skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>But the problem that I have with the piece is really the rest of it - I think it's a little patronizing, I think using 23andme data to justify your positions is problematic, and I think paragraph after paragraph you see someone expounding at length on their ideas about very complex subjects, subjects that are near and dear to people's identities and politics. It's not a dialogue, it's not a jumping off point for a discussion, it's just a polemic.

The author is deeply involved in this complex subject and discussion. They have more than a good reason to have an opinion on it, and express it. I don't want to get into his tone/wording. I'm going to give him a wide pass just because its probably not his first language, and also because those types of things are highly culture-specific.

> That's not great leadership, that's not listening to the team, that's not navigating a complex situation with grace. He didn't have to just fall on his sword and apoloogize, but as a VP you have to at least be thoughtful about how you handle these situations.

Sure, a more street-smart/savvy person would probably do things differently. But fundamentally, I think that people don't have a right to not be offended. For e.g. I don't like the idea of people calling something offensive - like say the drawing of a certain prophet - and forcing others to accept their view. Its strictly a case-by-case thing. I'd want to know exactly what was so offensive. Maybe from a purely business perspective, Google did the right thing, but from a social discourse / wide-tent-philosophy standpoint I think it is disappointing.

Anyway, I appreciate you writing out your reply, and I don't really want to argue with you or change your opinion or anything, but just like how we can respectfully co-exist on HN, it should be possible to do so within a company too. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in a random person who I had not even heard of before this article ! :) I guess I just believe that people can still have integrity even when we disagree with them.
Remember, Google can just outright ban your full account and not explain why.
> It is perfectly legal to offend people in Germany.

No, wrong, it isn't.

https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/183a.html
https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/166.html

Sexual and religious offense. Both predicated on someone being (even just possibly) offended.

https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/185.html
https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/188.html

General offense, usually only prosecuted if the offended wants it (but the prosecutor has discretion to proceed without). Harsher punishments if the offended is a politician.

https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/104.html
Even just offending other states by burning flags is punishable.

So you couldn't be more wrong. (I personally think those laws are BS and should be done away with.)
1. Get rid of non-useful stuff.
2. Put what's left in the places where it is handy.
3. Take a nap.
The bigger problem that I have with the idea that misinformation kills democracy is that it seems to suggest that misinformation is some new phenomenon or that the average person has been well informed throughout the history of western democracy.

Democracy thrived before the printing press. Democracy survived the invention of the printing press, which was mostly in the hands of magnates who could afford it. Democracy survived the invention of television and radio, which was (and still is) in the hands of a select few magnates. We build up terms like "journalistic integrity" and look at the past with rose colored glasses as if these mediums delivered pure objective truth.

If anything, what we're seeing with the internet is a more true democracy with a wider range of opinions, less controlled by small groups of plutocrats. If you don't like to see the death of that plutocracy, or you're happy to see a new group of benevolent plutocrats come in to retake control the narrative, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you don't really like democracy.
> Circumvention

> Publicly sharing apps suspended by Google Play Developer Policies.

> Publicly sharing videos that do not comply with the YouTube Community Guidelines.

Google bans people for this? Wow.
None of the C++ places I've worked are considering switching. Rust lacks the libraries and ecosystem, and it's hard enough to hire C++ developers as it is.
I'm actually using Scale.AI and few other annotation products, if you can provide a clear example how your product stands out/compares to existing annotations services that would be great. Specifically focusing on quality of annotations.

Normally we do this kind of benchmark internally by sending the same dataset to each service and running some stats on the results, but if a vendor comes in with a ready to use comparison report that would be easier sale.

As for end-to-end you would be competing with large internal ML teams and revenue bringing internal ML engines, i'm probably not the right audience for that type of product. Salesforce seems to be doing alright on that front, but from my discussions with them there is a lot of hand-holding and customizations for each client use case, it's a high-touch thing.
I’m referring to the segment of the market I’m in. I didn’t mean ‘the market’ as in 100% market share. I should have said “the market is speaking.” No need to come off as rude.
The comment you're replying to is a perfect example of why tech companies shouldn't be trusted to be arbiters of truth.
"I never understood that logic."

Pragmatic techniques mystify some.

