skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Finally I said, "Look. We shouldn't be trying to make our customers spend more time in this product any more than LG does trying to get us to spend more time in our refrigerators." It fell on deaf ears.

This is brilliant; too bad your marketing department was apparently run by broken robots.
I was just addressing your comment that it was impersonal for the B-29 pilots. They knew exactly what was occurring below them.
> Despite the claims of some activists, circumcision has no negative consequences

[citation needed]
Their designed for slightly different roles. The F-35’s R&D looks hard to justify vs simply having more F-22, but the F-35B can do verticals takeoff for example and the F-22 can’t.

So, the real question is if the F-35’s should have had fewer versions and thus been more capable in it’s remaining roles.
I’ve brought my jetbrains license with me to three jobs. I see an IDE as no different than a mechanic’s tools, and relatively speaking a personal JB license is less money than a mechanic spends on tools in a year.
https://archive.org/details/deviltakehindmos00chan
The thing is that even bad trips can be very, very useful if you treat psychedelics as a tool for exploration of your mind. I had two super bad trips - with 7g and 5g dose, in both I felt like I'm trapped in my mind and there were no world outside of my mind, and that idea was constantly repeating, with me feeling that there is no time and it will be forever like that - it was like pure hell :) Ultimately it was mind opening for me and I would recommend mushrooms to others if I knew that they are mentally strong and healthy.
> Also: RTGs are typically 3-7% efficient, so your trunk will put out thousands of watts of waste heat continuously. Hope you live in a cold climate.

Ouch. It might be possible to harness some of that with e.g. Thermal to electric circuits to improve the efficiency.
Loss leader literally definitionally means that you're selling that good or service at a loss. Yes, you hope you recoup the losses by selling more goods and services but you do lose money on that good/service.
A headline that would've been absolutely unthinkable 10 or 20 years ago. We live in the future.
> Complex SVG Favicons will usually be larger in term of bytes than highly compressed PNG icons.

The post you linked to doesn't include the word "SVG". Is there a separate article that compares using one SVG file vs. using multiple images?

It's hard to imagine that using a typical suite of PNG images at different sizes is going to be more efficient (and future-proof) than a single SVG file run through svgo.
3DS1 isn't because it leads to unacceptable cart abandonment rates, but 3DS2 is designed to address that problem by using SMS or app-based authentication for only high-risk transactions, instead of username and password for every transaction.

SCA is therefore likely to become a requirement in the US once it's reached maturity in Europe, as we saw with EMV.

Further reading: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2020/12/strong-customer...
When I look at project management for the small projects (1-20 people) I am working on I always wonder how projects of such a complexity are managed. It must be freakishly difficult to coordinate all the pieces.

The people working on this will also have several stressful months ahead of them. From launch to full deployment so many things can go wrong and there is nothing that can be done when something fails.
> CAN-SPAM[0] does exactly that for US businesses.

No, I said make it illegal, and I meant exactly that.
I think the idea is that you should take decision with incomplete data. Perhaps it would be interesting to show in the closing screen all the additional information.
We'll see how much of the referencable content is kept. And how much of an impact the film ends up having.

I'm looking forward to it, but I reserve the right to cling to the 1984 release.
The software isn't fully open-source either. Some components of the USB stack are licensed under ST's "Ultimate Liberty License" [1], which is clearly not open source:

> 5. No use, reproduction or redistribution of this software partially or totally may be done in any manner that would subject this software to any Open Source Terms...

In fact, I suspect that Arduino may be in violation of both this license and the GPL by linking the ULL licensed code with GPL-licensed Arduino code.

[1]: http://www.st.com/SLA0044
You wouldn't use a plutonium based RTG in civilian use for obvious reasons.
Well, those people perhaps aren't happily complying with lockdown measures either.

It's a matter of how such a scheme would be implemented. One could imagine working with incentives, for example.

Alternatively, being able to produce a valid, up-to-date test result at any time could be made mandatory. This might seem draconian but it's a lot less so than unending lockdowns and the perspective of continued social distancing.
I think "The Complete Guide to Capital Markets for Quantitative Professionals" comes close to what you're asking.
It's a lot easier to have the consistent policy "we block Tor exit nodes" than "we block Tor exit nodes, except on this site".

Then they have to make that decision about every site. And re-evaluate that decision every so often.
Wow. Portugal to China by car must be wild. How long did this take? And how dangerous is the trip?
At the end of the thread, Greenwald made the comparison specifically to Rachael Maddow. This seems appropriate, because I think she occupies the same space on the other side of the political spectrum, and I think there would be more outrage generally. Ironically, Greenwald wrote an article recently about Maddow relying on this same legal argument successfully prior to Carlson using it [1].

[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...
>Was the F-35 necessary for threat mitigation. No. Was it framed as the necessary for cost savings, yes.

