skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That’s a fair question. The idea that they aren’t scanning already comes from the fact that they make very few reports compared to Google or Facebook. Literally a few hundred vs 10s of millions.

If they were already scanning, you’d expect more reports since although there is no legal requirement to scan, there is a legal requirement to report detections.
> Much of the pain in programming is taken for granted. After years of repetition it fades into the background and is forgotten. The first step in making programming easier is to be con[s]cious of what makes it hard.

I think there's an invaluable starting place here, & that we should all spend a lot of time writing down & identifying this.

A huge amount of programming & it's difficulty lies in having your bearings. Knowing what you have, & having some sense of direction forward or destination. Being able to see & comprehend what is about us, what we have can be a challenge. Or one could be lacking a sense of what to do to progress forward. Or perhaps one doesn't really know where the code needs to have, doesn't have a good picture in mind of the object.

The human mind wants to have the full model, of where we are, where to go, and where to end up: a view of the current structure, the operation to advance, which yields us a new structure.

Programming is ultimately about consciousness, an understanding of the pieces of this allagmatic flow. Having good tools & environments that tell us what is about us, that show us the objects around, the processes/operations that are occuring, to let us know/predict where the state is going to end up, is a kind of meta-causal comprehension skill that programming rests upon. Trying to think of what is hard is good, but we also ought be trying to turbo-charge our exploration of what new capabilities instruments, tools & environments can do to augment our views & vantages of code, state, & their execution.
Nothing is wrong with it, but your suggestion comes 40 years too late. The popular idiom was the one I mentioned.
Checking out an open 6B parameter GPT model, GPT-J
Iridium wasn't a sell-off. Motorola was one of the largest investors in Iridium, and lost a vast amount of money when it went bankrupt. Additionally they were deeply involved in its hardware.

The second incarnation of the Iridium corporation we know now is the group of people who bought it at pennies on the dollar in the bankruptcy auction.
Of course there are exceptions. It doesn't have to be literally 100% of outlets or journalists for it to be a problem.
Weird - i had experienced the opposite, where most rich kids didn't care about the money (it was their parents anyways!) so they would buy you dinner today, and you'd buy it tomorrow while the middle-class ones had to work for their money, so they wanted it to be "fair" and split by person because they only had so much.

Not saying your experience can't also be true! I was fortunate to have my parents help with money and was fairly charitable, so maybe i didn't notice other behavior.
The OP didn't even say they were American

Doesn't matter. The same argument applies regardless of where you live.

the choice isn't between current facial expressive norms and different ones, it's limiting the ability of children to read the most expressive part of our faces entirely.

So what if it is? I see no evidence that that is actually a problem. It is only a problem if you assume that we must maintain current social norms; otherwise, you can just update social norms to not depend on error-prone interpretation of faces in public. Congenitally blind people develop just fine without ever seeing any faces at all--and nobody is saying you have to stay masked 24/7 in the privacy of our own home, so it's not like seeing children are deprived of any and all facial stimulation anyway.
Is this a pitch for a script for Idiocracy 2: Electric Bugaloo?
This is a perfect example of a line having to be drawn somewhere, but wherever you draw it is never going to be perfect in every case.

First of all -- app stores need to make money or at least break even. They cost a lot of money to run. So app stores take a cut of all transactions. If they let developers implement their own payment mechanisms, either in-app or with a single link, then developers will make every app free, with a link to their own payment, and the app store now becomes unsustainable and we're back to the same malware problems that plagued early versions of Windows.

At the same, there are legitimate use cases where an app is just one facet of a whole service, and so the app store lets users consume content purchased elsewhere, just not buy it directly -- see e.g. Kindle, etc.

Now how is an app store going to draw the line? Well an easy rule is: prohibit any information about payment, and prohibit a link to any page that has a link to make a payment or talks about making payments.

It's a pretty reasonable rule. So in this case, the developer had a link to a page that at the bottom has a link to make a payment. Not allowed.

Sure the developer can argue the reviewer had to "scroll to the very bottom of the page" but it doesn't matter. It's on the page. And then they say the reviewer had to "click through twice to find a way to contribute funds" but that's false -- clicking through twice is just part of the payment process. The main page already has direct links to Patreon and for PayPal.

Would it be nice if Google could add a subrule that links are allowed if they're at the very bottom of the page? Well how do you even define that, what if the page is a single sentence and then payment options? Or a rule that "donations" are allowed? Well then you get "donations" that come with "bonus functionality" and so forth, and a new line has to be drawn.

So is this annoying for the creator? Absolutely. But is Google hugely in the wrong? It's not perfect, but they had to make some kind of rule and the one they've got is pretty decent. Can the creator do anything about it? Yeah -- they can just link to a page on their website that doesn't contain donate buttons. It's really easy. Or else allow donations in-app but allow the app store to take their cut, which goes towards hosting, distribution and discovery of the app anyways.
I can chime in with my own anecdote, I was quoted (back in May) a 28-week delivery timeframe for a couch, much like in that article.
https://github.com/topics/linear-algebra?l=jupyter+notebook lists "Computational Linear Algebra for Coders" https://github.com/fastai/numerical-linear-algebra

"site:GitHub.com inurl:awesome linear algebra jupyter" lists a few awesome lists with interactive linear algebra resources:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agithub.com+inurl%3Aaw...

