skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Since the civil war, you can’t sign ownership of yourself over to another. The ownership of data that intensive seems the same thing.
Yes, ancient greek. And I think the connections are mostly indirect. In interpreting literature in another language (Latin, Greek, etc) you spend time analyzing syntax and grammar looking for the idea or intention. Programming is very different, but code does still express and idea or intention.

Also, really helps with reading and written communication.
This is not on the front page, which is why people keep posting new links (they assume it's not been submitted yet). Given how many points it has and how recent it is, it must have been flagged off of the front page.
Explain to me how repealing Section 230 fixes this.
People sometimes ask "what backs the US dollar?" implying that nothing does.

The answer is the same as what extends US law to the entire world. 11 aircraft carriers.
Looking for Modafinil? – #1 Supplier in Europe
Even with Twitter banning him, people tweet/post about Trump all the time, especially his "frustration" with his blog.

It's almost like he never left.

You'd think with people wanting to silence him they wouldn't continue giving him a platform by sharing about his problems.
277.73 meters exactly.

https://img-prod.tgcom24.mediaset.it/images/2020/02/16/11472...

And yes, I checked Google Maps and they are very much obscuring this now (they weren't several months ago when I last checked).
TFA does say the code was under GPLv2 and CDDL. I would say it’s entirely within your right to distribute it in accordance with what the GPL FAQ considers okay, which includes internal distribution however you want. License header is required when distributing externally.
It's not quite clear to me how this relates to my question. If not 'objective', is there a fair 'subjective' way to decide on remuneration?
Yes, Netanyahu is much worse.
One does not... simply choose perl.
> but the fact of the matter is that cookie tracking data has NEVER been associated with any leak or data breach that resulted in personal harm.

How could you possibly make this claim in good faith, let alone believe it?

EDIT: typo
I follow Chinese politics pretty closely and I had no idea wtf the author was talking about. Not a huge fan of this kind of tepid tone.
That article reads like a brochure from a used car salesman.

"Yea it's got some pork. Yea, it's change for change's sake. But you'll like it, just wait and see."
Combine all this with a plan for Walmart to be fully employee-owned. Then millennials will be lining up not to shop there but to work there.

While this is perhaps impractical in the case of WalMart, I think you don't compete with Amazon at what they are best at. You have to change the game.
> your life expectancy based on how fast you walk, as measured by your phone

Shit I would love to know this for myself! Is there a service or app that can crunch the numbers and tell me?
Awesome find! But I wonder how easily this could be extended to 64 bit integers? That sequence in the lookup table won't fit into 64 bits if it's extended. I think you would have to fall back to just having the lookup table storing the transition data, as described in https://commaok.xyz/post/lookup_tables/ in the "A Small Step" section. And probably add a conditional in the beginning to handle very large integers that would overflow. Alternatively you might be able to do something with two lookup tables, but I think at that point you've got enough lookup data that it would be less efficient.
Which kinds of fiction? And which kinds of non-fiction? Only pop contemporary?

For an anecdotal example, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies is an account by a priest of what was happening in the New World. There's not much filler there.

Three Felonies a Day by Silvergate doesn't have prolix filler I can discern. Chris Hedges and the late Chalmers Johnson didn't seem to mince words and spread them around like hors d'oeuvres or paper doll chains.

If an editor had a word minimum, I'd do like a former English lecturer did on any of his papers he didn't think were actually read: write "Fuck you. Mary had a little lamb. Fuck you in the asshole." sprinkled throughout some actual filler word-salad.
Xiaomi-backed Fund invests in Zongmu, a Chinese self-driving system developer
So stepping outside the legal question and entering the space of philosophy of morality and ethics (i.e. "What should our laws be")...

The US legal system is designed to be adversarial. It isn't the prosecutor's job to worry about the defendant's feelings; that's the defense lawyer's job. The prosecutor's job is to seek legal truth and conviction (and, generally, to err on the side of the latter, on the belief that truth is proved out by the defense working to challenge any hypotheses the prosecutor brings to the table that are countered by evidence). Innocent until proven guilty, but it's the prosecutor's job to prove a defendant guilty, not innocent.

This is, obviously, extremely stressful on the defendant.

And this is not the only model of law. Adversarial finding of guilt-or-innocence a popular model in countries descended from European colonies, but other nations have different models. And the adversarial model has known weaknesses... In terms of introducing scientific facts to the table, the adversarial model encourages both sides to bring expert witnesses and the jury to decide who's version of facts is true, which is somewhat farcical. Some countries use an inquisitive system, in which the Court is empowered to do its own investigation and analysis (as opposed to acting as an impartial referee to the best cases the plaintiff and defendant can build). There are pros and cons to this system (and it's actually used in some pieces of the US).