I think we're saying the same thing. The argument is, "Was the F22/F18/Fwhatever/weapon-system necessary for threat mitigation? Yes."

With that said, if proponents of the F35 want to frame it as "threat reduction + cost savings" that's how they get the budget approved. But the point stands that without a threat, there's no basis for the cost savings argument. I'm not saying it was effective as cost reduction.

To circle back to the original point, it's much easier to get a budget approved when the basis is existential threat, rather than "science is cool."
One quick thing: antennas made for car rooftops don't work so well on your house- they need a ground plane. Look for CB radio base station antennas. They will either be something like center fed 1/2 wave dipoles (18 ft. long), or shorter 1/4 wave (9 ft.) but with ground plane radials sticking out around the bottom.

https://www.rightchannelradios.com/collections/base-station-...
It doesn't. I was also disappointed by this. I'm in Australia and we kept our numbers low by locking down hard and early and distinguishing between community transmission and infection via incoming travellers. We did often hit long periods of no community transmission and only had outbreaks due to breaches in protocol or sloppiness by some people's part.
U.S. Churches tax exempt status is typically as a 501c3 non-profit and that strictly forbids direct political activity. Removing the 501c3 designation would mean that they no longer have a reason to refrain from direct political activity.

A Church does not specifically need to be a 501c3 organization to be tax exempt, but it makes things quite a bit easier for several reasons so most choose to go this route.
Agreed!

A “Critical” bug in a dev context should mean something very different from a “Critical” bug in a prod context. A “Critical” devDependency bug should be either a direct threat to the developer’s context, either by infecting the dev machine or by injecting a supply-chain problem, worming it’s way into downstream contexts.

npm audit is just not granular OR careful enough to address these issues appropriately.
Recent and related:

On the Rock of Gibraltar - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27756373 - July 2021 (24 comments)
Did anyone notice or care that RPis aren't open source?
Ah. I think I understand a little better. Knowing nothing else about what you're doing, the way I would structure that would be to run multiple fastmap tasks with crawler + processor code and then pull down just the processed data. So basically, have fastmap as the most upstream node.

Whether or not that's possible with the realities of your application is another question of course :).

If you're curious, I'd be happy to provide some compute time (say 100 vCPU-hours) in exchange for feedback. Email me if that's at all interesting.
I think it's technically defined as private ownership of the means of production, but don't quote me on that. My last economics class happened many years ago.
I suggest you Void Linux, it has a musl build. It may run far better than Arch.
> What is an ad, exactly? You cite Consumer Reports as a model - they have affiliate links on their reviews. Is that an ad?

I agree that Consumer Reports does include some advertising, but it's not necessary for their business model to work--consumer reports predated the internet by over 50 years, so it certainly predated affiliate links. At least at some points their primary source of income was subscriptions, and judging by how hard it is to get at most of their reviews without a subscription, that continues to be a significant revenue stream for them.

> Is a sponsored social media post? A celebrity endorsement? Free products given to athletes in the hopes that they will be seen using it? Logos on clothing? Is the standard just "I know it when I see it"?

While I agree that we need a clear definition of an ad to encode this to law, I don't buy this feigned confusion as a valid argument that we can't or shouldn't legislate against ads. Obviously we need to work out a clearer definition than "I know it when I see it" to legislate effectively, but it's absurd to claim that I need to present a fully-written legal code in order to present a valid opinion on Hacker News.

We may disagree about free products given to athletes in the hopes that they'll be seen wearing them, for example. But if you claim not to know that a 30 second video clip in the middle of your TV show telling you that you should drink Budweiser to pick up chicks is both an ad and a harmful lie, you're not arguing in good faith. This argument is just throwing FUD about implementation details: you're not responding in any way to my statement of the problem, or presenting any fundamental criticism of my proposed solution.

The first implementation of this law wouldn't be perfect. We'd need to iterate on it. But even a ban against a very narrow definition of ads would be extremely beneficial.

Since you haven't even disagreed with my statement of the problem, perhaps you agree that advertising is bad, and would like to draft some sample legislation that solves that problem to your satisfaction?

> Also (in the US) it almost certain runs afoul of the First Amendment.

While current judicial precedent defines corporations as people, that's clearly a terrible mistake. Corporations aren't people and as such the first amendment does not apply to them. Yes, I know, there's some grey area where restricting the rights of corporations might restrict the rights of individuals: remember what I said about implementation details?

Overturning judicial precedent is a legal hurdle to get over to get rid of advertising, but it isn't a logical problem with the solution. Just because something is difficult to do doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Yeah, I know this is an anecdote but most people in my life just put up with a constant stream of buzzing and pinging. I’m very much in the habit of not allowing any notifications to begin with, especially in my browser, but I’m in a minority I think.