Some code is beyond the ability of a compiler to verify because the necessary information is missing. Rust acknowledges this reality and accommodates such code through unsafe. The presumption inherent in this is that unsafe is used only when deemed necessary. Yes, deemed; a decision made by some flawed soul, as opposed to a compiler. This is a pragmatic policy and it cannot be reconciled by the unreasonable.
Wouldn't Russia rather Norway stop pumping oil so the EU buys more energy from Russia? What is in it for Russia? I don't really know much about this, genuinely curious.
No offense, but this is exactly the kind of proposal I would expect from a software developer. It would work perfectly with a program where everything is nice and clean:

INSERT fake_actor() 5 TIMES
SELECT suspects()
CHECK officer_state_of_mind()

In the real world, as somebody already said, the logistics of hiring 5 actors to act "suspicious", get themselves arrested, set up plausible backstories that you would somehow have to keep from the police, potentially expose them to bodily harm, the legal consequences if something go wrong, etc?

I'm going to assume you're proposing this as a thought experiment and not something that could actually work.

[And I mean this in the nicest of ways, I construct these kinds of "solutions" constantly too]
You are speaking very speculatively about facts that cannot ever be demonstrated to any EU court. ...so the point from our perspective is moot. There is no legal risk, because there is no method of detection of a violation, and no method of enforcement.
....yes? It will still run something like CS GO at 500fps+, and I imagine some modern games it won't run smoothly at all. I'm just saying that giving an arbitrary number like "runs games at 30fps" is super unhelpful.
It’s a sting operation
But the Turkish government and its supporters are allowed to deny and downplay the Armenian genocide to their hearts content. The European Court of Human Rights even decided (Perinçek v. Switzerland) that people have a free speech right to deny the Armenian genocide, yet it has also held that people don't have a free speech right to deny the Holocaust (Pastörs v. Germany).

Both genocides happened, both genocides were awful, but it seems like different rules apply to denying different genocides, and that those rules are based on political calculations rather than defensible principle.
> That’s because the primary characteristic of high-end housing is newness.

The primary characteristic of high-end housing is the characteristic of being located in an already desirable neighborhood.
I guess professor DE Shaw needs to up his game, he's only worth $7B
Pretty much nothing in your screed is factual. The Minneapolis "building boom" reflects the general trend in most of the nation: expansion of the housing stock since about 2005 has been negligible, much less than 1 per hundred residents per year. This is about half the rate of real expanding cities like Houston.

I don't know what better signal you expect than the fact that median sale price of homes in Minneapolis proper has gone up 45% in only 5 years and the time to sell is now 11 days instead of 21 days in 2016, according to Redfin.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Fu56
This is common for co-ops in NYC. Co-ops are, more or less, condos where the board has more say, and are much more common than condos in NYC. As an owner, you can typically only rent your unit for up to 2 out of every 5 years, and you cannot rent it out for periods shorter than 1 year to prevent short-term rentals.

This keeps the building's occupants very stable, while still giving you some flexibility when life happens. It may also help keep housing costs lower by reducing investor appeal: co-ops are typically cheaper than condos in NYC, though they're also usually older buildings than condos, so apples-to-apples cost comparisons are tough.
this is a new thing that is currently in beta
The article leans pretty hard on the hat problem to show that the Axiom of Choice has intuitively unacceptable consequences, but I don't see why the solution is so "ridiculous," as they put it. Here's one "intuitive" way of looking at the problem: every person in the line sees an infinite number of hats in front of them, but not the finite number behind them. Intuitively, they see 100% of the information in the problem. The amount of information each of them can see is infinite, and the amount they can't see is finite. Is it so strange then that they only make a finite number of wrong guesses, and an infinite number of correct ones?

I think the article artfully uses a framing of the problem that hides the inherent, inexorable alienness of infinite sets under a familiar-seeming surface just long enough for it to come bursting out in the solution. It's a trick of timing. If your brain lingers on the problem long enough, you realize that the problem itself violates our ordinary intuitions, independent of the solution. The idea of an infinite number of people agreeing on and memorizing representative members of R^N from each equivalence class and then determining the relevant equivalence class by reading an infinite number of real numbers from an infinite number of hats is completely fantastical. How could any solution to this problem not be nuts?

More to the point, if the problem is presented without a bonkers framing that already violates our intuition, is the solution from the Axiom of Choice still counterintuitive? I didn't find it to be so when I first encountered it in class. Maybe the intuitiveness depends entirely on the metaphor used to bring intuition to bear.
Excited to see more stuff in this space. I've previously done some investigation into the various options [0]

Questions:

- Why have your own pre-conditions rather than relying on Github's built-in conditions and Status?