It's heartbreaking what happened to Aaron, and in general, the American system of governance addresses mental illness extremely poorly. I don't have any good suggestions on how to do better, but that doesn't mean the current design is acceptable.
Those numbers do not refute my statement. I'm assuming they are global and not for the U.S. Midwest? Also as I indicated just because a user logs in does not mean they enjoy the product.

Also - does a FB ad on a web page refresh your login and count you as a DAU?
When the rules were different...
> It is a real privilege to watch the ever-quickening march of science in the 21st century.

Although these inventions seem to rarely get much actual use. Although I can't find it, I saw an HN comment a few months ago about how ~dozens of interesting inventions hit the HN frontpage every year...and barely any of them turn into anything resembling a product.

So, beyond "overlooking" them, there's a cynicism that comes from seeing hundreds of new developments announced and then never deployed.
Ok, I know this is HN, ie. libertarian central, but I for one don't think I'm taxed enough. If it means the US resumes its previous levels of scientific investment, we finally fucking go to mars and we all get healthcare? Yeah, I'm fucking in. Tax me at 50% I don't care.
Please review the site guidelines and omit name-calling from your arguments here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If we want to go down this route, then we could argue that every platform censors content. Hacker News censors content when it removes rule-breaking content, and the radio station down the road is censoring your because they won't play your music. But you have a right to free speech, not a right to be heard. Censorship is a word that we use to describe the abuse of that limitation, and doing something that happens hundreds of times a day (banning users for violating the TOS) absolutely don't constitute as an abuse. Even using the most liberal possible definition of "censorship", it barely applies in this situation.
duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27395366
Buy Xanax for Anxiety Treatments
I don't know that straightforward data on this will ever be forthcoming. And we can produce theoretical arguments every which way, not entirely unlike how classical philosophers were able to prove, through reason alone, that objects in nature tended to only travel in perfect circles and straight lines, and never shapes like ellipses and parabolae, and probably produce about the same volume of useful epistemological output in the process.

I'd think that the more interesting thing would be to try and find some proxies we can use as an ersatz empirical test. For example, what about ad prices? If personalization based on tracking really does work better than other forms of ad targeting, then one would expect that that difference would yield a noteworthy difference in ad prices.

In short: If it really works so well, then you'd expect personally targeted ads to cost significantly more per impression than ads that use content-based targeting. And I'd assume that that information is reasonably public.
Just like Epstein didn't kill himself, Aaron wasn't suicidal.

He simply found out about the vast swamp of pedophile professors -- THAT was the REAL story he wanted to go public.

Of course [they] couldn't allow this to happen...

When Trump will Be Back (later this Summer), you might want to ask yourself some serious question about how the world is REALLY going...

Happy Great Awakening to everybody (iff you decide to want to like to try it, that is).
If 'All Models Are Wrong,' Why Do We Give Them So Much Power?
Costco is like Sam’s Club, but without the tattoos.
I don't believe that Facebook or any social media platform actually controls the public narrative in any meaningful sense, that argument is often overplayed to serve a politically motivated scare-narrative about a vast leftist conspiracy controlling the media. Facebook certainly couldn't do much about the public narrative in regards to lab-leak theories about COVID even when they banned it from their platform.
A whole 16 likes on his latest post, too. Some "prominent political figure".
> If it means the US resumes its previous levels of scientific investment, we finally fucking go to mars and we all get healthcare?

Have a look at how government spends taxes now before suggesting such utopian disinfo
Please, stop deciding the winners and losers government.

Tax us less, far less. Here’s something to consider - today I pay >60% of my income to taxes; historically (pre-1920) if 20% of a farmers income was taxed that would be very high.

I don’t want to have to write grants so I can have a business. Reduce the burden and let me compete against ideas, not people who write grants properly.
It’s not a journalists job to dictate policy.

It’s to emotionally masturbate a message.

Then the people will look at the politicians offering fixes.

This is the whole point of division of labor.

So many on this thread are looking for Superman. Did you found the company you work for and take out the garbage, while refilling the snack machine?

You want someone like PG to write down some elementary math and say it’s a solution to something?

No one does it all.
Data feels like the next resource (like hydrocarbons or other resource extraction) where it can be exploited for massive profit while its costs externalized for the rest of society to bear.

Like how it took decades for society to come around to human influenced climate change, it will probably take a while for people to accept the social and mental health costs associated with the extraction and use of this resource, or we will get to a point where people are manipulated enough to be insulated from such a realization.
I don't think so. It is not the data itself that has value. It is a game of information asymmetry and that corporations can make you desire things you wouldn't desire without that interaction. They then convert a fraction of that desire into money flowing from you to them that you otherwise would have kept.

