skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Even if you think a miracle ai revolution is on the horizon, humans and horses are not comparable in terms of diversity of labor

As someone who does expect an AI revolution, I think you’re being overly literal with an analogy.

For arguments’ sake, a toy model of AGI: copy a human brain onto a substrate that costs less to run than a real human costs to feed [0]. For every intellectual task this human could have performed, it is now cheaper to have the AI do it. As this AI could be based on any human by the nature of the hypothetical, any human intellectual task is now done cheaper by the corresponding AGI.

Current robot bodies (for the hypothetical uploaded minds) are currently a bit meh, but (a) not so much as to make the idea ridiculous, and (b) we’ve already got BCIs demonstrated in animals, so an AGI puppeting a fast growing cheap animal is also entirely within the realm of the plausible if you don’t want robots and don’t care much about animal rights (though not much worse in that regard than current meat production, IMO).

As an aside: tasks is a better metric than jobs, as almost all jobs have many tasks some of which are easier to automate than others.

[0] https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/51746/when...
I almost fall into the same trap. Lucky the documentation for reactive approach is very lacking, and I'm lazy, so I stick with traditional approach.
Note that this is 4 months later. That's about as quick as things like this can be done in a big organisation like Google where the decision has to go via policy, legal, engineering, translation, etc.
Yeah. That would be a targeted attack and not something a script kiddie can do.
I think there's some merit to that argument, but the other side is what happens if funding dries up or significantly decreases (e.g. after another economic crisis) - do they have enough runway? Through that lens, IIRC they're not that wealthy.

(And in terms of work that people actually appreciate: I also very much appreciate that it's practically never down and responds quickly. Just not as actively, I suppose, since you only notice when it's not there.)
Startups sometimes (initially) develop applications for only one platform. Reducing the cost for (new) developers makes platforms more appealing to target (presumably).
I currently have Ubiquiti gear, bought about five years ago, and my APs are already EOL for a couple of years. They don't seem like a great choice for medium-term or long-term installations for this reason. They also don't seem to publish EOL or support timelines, or commit to supporting equipment for any term (as far as I can find - I'd love to see a support schedule if anyone know it).
For free and open source Android apps, F-Droid is a more reliable app store than Google Play. The F-Droid link for Tusky is:

https://f-droid.org/packages/com.keylesspalace.tusky/
So I suppose big tech can pay this instead of donating funds? And individual donors should stop since there’s this new revenue stream?
> I would honestly be amazed if a single person, anywhere[1], looked at this change and thought "yep, I don't have to think about slavery now".

This is exactly what people do. WAY too many people do "feel-good" charity work. They just pick something that's visible, easily partaken and then decide they're "helping" and go about their lives feeling better.

Like donating clothes to Africa, which actually harms the local economy[1][2]. As does dumping tons and tons of food without proper end to end oversight.

Or having a demonstration in a public location, bothering the end-users or workers of a business. Because it's easy and good publicity. They don't attack the people on top who actually make the decisions, because it's hard and boring work.

[1] http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1987628,00...
[2] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mariah-griffinangus/africa-cha...
Lol I'm not American and people have already pointed out problems with your reasoning as regarding to the American "left". No one has pointed the most obvious flaw though: what's the alternative? So you walked away from the "left" and went where?

Does the "right" even care about racism?

Granted I don't know much about American politics; in Europe though, I don't really see right wing parties having an issue with racism, or sexism or even poverty.

Maybe Trump & the Republicans really see black people, women, minorities as equals. Oh wait...
Can you share info about UI framework you using? Looks nice.
PCEngines APUs are great router devices to put whatever you want on, including OpenWRT. Proper Intel NICs (Realtek is not great for routers) for cheap.

https://pcengines.ch/apu2.htm

I'd also strongly suggest to have router and access points as separate physical devices.

A great step up for someone with an AIO consumer router/WiFi AP would be to get something like that as a router, flash OpenWRT on the old router and transform it into a "dumb" access point.
Globally, no one wants a housing price collapse and global recession, therefore...
Because you can’t buy a free machine. But you can download a free browser.
The mobile OS market is a duopoly and only because it's the closes thing to a monopoly they can have without being broken up. Hence Google and Apple can have such high fees which sucks for consumers and app developers, etc.
Within their own platform (the android app market) they are a monopoly.
Thanks again. I learned something today. :-)
It's called "bait and switch".

Similar dick-ish behaviour on Steam. I didn't have a 'profile to comment' on the comment section of a game (Saboteur 2 - Avenging Angel)(I cannot remember the room that gives you the 'god mode')

I went on to create a 'profile to comment'. When I proceeded to write the actual comment I was informed that 'I am not allowed to comment on this game' (I had already logged in with my Steam account. Those *** just wanted the extra info only to tell me what they knew (that I would not be allowed to comment anyway). I deleted said 'profile to comment' but now those *** will keep that info forever.

