skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've always been annoyed by the title "data scientist" because I don't consider their methods worthy of the name science. It seems like the winds are turning and more people are questioning data "science."

But talking about changing the branding to deliver the product that was advertised all along feels like putting the cart before the horse. Sure, maybe it will work. Or maybe in a few years we'll be talking about how we need more "data sleuths" to replace all those haphazard "data engineers" that just didn't have a job title that emphasized solving the problems rigorously enough.
Playing on Your Fears
You went to Delphian?

I had a coworker who went there. He had, uh, stories.
I'm brushing up my Arabic so I can understand the interview with that excavator's operator.
Packaging is fine for security as we see with maintained Linux distribution, the problem people have with NPM community is that you get a spider web of packages because instead of a big high quality standard library you have to use some random guys npm package or copy and paste some code from Stack Overflow. The solution would be that Google,Mozilla,Microsoft and Apple would do something productive for once and create such an (optional) standard library and good tools that would know to only build the used stuff in the final thing.
Well played sir!
>looking from the outside the US doesn't look particularly religious.

I am genuinely wondering how you can get to this feeling about the US where religion permeates a lot of the social and political spheres.

For a Western country, I am actually quite amazed at the prominence of religion in the US, and by religion, I mean Christianity and its various incarnations. Looking at it from the outside it's actually really weird.
Isn't this the intro to Snowpiercer?
The web is eating the world because it's the easiest way to ship an application. It has nothing to do with whether developers like to do it or not.
In my opinion the main problem for religion right now is the failure to explain their arguments at the highest intellectual level, publicly, consistently.

Once I was exposed to better theology and philosophy of Christianity I was blown away. Edward Feser’s ‘The Last Superstition’ helped open this up.

I have no idea why the level of discourse is on average so primitive, I think church leaders have been systematically underestimating the populace.
Typescript / Javascript have significant reason to exist in their own right.
Rara arithmetica; a catalogve of the arithmetics written before the year MDCI
Most of the violent crime in Honduras is concentrated in the major cities, like the capital. A good chunk of the countryside is your run-of-the-mill rural Latin America (still rough to navigate, but not overtly violent). This tech city will be built on island, apparently.
Imagine ordering from Amazon, but not being a Prime member. That should help put things in a more materialistic perspective.
Use the terminology you like. If it makes you feel better this set of words, it's fine by me!

No individual owes anything to the bigger group. That's the principle. In practice you see a lot of abuse, sadly.
It's Holy Week this week (the week before Easter starts) and every day there is a service in each parish. UK, Roman Catholic churches. You have to book online to reserve a place. A quick look at a few parishes in an area for big and small churches shows that all the services for each day of the week and weekend are booked out in advance.

Obviously the numbers able to fit in the churches are capped because of Coronavirus, but it appears as if there are more people who are wanting to attend than can. What I can say with some confidence is that there is at the very least more demand than the capacity.
> I think it would be more of an insurance plan to build a spaceship and terraform mars.

A romantic, but completely ludicrous and unrealistic idea. Even the worst case scenarios for climate change leave the earth orders of magnitude more habitable than mars. You think the Earth's biosphere is complicated and therefore dangerous to tweak, yet think the way to insure against this is to literally engineer a new biosphere on a dead world?
Deno's permissions are per-process though, it's a big jump for sure, but also still leaves the door wide open for abuse by dependencies of any serious project.
It's definitely english and spanish based on a spot check. But 3000+ pages... Wow
Mission accomplished! Yay China!
I think the claim here though is that part of the reason the story is incoherent and that you have a lot of the other problems is because they weren't focused on making a good Star Wars trilogy. If you listen to basically anything the head honcho for these films (Kathleen Kennedy) has said, you get the distinct feeling that she had a different objective than "make good cinema".

As noted, this also seemed to be Rian Johnson's goal as well. It was not "make a compelling story within the Star Wars universe", it was "subvert expectations". Which in the end basically meant turning all the male characters into whinging losers / arrogant assholes while turning all the women into wise sages / over-powered wunderkinds who need no training and make no mistakes, even when they literally do: Leia and Holdo were the ones in charge when literally the entire rebel fleet was destroyed except for one ship with like 10 people on it, and the script gives them zero flack for this. And then of course you have the script letting said terrible leader become an awesome and amazing martyr by single-handedly destroying the huge and menacing enemy flagship in a way that was visually stunning (loved it in the cinema) but broke Star Wars canon in honestly a pretty staggering way (realized once my brain caught up with my eyes).