Maybe I am old school or too naive, but I don't see how I would make a personal margin with my own data.
If a company receives federal aid, or their employees receive federal aid due to low pay ex Walmart in the US, they should have to cap payouts. Maybe based on a ratio to the lowest paid employee or federal minimum wage. Make execs lobby to raise the minimum wage so they can increase their bonus or something.
HN users continuing to conflate "Private company doing private company things" with "rights" and "censorship".

Private companies have always banned/blocked problematic users. That's not censorship.
This is an interesting point and one that I disagree almost entirely with. I would make an exception to cases where someone is faced with overwhelming continuous debilitating pain - or the destruction of their mental state (i.e. Sir Terry Pratchett) - but otherwise I think that suicide is pretty much categorically irrational since life is all you've got and while there may be pain involved with it - there is brightness as well. When the road truly seems to be only darkness I'd suggest reaching out to others around you or councilors and talking it out with them because chances are that your observation of there only being negativity is an issue in your perception.
I think the root problem is the indirect nature of that dollar value. It's not concrete / obvious enough for normal people to understand it. Seems to be a sales / marketing problem as much as a technical one.
They were absolutely wrong actually.
Brian Christian here. Honored to be the guest on the Ezra Klein show this week and by Ezra’s kind words: "Brian Christian’s recent book The Alignment Problem is the best book on the key technical and moral questions of A.I. that I’ve read."

Happy to take any questions, etc., if folks are interested! AMA.
JavaScript convert date to string format dd mm yyyy
I used Lucene percolator queries 8 years ago, and it probably wasn't that new at that time.
>people tweet/post about Trump all the time

They banned his Twitter account, not remove him from existence. What did you expect?

And there's definitely a lot less drama now with Trump having such a large megaphone. I doubt his blog had anywhere near the reach of his Twitter account.
>It was too dominated, he thought, by big business and by the university system: the country’s practical needs were an afterthought.

>Kilgore is about to get his revenge. The Senate will probably soon pass the us Innovation and Competition Act, known until recently as the Endless Frontier Act. Though the bill is named after Bush’s report, it will take American science policy in a more Kilgorian direction.

>Mr Gruber agrees that existing funding agencies are too conservative, and wishes the bill were bigger...“You can call it picking winners,” he avers. “I call it taking risks.”

Would you agree or disagree with the premise of government funding supporting independent innovators or would you expect the funds to go towards large institutions?

I'm a bit skeptical personally.
Yeah, but the next strain could be even worse. You seem comfortable playing the odds if you can be passive while doing it instead of making the active choice of getting a vaccination, even if the odds of the worse thing happening is many orders of magnitude greater.
Why do they get 400 million a year in other government subsides despite being wildly profitable?

Seems like the CFO and executives are worth every cent they are paid.
I actually did try a redirected walking demo[1] a couple years ago on Quest. The implementation was very basic and the experience felt really disorienting. It didn't make me immediately sick (I'm pretty well adjusted to VR at this point), but it did make me feel like I was losing my balance whenever I started walking in the distorted space; kinda like I was dizzy and about to fall over. This was in a relatively large play space too, in my backyard.

On the positive side it did succeed in redirecting my motion, which was pretty cool. And again, the implementation I tried was extremely basic. An application programmed to be a bit more clever with the redirection might have felt more natural.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/bubyr8/redirec...
People have been talking about the boomer boogeyman for at least 20 years now. Isn't that particular bubble supposed to have passed already?
Silence is also an answer.

When discussing the decline of a language, the only meaningful number is how much of it is being written right now. Anything already written in it will continue to exist, in some sense, indefinitely, and may even continue to be run. Is IBM 1401 alive? Lots of 1401 code is being run (probably via a stack of emulators) for payroll, but no new 1401 code is being written, or even compiled to.
That is like saying "even though I see other drivers speeding all the time, it's only me ever who gets pulled over."

Someone else breaking the rules doesn't make it ok for you to.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. There's far too much content here for us to read it all, or even see it all. People can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
It turns out that airplanes are fairly resistant to bombs aboard. Several attempts with smaller bombs have failed, despite causing significant damage. The cockpit door has been hardened, too.

Airliners are now pretty resistant to engine explosions, once thought to be impossible to do.

Keep in mind that a bunker will never fly.

Nobody is suggesting not going after criminals who attack software.
100% agree. While the punishment didn't fit the crime it still was a crime.
> This implies a model of the world in which education causes prosperity.

That implication assumes that prosperity is correlated to democracy. There's also a vast difference between a democracy and a functioning democracy (which has arguably never existed). The value of democracy is drilled into citizens of democracies, however, when you look at it objectively it's a bitter failure; just like all its alternatives.