Emails are even worse, I unsubscribe from the vast majority and block the ones I can’t (Hermes are utterly revolting for this noise generation, three non-unsubscribable emails and three texts per delivery!). The pathetic signal to noise ratio of email makes it utterly worthless as a means of communication for me, if it were up to me I’d do away with it altogether!
Well put. But isn't the concern here with some utilities becoming ... people? Either way could result in disfigured souls. Is AI simply a pursuit of slavery without guilt?
High entry barriers for self-driving are extremely good, for safety reasons.

Regulating research into general AI would not make those barriers considerably higher.

Tesla critics and competitors are also strongly in favor of self-driving regulations.
so what bitcoin (and of course other crypto) is, is complex and ultimately subjective : it's different things to different people, just like money.

It does some things money can do & does some things that money cannot. FIAT money is the same, It does some s bitcoin can't but cannot do some things bitcoin can.

instead of advancing a concrete definition of crypto - which as i said is a subjective argument - i'd encourage you to look at what money, monetarism & fiat really are.

It's equally subjective, and arguably a more difficult concept that crypto.

At the moment, traditional cash can be spent much more freely than crypto, which is one of things limiting it's utility as a currency. But similarly, the lack of an immutable ledger, a practically infinite(or a least unknown) supply, and risk of physical counterfeits limits Cash as store of value.

....right now...crypto is something. Even if it's yet to be fully realised. It's mainstream, at least as an investible asset and It has some utility as currency, albeit limited.

For people in developed countries, with established currencies backed by a military force, either directly of indirectly, it will seem quite absurd that crypto could/should replace cash.

For people in unstable regimes, countries who've experienced hyperinflation, it's a massively attractive proposition.
But the article is about Canada. Did you know that Alberta and Ontario publicly fund Catholic schools? I didn't. Seems unjust when they don't do the same for any other religion.

Also, there's all that context in there about the hundreds of unmarked graves found at former residential schools run by the Catholic Church. And that of the call to tax the church is to make restitution to the victims of those schools and their families.
In that case it may be an urban myth, with its origin in the (apparently real) Electrolux advert shown here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180707150205/http://adland.tv/...
Small related thread from a few days ago:

We need a Butlerian Jihad against AI - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27698233 - July 2021 (3 comments)
Here are a couple articles:

https://www.cell.com/neuron/pdf/S0896-6273(18)30901-2.pdf

https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/26121/
I'd love help finding better, less immediately downvoted off the map ways to say it, but I'd extend this to a wide class of software in general.

> Far more important than the process: strong AI is immoral in and of itself. For example, if you have strong AI, what are you going to do with it besides effectively have robotic slaves? And even if, by some miracle, you create strong AI in a mostly ethical way, and you also deploy it in a mostly ethical way, strong AI is immoral just in its existence. I mean that it is an abomination. It’s not an evolved being.

My fear is that most software, even when useful, locks us into certain paths. Our situations or needs change, evolve, but we will remain subject to inflexible software, to systems we cannot make change with us, in the vast majority of cases. Only a very few programs strive for better: spreadsheets being one noted example.

Ursala Franklin categorized technology as holistic or prescriptive[1], where it is something wielded or something that directs us. Even a social media app which lets us create content- a seemingly holistic act- still has narrow prescriptive channels we can not escape. We will never be able to understand or enhance this tool. We will never understand it, never see it's nature. This, to me, is the definition of what Erik talks about: an abomination, a thing beyond comprehension, a horror outside of reality, the form of existence which is shared.

I feel like we're reaching a crisis where we are creating an unknowable, unexplorable world. We're building an anti-Enlightenment prison. That, to me, constitutes a deontological hazard, demands that we assess the action themselves of creating unexplorable software.

[Edit: I misread the line I quotes as, "what are you going to do with it besides effectively be robotic slaves": that uhh changes the pertinence of our two discussions here notably. I think it's risky that the strong ai would be used to try to architect policies/systems that steer people, which is a different concern than Erik's.]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Franklin#Holistic_and_p...
Well, yes and no. If they just wanted to heat things up, they'd throw the reaction over a Bunsen burner or some other appropriate heating element. So while I agree that the reactions are speeding up due to an increase in available energy, I'm hesitant to say it's the same as simply "heating things up".
I guess this applies but I keep seeing reference to the "novel coronavirus". It is new and interesting?! But i mean...feels like the point the parent is making is more correct than the virus is novel, biologists just love this word as it doesn't seem necessary here.
Of course. If you aren't competent enough to make good decisions, you have to make easy ones.
I would be more inclined to believe that the /g/ board (the board implicated) did what was accused if what happened was that he did something far more grave like saying he has an iphone that he absolutely loves and loves using MacOS.
Read my comments, and the answers to yours: UBI is the a flat playment for everyone, but most existing social services have vastly different costs depending on many factors, including age.