This actually seems to rhyme a bit with the OP – you can't point out what terrible leaders they were in VIII because the leaders in question happened to be women (I say "happened to be", but it is also clear that the decision to put leadership of the good guys in the hands of women while leaving the leadership of the bad guys in the hands of men was a pretty deliberate move).

Contrast this with The Mandalorian, which has strong and compelling female characters and is adored by audiences of all genders. Why? Because the agenda was not "subvert expectations", it was "make a good Star Wars story".
The link got mangled.

Dang: if it’s possible, could we update to this:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4765985001

The author has been covering lab security for over a decade. A year into a pandemic, people should be able to have a conversation about the origins — critical to preventing the next one. The fact that it’s in USA Today simply reflects the fact that this is entering mainstream conversation after being dismissed as fringe.
It's not particularly odd once you realize that, historically, higher standards of living, higher levels of education, and giving women options other than having children have been the dominant factors in reducing population growth rate everywhere in the world. They're the primary reason Japan has a shrinking population now.

As for allowing it to happen gradually, if you look at global population growth estimates, things aren't really expected to even level off until around 2100 at about 10 billion people, give or take. That's far too late if we continue on our current course, and having ~30% more people on the planet, all other things being equal, just makes it 30% harder to stop the death spiral we're locked into. Global societal collapse is probably going to happen 20 years before that, but, even if not, continuing to put more humans on the planet for the next 80 years consuming resources is going to make reversing the trajectory towards collapse that much harder.

And, while this line of thought is certainly not pro-eugenics (I don't want to pick and choose which people end up being born), it is explicitly antinatalist to a point. The point is that there just ain't room on this planet for 10 billion of us. And, the reasoning is exactly the opposite that traditional antinatalists use. It's more that human life and human civilization are worth preserving, rather than "humans don't consent to being born," and "all life is suffering."

But, back to the real point, which is why reducing population makes sense at all, the problem we have is that we're just consuming too much of the Earth's bounty every year, and it's not sustainable. Technological progress can help here, and I expect it will be a part of the solution, even though we're not really committed as a planet toward using technology to reduce consumption. But, technological progress aside, the simplest and easiest way to reduce consumption is to just have fewer people consuming.

That is it. That's the argument, that's the plan, and that's really the only semi-realistic way forward that I can see.

Now, about most people being in favor of such a program, the issue is the bit I mentioned about Western standards of living needing to decline for a few decades. People are in favor of a lot of stuff, as long as they don't have to sacrifice for it. Nobody in the West really wants their standard of living to decline, and few seem on board with agreeing to it for the sake of the future. This is why I think we're actually doomed, to be honest, and this is the part I fully and wholly blame capitalism for, but I'd love to see myself proven wrong by the time I die.
Thanks!
Essentially I had two separate booking projects that I was working, and instead of duplicating the scheduling and calendar logic in both of them, I decided to create a central server which would be able to do all the hard and repetetive tasks and also not make any assumptions about their data models / query patterns.

Also it seems like booking applications have increased in numbers during covid and I think this server would be really useful for creating a booking app without having to either implement all scheduling algorithms yourself or using something like Calendly which sticks its logo everywhere in your app and makes assumptions about your data model.
From basic evolutionary biology, there is no universall "fitness", only situational fitness.
In the middle ages, in a world without contraception, with extreme pressures to marriage, without pornography or any other non-intercourse sexual releases, being religious or not matters little in fertility rate.
Although in frankness, it still did, that's how rome became christian in the first place, Christians married later (so had higher chances of survival), and treasured their baby girls instead of exposing them to death, small fertility advantages added up expontentially over time.

In the 21st age, the environment has shifted so much against irreligious/low commitment people in terms of reproductive fitness, due to those above factors heavily selecting against them.
Literally only religious people, no matter what part of the world you are looking at, are able to maintain above replacement fertility. Irreligious people' population decline, in the long run, at least 25% every generation, will be far faster than they can "convert" religious people.
Look at the amish and mormon fertility rates, read decades of research by Eric Kaufmann, and the answer is rather self evident
> It's a waste of time to tax them and it's not going to be used for anything helpful in this country

If this is the best argument for not taxing churches, then I switch positions and say tax them and reduce my taxes. (But do it properly, which likely requires some Constitutional hand wringing.)
Better yet, ignore Kalman filtering and read up on RTKLIB. You want moving baseline for this and you need some receivers that will give you raw measurements. Basically if you're trying to measure the distance between two GPS receivers that are relatively close together much of the error will be the same so measuring the delta between them is highly accurate. Here's a guy who did this on a kayak and the accuracy was quite good with only a 3m baseline.

https://community.emlid.com/t/using-a-pair-of-reach-units-as...