Ideas

- Autosquash fixup commits. I like to have multi-commit PRs that get merged into main. I'd like to leave my fixup commits up to make it easier for reviewers to see fixes and then have the tool doing the merge fix them up for me rather than doing yet another CI run for the fixups

- What about AzDO's semi-linear rebase option? This rebases a branch and then creates a merge-commit, keeping history linear

[0] https://epage.github.io/dev/submit-queue/
I dunno, but when I look at glowing blue signs and blue Christmas lights at night, they look significantly more fuzzy than other color lights.
In case you were wondering why countries that don't feel like being pets to the US like China have their own Google's, Twitters, and everything.

It's not just for "government control". They'd do the same even if they were perfect democracies.

It's first and foremost for avoiding such blatant foreign control.
Did the local utilities (water, electric) refuse them to pornographers, and did you parents boycott those?
As I understand it (I read this on Twitter so massive grain of salt etc.) the family concented to this explicitly. Would you feel better if it was a voice actor who could read Bourdain’s email in a perfect mimic? What about historical recreations, would you object to computers being involved in, say, recreating Abraham Lincoln’s voice? Does the age of the subject matter?

I think the squeamishness about AI as it becomes more and more capable will be interesting to define why we are feeling it. The machine is going to be capable of (and consequently used to do) these things whether you like it or not.
Just how many modern companies do you think are actively dealing in pornography?
I mean... a lot of countries already do a yearly influenza vaccine
I think the solution of your problem is physically securing you against neo nazis instead of hiding your identity. Unless of corse you are writing this from the 1940's and you are in Central Europe. If that's the case, you have a case.
A fundamental of negotiations (and human relationships) is not wanting to create problems or appear to be a 'trouble-maker'.

In a recent personal situation, it was obvious serious mistakes were being made and it was obvious what the solution was - painful, but certainly better than the alternative. However, we hadn't yet experienced the consequences, and predictably another other party railed at me for making things unnecessarily complicated.

Employees at businesses don't want to be seen as trouble-makers and have their offers rescinded.

A (manipulative) trick to negotiations is to put the other person in the position of being the trouble-maker.
I doubt Epstein could draw anyone that Gates couldn't draw himself.
Yes, stars typically twinkle slightly.

Stars are unimaginably small point lights in the sky. They look like larger dots because of imperfect focus in our eyes [1]. But since they are in fact so tiny, it means very small atmospheric variation and obstruction—heat shimmer, floating dust, etc.—can significantly momentarily occlude the star. That causes its perceived brightness to vary over time.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk
> If a lawyer lies in court, they go to jail.

That’s absolutely not true, prosecutors regularly place themselves above the law without consequences.
China's Xiaomi overtakes Apple in the global smartphone market
They really need a way for someone to trademark their voice.
Well clearly people that think like them will always be in control of things.

That’s the thing people don’t often consider - how will this policy/law/norm work when I’m not the one benefiting from it?
Harm Reduction for Cryptographic Backdoors
I'm currently loving FastAPI and Sqlalchemy, but I have been looking for TypeScript equivalents - TS is such a nice language to work with.

What libraries are you using? I haven't found anything that seems to match the easy OpenAPI schema generation and validation that FastAPI and Pydantic provide.
Finger wrap could one day let you power up wearables while you sleep
Money laundering is all about turning money from illegal operations into money that looks like it came from legal sources.

Yes you can buy lumber (e.g.) but for it be really useful, you're going to need to convert that back to cash, and the only real way to store large amounts of money safely is in the banking system. Some people may speak bitcoin, but everyone speaks US greenbacks.

KYC is about companies depositing large sums of money from questionable sources. You start depositing 10M a week without any reported business income, and you're going to set off red flags.
Personally I NEVER want my vouching for or receiving of vouching to be automated - by definition that's not vouching. It never can be.

I can never trust anything but the person with whom I have a history.

I would never drop an endorsement and stand behind it without that history and assurance that I was right.

There are some companies that I would never hire an ex-employee from unless I had two people I've know for a while vouching for them - it's their reputation and our history together that justifying my trust in their endorsement and that can ONLY be an interpersonal relationship as its basis. Anything else is just some random acquaintance or stranger making a claim.