This is not related to SMS (I thought we established that even with someone with $50k -or less- to burn can read the SMS messages of their neighbours)(https://www.intercept.ws/catalog/interceptors/)
I mean, in practice that would probably work. But an interesting caveat is that apps for federated networks don't typically have one singular privacy policy. It varies server by server. Architecturally, this is a different beast than having a client for a specific service, like Twitter.

I guess they could probably get around it by showing an instance's policies prior to user registration, but not every server actually has them, or needs to (in the case of self-hosted servers)
What fixed that is sandboxing. It's not really clear how much app stores do. And in fairness to Google, their malware scanning system is not tied to their app store. Stuff installed outside the store gets scanned too.
The first variant of Zen-meditation is often to count your breathing from 1 to 10 repeatedly. Sounds easy enough, but the mind starts to wander pretty quickly. If you get lost in your counting you just start over on 1 again.
Results not typical

It all depends what you want to do or how much proficiency you seek

I don't think coding will ever be easy but it can be made easier
Many famous memes are now being sold as NFTs. The Bad Luck Brian was sold for $35K a couple of days ago [1]

[1] https://foundation.app/badluckbrian/bad-luck-brian-4263
Another user cited the "Wikipedia has cancer" page.
I don't think that's true. For one, the sign up of the accounts itself is often automated and in the hundreds, because bot accounts are squashed all the time. You'd spend thousands on burners.

Spam is mostly prevalent because it's cheap and easy to throw millions of requests at the wall and see what sticks. If it did cost really any money at all it wouldn't be remotely worth it.
> Yes, and in how many of those cases are those symptoms debilitating? What percentage of
> people infected are even hospitalized in the first place?

Yes, how many? Shouldn't you know it if you are advocating (or at least considering) just catching the virus instead of getting vaccinated? Esp. since we do know the risks of the latter with a pretty high confidence and the scientific consensus is that you should definitely choose the vaccine and not get infected.

But to give you a number I heard: here in Hungary 3% were hospitalized for the "base" variant. Now we have the UK variant and it seems to present a higher hospitalization rate. According to a UK study it has a 55% higher fatality rate too. So with 3% you get 2.28% chance of having symptoms after 6 months (or dying). Doesn't sound good at all. That's 1 in 40 people. More than a million times the risk of getting a blood clot from e.g. AstraZeneca if it is real (and if they've discovered all the cases, of course).

I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to the HN crowd, but on a side note, I found it quite interesting how people consistently get probabilities wrong. They may be afraid of something happening with say 1:100 000 chance (severe vaccination side effect) and saying that something else, with more severe consequences shouldn't be afraid of, because it happens pretty infrequently (dying of covid infection which we don't know exactly but is somewhere between 2:100 - 1:1000). Usually, of course, people say these in different conversations, or at least in separate comments (if online) but they'll have a hard time reconcile these even if you point out that these are numbers that they can actually compare. (Of course, I get it's the cognitive dissonance and their irrational fear of vaccines, or maybe the loss of control, still it's fascinating.)
> Yes but still 7-fold increase over normal, therefore it is likely that the vaccine is the issue.

As was my point, it could be just a coincidence. The sample size isn't truly random, it's people who were picked to receive a vaccine. Correlation =/= causation. Investigation needs to be completed for the cases to be attributed to the vaccine.
I wish developers would start using the browser more and rely less on the official stores which tax them unfairly.

I don't want to install your application, just give me a good web mobile experience.
See, I don't know if that's true. The main counter evidence to your hypothesis were the defections of scientists and engineers to the USSR, the amount of brilliant people that regretted the fall of the USSR, and so on.

For example, one of my brilliant math teachers was from a Soviet state, and had the opportunity to leave all along - he only did so as the USSR fell and he did not see any prospect in the East anymore.

Patriotism is a strong emotion. But beyond that, many brilliant people in communist countries really did enjoy a very elevated social status - if you see what children aspired too, being a scientist or engineer was really up there. And as far as job security and research freedom, for example, there was often quite a bit of it. On the other hand, you had drastically less freedom, but it doesn't seem the ones who chose to stay valued it as much as we would.
Yeah, that definitely seems to be a big part of it. And I don’t understand. Okay so your company is the target of some activists on Twitter for a few days. End of the world? Maybe I just can’t understand what it’s like to lead a big company.