He was post processing the data, but part of RTKLIB is RTKNAVI which is real time and I haven't used it but in theory I'd think RTKNAVI would support moving baseline as well. Post processing should be slightly more accurate as you can use measurements in the future as well but it should still be very accurate real time.
As a believer and someone who attends church regularly, this is sad but not unexpected. From my own personal experience - if the church cannot answer questions clearly, their members will look for answers somewhere else. A lot of churches unfortunately are so elementary in their teaching or turn to "feel good preaching" (see Elevation Church). The longterm effect is that a person ends up being tired of getting the same "baby food" and they look to other places. The churches where theology is solid (and clear) tend to be stronger in number and in regular attendance.
> This is, consistently, what I hear from friends and family as to why they have drifted away from the Catholic church, and is solidly my own reason as well.

I was raised Catholic and decided, as a teenager, that I didn't want to be Catholic as an adult.

> My theory is that people have always felt that way, but it was harder to nail down these awful people before social media.

IMO, two things:

1: The changes in the 1960s to the English (native language) mass

2: The shift towards conservative politics

Have you been to a latin mass? (The old-style mass that the Church conducted until the 1960s.) It's a very different experience than modern Catholicism, and much more similar to eastern-style worship.

But, more importantly, the latin mass has a lot less preaching. It's a meditation, and then a social gathering afterwards. It's a lot more universal in the sense that you don't really have to explicitly align with the beliefs to still be comfortable with the community. (Edit: As in, if you don't believe in the whole Jesus thing, you can just enjoy the chanting at let your mind drift away.)

But, the thing that really turned me off of the Catholic church was the drift towards conservative politics. I attended a friend's wedding where the church had a massive anti-abortion billboard over their parking lot for the whole town to see. Another time I went to a mass in honor of some deceased family members and there were posters in the church advocating that members vote against marijuana legalization.
Delphi Academy was actually next door. I attended a school called Renaissance. All of the “Applied Scholastics” schools are a joke.
The same can be said of science in that science can't explain the supernatural or the after-life. Science was never meant to explain those things but we have tried to make it a replacement by trying to naturalize everything. Things that go beyond this realm of understanding and reason.
CloudEndure Migration
AFAIK it hasn't been faster for a while, especially not in the GC area.
I find OSI layers 1-3 to be fairly descriptive of how things usually work today. Layers 4-7 are worthless as real systems are not necessarily structured that way.
It's not surprising when you think about how Japanese is written. A typical Japanese sentence will have a few Kanji and a lot of phonetic Kana:

日本語はちょっと書きにくい。

It would make no sense to switch between phonetic input and writing Kanji by pieces, so instead purely phonetic IMEs are used.
In addition to the very likely improved vetting, other libraries dependent on it will be coding against an API which is less likely to receive breaking changes, unless it is a major Python release. Even then, breaking changes will be clearly announced. You won't see any pinning against a specific and possibly outdated version.
Superb point. To quote Holmes, ‘Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.’
This is a common management dilemma when there are specific tasks that are highly valuable in future engineering careers but have limited application within the current organization. Or when key "promotion worthy" projects come around and individuals are strongly incentivised to have the "core" contribution.

The best approach I've found is to reward based on impact to multiple individuals, and to some extent modulate it by rewarding individuals who "run towards fires". A straight scientist who makes the best datasets in a scalable fashion will thus have high impact on a painful part of the business that no one else will work on.
I clicked three of those links and none of them involved the attorney disobeying a client's order "for their own good" and setting their own alternative litigation strategy. They appear to involve things like not showing up to court and stealing money. You did not actually link to a case like I invited at any rate.

Perhaps you simply typed "malpractice cases" in a search , and thought any case would do. If you want to link to an actual case in that site you feel is relevant feel free to do so.

If you are an American attorney, (complaining about attorney would likely invite replies from attorneys) you've almost certainly read cases in law school about attorneys not obeying clients for their own good and being deemed to meet ethical standards.

To be clear, I am referring to the attorney deciding what to write in court documents and what to argue before the judge, not things like failure to appear in court. There's no point in arguing with me if you know I am correct. If you genuinely feel I am wrong I invited you to link to a particular article showing otherwise.