It's ONLY the personal history that enables vouching to work. And it's the EXISTING relationship that is more important than the welfare or benefit of ANY vouchee!

Some things simple DO NOT NEED to be automated and probably SHOULD NOT be.
NASA is planning for Space Weather Follow-on mission in 2025 that's going to stick a probe at L1 point between the Earth and the Sun, providing some ~22 mins of heads up when shit hits the fan (Carrington-like event).

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any emergency procedures that can benefit from such an alarm in DOE or any public electricity infrastructure. They might very well exist, anyone knows?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Weather_Follow_On-Lagran...
Don’t know if I will be alive at around that time but my vote is for South India. That’s where I am from(born and raised). Just want to rest where I was born.
I think the evidence is pretty much in on that -- namely, yes, if your data is too small, a reasonably large neural net (a.k.a. basically any computer vision model from the last 3-4 years) is perfectly capable of memorizing the training images.

The relative success of attacks on nets to extract their training data support that this happens in practice too.

Generalization performance as it stands now always has to be evaluated empirically.
I only quit when I notice I am smoking too often. My sweet spot is once a week to relax, listen to some music and take my mind off everything.

I also eat pretty clean most the week so eat a good meal the night I smoke. That hits the reset button for me.

I don't know how you would study such a thing but I can imagine it is not healthy to not have a reset button.

You can't hit the reset button everyday though or it will stop resetting.
The headline is misleading. This makes it sound like anything that's misleading is banned which is false. They are banning very specific things that are veritably false like spreading fake election rules, spreading false election dates, etc.

These things have happened:

>The Trump campaign has sent Facebook advertisements to tens of thousands of voters in swing states, erroneously telling them it was election day after the social media group’s ad blockers failed to detect messages that violated its rules on misinformation

Is the election date a matter of opinion? I don't think that lying about what day is election day is protected speech- its malicious and attacks the very foundation of Democracy.
There is a difference between opposing viewpoints and factually incorrect information that is destructive.

If your view is based on provable falsehoods, your view is worse than valueless.

Tolerating these people is harmful to everyone, but that is not why Google is banning it. It is because it is harmful to Google's bottom line.

At the end of the day, Google owns their servers and can say what is allowed and what is not.
you're out if you still think about 'equality', it's all about 'equity' these days, 'equality' is no longer good enough.
Why would memory get corrupted in this example? To put it differently: if the code didn't have the `if index < array.len()` check, clearly things would be different. How would you describe this distinction, other than "memory safety"? (Asking because it's not clear whether you're using an unusual definition of memory safety, or just didn't notice the bounds check in the example.)
His widow did not provide consent [1].

[1] https://twitter.com/OttaviaBourdain/status/14158894550057164...
tldr; either you start giving a shit about gpc or it will be gone for good.
> Wood also wrote that while the interrogation tactics used by the deans and police were “harsh and aggressive, they were nonetheless ordinary police interrogation tactics.”

The judge who presided over the case was under the impression that the student was being interrogated.
First, since you've been derailing thing from one question another, I have to mention that a thing shared publicly from a Google drive account is no more accessible than a thing shared from a website that a person sets themselves, so Google drive accessibly is not particular answer to social network news filtering.

But on the topic of social network news filtering, anyone who uses a social network is implicitly consenting to that network's filtering of information.

Once upon a time, most people got their news from a single newspaper - well informed people might read several papers as well as newsmagazines but even this implied a lot of filtering. Those newspapers filtered the news more heavily than any present network.
I've actually watched the briefing you're referring to. Go to 26:00 - 28:00 https://www.pscp.tv/w/1OyJAYoodRnJb

The very next statement by Dr. Ryan "There also is the issue that there is a massive global shortage, and where should these masks be, and where is the best benefit? Because one can argue there's a benefit in anything, and where does a given tool have it's best benefit? And right now the people who are most at risk are frontline health workers [...]"

The follow up statement is also very emphatic that this is about mask allocation due to constrained supply. I don't get why you're trying to ignore the very clear context of the statement.
And those societies are wrong.
Historical recreations are fine.

Creating a digital voice model of abraham lincoln and then using it for ??? is not.

All of this is being done for profit means (the orville redenbacher, fast furious, star wars).

Just because we can doesn't mean we shouldn't stop and think if we should.
Some days I feel like stuck in a boot loop. Guess that happens when you push the reset to often. Great analogy!