and physical worlds- but I do find it interesting that

I mean there is a whole range of possibilities here, at what point do you stop blaming the victim?

1- The front door was left wide open
2- The front door was closed, but left unlocked.
3- The back door was left unlocked.
4- All doors were locked, but with an easily picked lock.
5- All doors were locked and with a legit key, but a window was left closed, but not locked.
6- All windows and doors were locked, but the windows were easily broken.
7- The windows were reinforced, but a door was broken down or someone drilled the locks, or just forced the window until the lock failed.
8- The doors and window locks were reinforced, but they pried up the garage door and broke through the flimsy door between the house and garage.
9- The exterior entryways were all truly secured, but they found a way in through a chimney, a sewer pipe, or just sawz-alled through the exterior siding...

At what point do you stop calling the resident an idiot and start blaming the perpetrator? Personally I would say around #4 in the meatspace the world, but 2/3 I would say they are still being victimized depending on where they lived and whether they routinely left the door unlocked or not.

And then in the digital world, there are things like not setting a password or leaving a default one up, but what about patching known vulnerabilities? How long is too long once a patch is made available? What about zero days, and vectors of attack no one thought of... and maybe line employees who just don't know better?

Just in general, people are very quick to blame the victims in situations like this- I just had an argument about this with someone the other day when I heard the news that a neighbor's bike was stolen- from outside their door on the third floor. It was an exterior door/stairway, but not visible from the street, and the bike was locked but with a cheap one. They brought bolt cutters and took the bike. People were like "this is on you for using that cheap lock..." but I think he took reasonable precautions, but many had no sympathy for the guy. Personally I can't wrap my head around that mindset.
Not only that, but it's extraordinarily capable as a graphing app (and comes with examples demonstrating its features), too! It also has a pretty crazy history: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1584501
The labor market has been catastrophically expensive for over a decade. They dealt with it. If anything, the flood of new wait-me-too CS grads and bootcamp graduates over the past couple years is great for legacy employers willing to slup up anyone who can write a line of code.

The tax market is the new problem. Now they are leaving.
> These two traits - poor governance and animosity toward business - have collided calamitously with respect to the city's housing market.

Yeah it has nothing to do with powerful property owners lobbying against loosening zoning because they're worried a housing project will "ruin" the neighborhood and decrease property values.
The great tech leaps of the mid20th century resulted in huge material improvements for huge numbers of people. The worry is that the benefits will no longer spread. And the robots in particular have a century of being hollywood villains to overcome.
The taxes on sugar were to prop up the (heavily subsidized) US corn industry. Why do you think they even water down the gasoline with it? There's so much of it, and it's so artificially cheap, and they want to keep demand high to keep the farmers happy.
All the more reason why it's important to vote. When you don't vote, someone votes against your interests.
It’s been very interesting to me how recently there’s been a lot of focus on green alternatives to materials that are carbon based.

One solar race car team I follow has just announced that their new car will feature natural flax composites in non-structural areas of their car as an alternative to carbon/fibreglass.
Oh my, I feel a bit ridiculous now. Thank you for the whoosh warning. Side note: I am convinced this is a side effect of me being way too serious, I need to learn to lighten up a bit.
“You dance like a robot” can now be taken as a compliment! These robots have skills!
it was also a time, where the hero in that movie could carry a Taiwanese flag on his back.

or a time where you would see Winnie the Pooh movies being made.

little by little...
Running embedded Minio in your Golang tests
Ironically, the entire business model of silicon valley is founded on the belief that digital media can be designed to influence behavior. So the lack of such design in video games, while possible, should be seen as an anomaly.
My local community college costs about $11k per year. That includes room, board, books, tuition, and $4,000 of personal expenses for transportation, etc. The closest university is about $16k for everything except personal expenses, so let's add $4k to that to get to $20k (probably a bit high, but we'll use it to use).

So that would come to:
$11k
$11k
$20k
$20k
-----
$62k

The $16k we budgeted for personal expenses is probably a bit high and I living on campus is much more expensive than other options, but at $15 per hour, you'd only need to work half time to cover all your expenses.

So lets say you work 20 hours a week for 39 weeks during the school year and 40 hours for 13 during the summer. That is 1,300 hours per year. You need to bring in $11.9 per hour to cover your expenses without being particularly frugal. If you live at home, live off campus and cook your own food, graduate a semester early, etc. you can drop your costs down by quite a bit.

For students who did ok in highschool (3.5 GPA, 29 on ACT) the university will give you at least a $2k scholarship. Pell grants will give you up to $5k that you don't need to pay back depending on your financial need. Graduating debt free is very VERY doable.
If you don't believe them would you believe the US government, State Department, EU government, and the world's best free and independent press?

What about leaked primary sources from CCP [leaks]?

Huge volume of facts and research from all kinds of sources on the systemic genocide and forced labor of Uighurs and other ethnic
/ geographic minorities (Tibet, now scarily Hong Kong jailing and threatening the previously free press).

You can even see it on Google Maps.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-sit...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alison_killing/xinjiang...
https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/what-forced-labor-in-xinjian...
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/resolution-121920191...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20191212IP...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/world/asia/china-muslims-...
https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-r...

[leaks] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/ch...

[maps]
https://nationalawakening.org/coordinates/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alison_killing/satellit...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/09/ch...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-01/satellite-images-expo...