Your other statements are just using fancy prose to call a lie something other than a lie. The attorney isn't slut shaming, they are "creating reasonable doubt". The attorney is not misleading the jury, they are "creating an alternative picture"."

Essentially you have a dictionary of professional euphamisms for propoganda constructed to decieve the jury about what occured during the crime.

I do appreciate the idea that the high powered defense attorney serving the ultra wealthy are not liars or grifter decieving jurys as to the guily of their clients but "creators of reasonable doubt".

That's a very nice play on language and the legal standards developed over the last few hundred years.
> And their "priests" do not claim to be shadow of the divine, and certainly do not threaten them with afterlife.

Oh yes, if you look at the peddlers of righteous outrage we have today, and their continuous infighting, there's no difference. Dare to deviate from the line? Wrongthink! Cancelled! Even their own people fall pray to this as they get accused of not being outraged enough by their comrades.
if you have a bot with a simple model that keeps an internal state of happiness and uses machine learning to determine sentiment, update its model, and generate a response, ie the nicer you are to it the nicer it will be, would that be conscious?

I would say yes because there are degrees of consciousness
That is annoying. You can right click the back button of your browser to select the proper history entry and go back to where you came from.
> By the way, he has never tweeted...

I know. I was just using a common, public method of communication as an example that's more relatable for us.
Was it reported how it got stuck in the first place?
facebook, vk, youtube, wordpress, shopify - a lot of stuff runs on php
Considering solar panels aren’t 100% efficient, then I don’t see how losing some light would matter ? I don’t think every single photon that hits the panel is utilised.
Curious about this actually.
I think there's a rhetoric out there, that "everybody needs a religion," and that identifies any vehemently held ideology or close-knit social group as a religion. It's tautological. This is exacerbated by the difficulty of forming a general definition of "religion" that isn't riddled with exceptions. Defining "religion" broadly enough to include all religions makes it end up including everything else too.

But "your group is a religion too" seems like a combination of confirmation bias and tu quoque fallacy.
Yes. Definitely. autonomous flying air craft are not new. much easier compared to anything moving on the ground. object and path detections is arguably less likely to fail being less contact with terrain.
> “It’s only bad if there’s a law against it.”

From my question:

> but has he actually harmed anybody? Committed any crimes?

So I'm not sure who your argument there was aimed against, but it wasn't me. I suspect any resemblance between the law and the morality of harm-reduction is merely coincidence.

> As a former manager, and as someone that holds a fairly senior position in an organization that has very little to do with what we talk about here, I can tell you that words have consequences.

Obviously yes, saying dumb things will get you criticised and people may think you're a dick. But there's a difference between saying "RMS is socially indiscrete and thus should not hold a political position within our advocacy organisation" and "RMS is a bad person and even suggesting that he hold such a position is a resignation-worthy offence". FWIW I agree that RMS seems to be socially incompetent enough to not be a political leader, but that doesn't account for the feeding frenzy around the prospect of his re-appointment.
I honestly have no idea how this would work mechanically; I'm talking about a point in the future where we are a fully multi-planetary species with governmental bodies across planets, so the level of tech that's assumed here is already reaching the level of magic.

If we don't assume magical AI, machines are never better than humans at social decision-making so I can't see the President of Earth being a machine in this scenario. What machines are better at is information gathering and processing, which would allow them to synthesise minor political events happening in one corner of the world more effectively than any person and then present findings to a human to make decisions on. In other words it wouldn't be machines doing the governing, but they fulfil governmental roles in that they make increasing bureaucracy efficient enough that a body of humans could realistically govern at a global level.

This isn't necessarily a good thing. China already has an incredible level of surveillance and info gathering ability within its borders and while their governmental structure allows them to be very effective and decisive with it, I don't think it's a good thing for corruptible humans to have that much power. Cue our magical AI.
It's been a while, but the "child porn" post links to Rick's blog post. Rick made a blog post calling to legalize child porn, and it went over about as well as you'd expect.

He later explained why he called for that. The law is being used against things it shouldn't be. Like historical war photos, cartoons, a mother recording her child's unusual behavior (a sign of abuse) to submit as evidence to the police and getting charged for it, teenagers sexting, and so on.

The argument was never that child porn was good, but that we're going down a really dark path of censorship, and that we'd be better off doing away with that law, if this is what it means doing.

It isn't that child porn is good, but that censorship is worse, and dangerous to the fabric of society. If a former politician like Rick can be misunderstood and taken out of context like that, I can imagine it being even more hazardous for RMS.