The only way it would work was if UBI was calculated as the maximum payment needed by the most needy person. But then there would be no incentives to work for the vast majority of the population. No one producing is no one paying taxes, so no UBI.
China's gene giant harvests data from millions of women
As an American, it would have to be performing Scottish music (as a teenager!) in an _extremely_ remote pub in Scotland late into the wee hours of the night while drinking ale (as a teenager—wut?!) and chatting it up with the locals…alongside my mother who was a Scottish-American student of Gàidhlig (Scottish Gaelic). Not the typical thing one does at that age. Still one of my favorite memories!
Thanks. Could you upload it for people without a LinkedIn account?
There's similar analogies here to the space shuttle.

For the shuttle to get approved, it had to meet the demands of many masters. The fact that it had to meet DoD missions as well as NASA missions made it a bit of a boondoggle. Likewise, the JSF needed to meet the Marine Corps demands of VTOL to take the place of the AV8B.

It's hard to remain focused when you have so many stakeholders. As the saying goes, a camel is a horse designed by committee.
I initially downvoted this, but now i'm upvoting it as the comments it exposed probably educated a lot of people on how the phases of testing work. Thanks for not being afraid to ask the question!
The problem is, we don't really know how consciousness works (I assume consciousness the the part the author takes issue with; most of our cognitive faculties in isolation are not that special). We don't even have a great definition of consciousness, or good tests for it, or know whether it is a linear spectrum, or if it emerges abruptly with the evolution of certain reasoning and attention faculties, and we don't know which animals have it and to what degree.

So when people say we shouldn't develop AI to think like that, it's basically saying we shouldn't try to understand how consciousness works. Because as soon as we do, I guarantee someone out there will attempt to make conscious AI.
Master carpenters vs. people assembling Ikea furniture (and using Agile to figure out which pieces fit together).
I loved Stockfighter. I played through it as preparation for starting my first job out of college, at an HFT. No comment on whether it was good preparation. :)
Well, you may be right, but then if you are, I’m not sure you can justify leaving your data with Apple either, which is a public company that has the same underlying market incentives. In fact, if that’s what I believed, I doubt I would put any of my data anywhere, and rather just go live in the woods, or more likely, just give up and stop caring. I’m not convinced that Apple will be any more or less malicious than google is/was/will be when considering a 20 year time frame.
There's an interesting thought experiment referenced in this article, but I'm not sure it holds.

"The philosopher John Searle made precisely this argument about the standard conception of rationality. His point was that there are no odds that would rationally allow a parent to bet the life of their child for a quarter. Human nature just doesn’t work that way, and it shouldn’t work that way."

I agree that it sounds morally repugnant to risk your child's life for a quarter, but in practice people do do this all the time.

Imagine your child wants ice cream. There is some utility in taking your child to the nearby ice cream parlor. Your child will be made happy and you will be made happy by making your child happy. However, this is not infinite utility. In other words, there is probably some amount of money I could offer you to not take your child to get ice cream today. If I offered you 10,000 dollars to not get your child ice cream today, I bet the vast majority of people would take the deal. That sets the upper bound of the utility of taking your child to the ice cream parlor at 10,000 dollars.

Suppose the ice cream parlor is 3 miles away (I just checked the distance to my favorite ice cream parlor and it is 3 miles away). In the United States this website[1] says there is approximately 1 death per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. We could rephrase that as 1 * 10^-8 chance to die per vehicle mile traveled. This risk may be high, presumably you aren't drunk or impaired, maybe you're a better driver than average or have a safer or better maintained car, or live in a safer place, but the risk of death isn't zero.

If you are willing to drive your child 3 miles to go get ice cream then it seems like you are willing to expose your child to the risk of death from car accidents for utility that is less than 10,000 dollars. Putting those ideas together we could calculate the odds where a parent would, in practice, risk the life of their child for a quarter.

I don't quite know what to make of this. I tend to think that people would regard doing odds calculations like this for real life decisions as somewhat sociopathic and would just prefer to live as if significantly unlikely bad things were impossible or just refuse to think about the moral implications of probabilities. That seems similar to what the article is saying, people just prefer to live as if bad super collider or AI experiments won't happen rather than reason about them.

I tend to think that being too "reasonable" on a local scale is bad. That is, I will still take my children to go get ice cream even though I know driving is a risk. At higher levels though I want people to be making decisions that are increasingly based on reason and probabilities. I do want the traffic engineers to be reasoning about vehicle deaths per mile and the like when they are setting speed limits, traffic signs, and the like. For things like AI and, I suppose, super colliders, our decision makers should absolutely be considering things rationally.

1 - https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...