The implication is: if you want to control where the votes go, you want an uneducated populace that is more likely to believe emotional/populist arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.
You are getting free searches, email, messaging, photo storage etc
You're getting their service. You want to use Facebook to talk to your family and keep up with your friends. You pay them in info, they pay you with the service you're using. Same with every other site, vox, theverge, slashdot, etc...

Sure there are a few companies you pay that also collect your data and I wish they didn't but even then they'd raise the price (maybe willing to pay more) if they didn't subside the service via your info
I consider the state of my mental health to be pretty solidly strong, but if I was facing an overzealous prosecutor telling me (convincingly) I was certainly going to jail for a very long time, I might take my own life. It's disturbing and sobering to think about it, but there it is.

I think the question here is: would Aaron Swartz have committed suicide at that particular time if not for the prosecutorial overreach he was mired in? I suspect the answer there is pretty safely: no. Would someone else in his position perhaps not have committed suicide in that situation? Sure. But he did, and it was clearly in no small part due to the circumstances he was in. I'm fine assigning much of the blame to the persecution he suffered under the US government. They wanted to make an example of him, by using a poorly-written, over-broad law that has traditionally been applied selectively depending on the needs of law enforcement. And sometimes when you put people in that position, they can't take it.

If you don't agree, I guess that's fine, but quibbling about semantics here is just in poor taste and not particularly productive.

> If, generally, a prosecutor thinks that a person is not mentally stable enough to face trial for their crimes without commiting suicide, are they just allowed to get away with what they want?

Of course not, and this kind of question makes me feel like you're arguing in poor taste. Prosecutors have a ton of latitude in how they handle cases. Swartz was not some violent criminal who needed to be taught a lesson and be held up as an example to others. He was just a flawed human who believed scientific research (much of it funded by public, taxpayer money) shouldn't be locked up behind a corporation's paywall. The zeal in which this case was prosecuted far exceeded the "crime".

But in general, if a person is a suicide risk during any kind of court proceeding, yes, actions should be taken to ensure that they won't (or aren't able to) commit suicide. If that means being put in a hospital under observation, sure, though that extreme may not have been necessary to save Swartz. We have an obligation as a society to treat everyone with respect and care, even -- especially -- those we've accused of crimes. We're very far off from that ideal, of course.
Yahoo and DDG both use Bing results.
duckduckgo and yahoo both use bing as the backend.
Jack Dorsey Says Square May Build a Bitcoin Hardware Wallet
I think government funding of science is actually slowing it down. Most scientists in the academic world are focused on churning out papers for prestige and chasing grants. There is too much noise generated and lot of it is just bad/poor science.

The government crowds out industrial/commercial labs that are necessary to actually complete large huge projects. As for going to mars, look at how much SpaceX has accomplished and what it cost -- significantly leaner and cheaper than NASA running the show.

Also, taxes are mainly used for social programs and not really for science.
so true, lets just spend 500T on it :) dont want to be cave men here.

and lets just define "infrastructure' as anything we want it to be. heck, free chocolate and ponies for everyone is infrastructure. (makes people happy so its human infrastructure)

>> The act’s ambitions have since narrowed. Instead of the full $100bn, the nsf’s new tech directorate will get $4bn.
The "data economy" is just an extension of the "Advertising Economy".

Of course the idea of an "Advertising Economy" should cause people to pause a bit since advertising, by its nature, can only help maximize profits for somebody else. In theory the money that gets pumped into advertising can only be squeezed from the profits of other companies who are doing some optimization, weighing the cost of advertising vs the increase in their market. The maximum amount it makes sense to pay an advertiser is proportional to the increase in the audience they provide, with the assumption that your profit - fee * population_ads > profit * population_no_ads.

One thing should be very clear, advertising cannot create value, it can only extract some of the surplus value that other companies are creating. This puts a pretty hard limit on how big advertisers can grow.

The solution to this was of course to take the byproduct of advertising, the generation of large amounts of demographic data, and transform that into a product. Suddenly selling, sorting and manipulating data create an entirely new class of products and create demand for new professionals as well.

The advertising industry, specializing in creating the illusion of value when their may be none, has done a brilliant job of convincing everyone that data is inherently values. Allowing tech companies to sell not only their data, that is often of questionable actual value, but the infrastructure to use this data, and sell training in the skills necessary to work with big data.

The "data economy" is just advertising turned in on itself. Anyone who works with data knows deep down that all of this is a farce, but I think we still have a bit of time before all of this hits the fan, so enjoy the ride.
unrelated but then somewhat related question, how is it that fees are negligible, but they aren't on eth, bitcoin etc?