Just abut the only company to handle one of these situations in a way that seems rational to me is Trader Joe’s. Some people on Twitter decided that having a burrito labeled “Trader Jose” was a horrendous form of cultural appropriation and demanded the company change all products with this kind of word play in branding. TJ’s considered it and just basically said “no, move along” and the whole woke twitterverse moved on to some other target.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/...
SARS-CoV-2 is not one of the corona viruses we refer to as common cold.
Hence the name SARS-CoV-2, SevereAcuteRespiratorySyndrome- COronaVirus-2.
This is why most of my copy-paste is actually: copy-paste_in_SublimeText-copy-paste.
I love you for this. I was pulling my hair out trying to hack something together using the crappy apps out there for it. Can’t believe it’s not a native feature. Excited to try this and send it to some friends facing similar issues!
very large hamsters.
> Would you be ok with your donations being used to pay for a feed service and support dedicated to, say, the particular needs of Google search results, or Apple's Siri?

Absolutely not, and this isn't whats happening today. Third parties do not use the existing Wikipedia APIs to begin with, cache page results, and create their own machine readable versions. These "enterprise customers" entirely bear the costs and risk of maintaining a machine readable API. There are also businesses that compete and innovate in this space already.

I'm also not okay with my donations financing an upstart like this targeting enterprise.

This needs to exist outside of Wikimedia. It's completely out of scope. Profit incentives warp missions. Why can't Apple/Google et al start their own consortium that does this themselves. Why does Wikimedia need to do this?

Think of the scale of operations required to support an entity like Google or Apple. This is going to require a /ton/ of investment and talent and it may even fail. Why is Wikimedia incurring start up risks like this to appease the needs of big tech?
I think almost all Art is just to hide and launder money. So it does not really matter if on blockchain or traditional.
Both articles provides zero evidence other than concept of attack in general and all of them just claiming that mobile numbers can be hacked.
For example wars, colonization, and inquisition were dramas and chaos but after them and sometimes with the help of them came progress and innovation.

Medieval Church had monopoly on education and knowledge but still believed earth was flat and prosecuted brutally anyone who opposed them.

French Revolution was bloody and messy but it brought democracy and decentralized education which afterwards led to tremendous progress and innovation.
AZ tested every patient weekly for covid, regardless of self reported symptoms.

No other trial did this. Which means the 95% efficacy for phizer/moderna is not actually correct. we have no way of knowing how many were asymptomatic.
> It's what we have, according to the designers of the various vaccines. Unless you are suggesting that all things are true unless proven otherwise, in which case I'd ask you to go back and check some books on elementary logic.

That's not a citation. And vaccines are designed with a very general goal of "make the body fight this". That can potentually affect both symptoms and transmission. Don't argue in bad faith and equate that to "anything could be true"

> There is some work after the fact to measure the effect on Covid transmission of the vaccines, but even that isn't very promising.

Huh? Checking if the vaccine does anything at all is after the design is done. The choice of when to test symptoms vs. spreading is more about difficulty of getting the data than anything else.

> It's odd when "stopping people dying" is "a huge downgrade".

Stopping one person from a chance of dying is a downgrade from both stopping that and stopping transmission to more people that have their own chance of dying.
Active editor count on enwiki peaked at around 100k in 2007 and had fallen to around 50k by 2014. It has been stagnant since, but it is not like complaints about engagement are unwarranted.

https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/...
Better title: Google matches what Apple already did.

I said it about Apple and I’ll say it about Google: this is a PR move, nothing more.

Google really missed an opportunity here to put Apple in a tough spot by just cutting it to 15%.

Your biggest users of your payment infrastructure are also the most likely, most willing and most able to handle their own payments because they already do (eg Netflix, Epic).

If either company has reduced their cut to 15% for only their largest customers then this would make sense as a business decision. Doing the opposite is trying to stave off government intervention, nothing more.

The writing is on the wall for being the sole payments provider AND charging 30% for it. The only question is what they will be forced to do and (imho) you’re better off placating your biggest customers because they’re the ones who will likely sue you and lobby against you in the US/EU.
Sure, but here lies the importance of my point: you get to be responsible either way, but at least you get to make your own call. If you turn that around and fail to deliver "because architects overdesigned it" everyone is going to give 0 f*cks - it's still your fault.
They of course have that right, but they have made a choice to expand into new territories and have to obey those laws

They've knowingly entered other markets and if they fail to follow the law there, they're on the hook for it - even if they decide to leave after the fact

I understand you support Google's right to choose where they do their business - I support that as well. Do you also support sovereign states to pursue legal action against a corporate entity, that willfully breaks their laws?

If Google would rather leave than uphold my rights, then I'll be happy to see them leave
What issues do you have with content?
I didn’t know Line was end to end encrypted.

That explains (partly) why it is so difficult to move data between phones.

Weird they don’t advertise it though.
Thank you. What wildly irresponsible journalism.
Black Friday is actually an economic thing (day after Thanksgiving in US) the day the companies go into the black/ start showing a profit for the year.

You were thinking of Good Friday.
C# 10: File-scoped namespaces, primary constructors, raw strings
Exactly this, it's harder to make money on the store these days, people can't tolerate high fees anymore
In my country you can easily buy a few thousand SIM cards for a cent or two each. I've seen them in classified ads, they're not even hiding.
It's notoriously difficult to regain access to many types of accounts, but that's in part because of how little we verify ourselves in the first place.
No fuss in my experience. Some distros use dkms, some rebuild the driver on the build farm as a package corresponding to each kernel update. Both are quite reliable.
> Everyone was always afraid of malware but very few people I knew ever suffered from it. Most people used anti virus software, asked their friends which programs they recommended, or did some research of their own to figure out what was safe to download. All that was probably at least as effective as the “curation” that app stores provide.

That’s the opposite of my experience. I remember lots of malware - toolbars, search engine defaults, using malware bytes, ccleaner, antivirus programs, and a bunch of other crap I can’t remember to de-malware my older relatives’ computers when I was a kid. There was no way to prevent my elders from getting malware on their Windows computers, because they just had to click on everything.

Then iOS came out and I never spent another minute dealing with uninstalling and scanning for malware. Any software problems were solved by deleting the app, or turning the device off and on.
The argument "I haven't met a single..." is equally as strong as an unqualified "You are misinformed.", which I was responding to. Note that I asked for clarification :)

Since I have you here, would you mind elaborating a bit more about your stance on "cancel culture"? I'll also elaborate a bit more on my stance.

I think most people would agree that mobs by definition have no united agenda. It's a bunch of disorganized people with their own goals and motivations who all briefly get fired up about the same topic. Twitter mobs are a tornado of confirmation bias, where people in echo chambers spin up hot takes of current events to confirm their own worldview. The amount of meaningful debate that can be had in 280-character chunks is negligible.

When people talk about "cancel culture", my impression is not that they think there is any sort of coordinated attack on right-leaning figures by prominent left-leaning figures -- only fringe conspiracy theorists believe that George Soros is sending out weekly lists of names that should be "cancelled" this week.

It's that they believe Twitter is a place which has developed a culture of criticizing and ridiculing other users, public figures especially. I think it's undeniable that any time a public figure missteps, a vocal minority of people (e.g. angsty teenagers) on Twitter calls for the person to be fired or otherwise deplatformed, even before they have a chance to respond. Some people also receive death threats.

So, I don't think it's unreasonable to label that sort of behavior as "cancel culture". To me, it clearly exists, but there is room for debate about how prevalent it is, as well as how good vs bad it is.

I think we agree that "cancel culture" is not as prevalent as Fox / MSNBC would have their viewers believe. Twitter magnifies the opinions of their angry users to drive engagement, and then news organizations pick it up to serve one political narrative or the other.

Personally, I have seen many positive examples of public figures being called out for toxic or abusive behavior, and I'm all in favor. Louis CK was "cancelled" for extremely-scummy-but-not-necessarily-illegal behavior. Heck, #metoo is all about cancelling rapists, and that's a good thing! I also think that the JK Rowling controversy was for good cause, and led to both productive [1,2] and unproductive public discussion.

However, to me, the whole master vs main debate is silly. I don't see it as a driver of positive change.

[1] Contrapoints, "JK Rowling" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us)
[2] Contrapoints, "Cancelling" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjMPJVmXxV8)
Amusing that Husky is still up, a fork of Tusky that has support for some additional Pleroma features and lacks Tusky's blacklist of certain "naughty" instances.

https://github.com/fwgs/husky
Correctness in Register Allocation: Fuzzing with a Symbolic Checker
On a side note... (side note!! sheesh!)

"Polyamory ...is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved"

Sounds good, and has been the case for thousands of years.

But modern dating apps and social media are pushing us back to this practice in quite a big (and informal) way.

Its innate female nature for women to choose the best men (height, fitness, wealth, status, strength), and that's a good thing for the species!

But before the advent of social media and dating apps, they would settle for just average guys too.

Dating apps and social media has made it so that all women can now access that top 20% of men quite easily and completely ignore the bottom 80%.

This has lead to the counterculture rise of red pill, incel, mg-tow, etc.

I'm not on this one side or the other.

I'm just noticing there are more Polyamory type apps and behavior out there now, driven by technology.

Do you notice it too?