3blue1brown's "Essence of linear algebra" playlist has some excellent tutorials with intuition-building visualizations built with manim:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFit...

https://github.com/ManimCommunity/manim
Aside from protection against profiling, it sends the message that users are aware of alternatives. Enough people doing that should in the long run discourage Google from bullying publishers that would have other means for distributing their software.
I agree that it's not easy, and needs a lot of people jumping to alternative app stores before something could change, but I don't see other ways since it's clear that Google has no intention to listen to their users.
Human beings are so bad at responding to intangible threats. The worried minority have no choice but to take the unpleasant role of waking up the others
You seem to be conflating the broader progressive ideology with the frustrating realities of trying to pass specific policies into law.

The reason what we're getting out of Washington doesn't include enough to fight climate change may not be absolutely 100% the fault of the Republican Party, but it's enough that blaming the Democrats for it to any meaningful extent just smacks of disingenuous both-sides-ism.
The checking is being done on the device. Nobody disputes that. Indeed it is being marketed by Apple as a feature. Yes, this feature is part of the device.

If you say Apple is scanning the device, you are lying. They are not scanning the device. They are scanning photos chosen for upload.
I find their approach of end-to-end machine learning absolutely fascinating. Since the video is very long, I'll explain the gist: instead of the traditional approach of labelling everything in the scene using neural nets and then trying to divine a driving plan based on this information, comma is trying to behave more like a human and going straight from perception input to neural net to car controls output (expressed as a path).

This to me is a fascinating approach and raises interesting questions about the observability of the system and how much we can trust systems like this, where validation is based on testing of the behaviour of the whole system rather than validation of its subsystems.
Well, personally I use Firefox. Although I do have a suspition that Google has found some way of keeping Firefox experience on mobile inferior in some way. Just speculating.
Btw, "carbon capture" seems to mostly mean capturing emissions at their source, which, although it's not a bad idea, is not actually removing carbon from the atmosphere. So when you see news articles fly by that say "progress in carbon capture", look closely to see if they are just talking about scrubbing smokestacks or literally pulling carbon out of the air. The former does not un-screw us.
It just got harder and less profitable to mine for Bitcoin as algorithm adjusts
How to code up a rotating tesseract (CodePen demo)
> just Winnie the Pooh memes

I think it's hilarious that one of the world' great nations would scan for exactly this.
Thunderbird 91 Available Now
Make sure windows is shutdown completely, not in hibernate. It is not like wondows has "solved" wifi but it created problem in first place.
Census: Rural America shrinks as people flock to big cities
The most cringey one to me is the Philips one "Let's make things better". Funny enough their slide down into relative obscurity started right after introducing that slogan. Up to that point they were one of the powerhouses of technology.

Today they are still active in Medical, TVs and light, a faint shadow of what they used to be.
What's the error on that measurement? I have a hard time believing that the +- on global mean temperature is less than 0.02 degF.
maybe its the lost city of Akkad. capital of the first empire
> Remember when the previous administration suggested looking into the Lab Leak theory and was laughed at?

Remember when the head of the previous administration thought injecting disinfectants or UV light was a possible solution to Covid?

The problem with trust and credibility is that once it’s lost, it’s very hard to gain back. Even if the broken clock is right twice a day, it’s still broken.
Thanks for bringing this point up, and it's a point which is often cited in favour of greater regulation of the sector in general - do such apps in fact stop people seeking help when they may have otherwise done so? Similar criticisms can be levelled at Calm and Headspace - did people not seek advise from a clinician when they actually needed it because they had Headspace? Could the existence of such apps be worse than nothing? As an emergent field of research there is not yet much definitive evidence on this subject.

It is also worth noting that this is not a new phenomena. The same could be true of people buying CBT textbooks, like the famous "Thinking good, feeling better" and other titles from the same author Paul Stallard, which have been around for many years. Maybe some people who bought that book got nothing out of it and were put off seeking therapy because they read it. There is little definitive hard data on the subject, but we do know that both app-based CBT and bibliotheraphy can both be effective (citations in original post).

If a user churns, there are many confounding variable associated with the loss of that user. You do not know the exact reason why they stopped using the app, and whether the impression of the app influenced their overall view of CBT in a positive or negative manner. Additionally, since durable recovery rates from in-person CBT are around 50% (citation elsewhere in this comments thread), you do not know if that user was in the category who would've benefited from CBT in the first place. They may have got a similar impression had they seen an in-person CBT therapist. Short of capturing the user post-churn and asking them in person, it is difficult to get a firm handle on such figures, but it's certainly an interesting and important statistic which hopefully will become clearer as research on the area progresses.
Do you know why he is doing publicity this year? He was on another podcast recently too.
It seems to come from images reported to this group https://www.missingkids.org/ through their CyberTipline.

Edit: toward the end of the interview, Craig says the database can be audited. Obviously not the actual images, but people can verify that the list is the same across all countries, for example.
I don't know where you're going with this. No, that's wrong, they are separate concepts. There was "life" 320M years ago just like there is today. But the carboniferous forest mats that we saw then spanned the globe, with trees growing on tens of millions of years of their undecomposed ancestors. It was an entirely different environment, and we'll never see it again now that bacteria evolved the ability to digest lignin.

Closer to home, there is "life" on the deep ocean floor today. And most of it has evolved to exploit the oxygenated water of the environment, which is fed by an arctic downwelling off of Greenland (yes, all deep ocean water is fed from a "spigot" in just one place).

Well, guess what, with the reduction in ice cover over the last decade or so and the increases in temperature expected to accelerate that process, that downwelling is collapsing. All those ocean floor ecosystems are going extinct within the next thousand years, and it's probably too late to save them.
Dunno, they sure are eager to roll coal when they pass cyclists (myself included). Really cool people.
Fact checking all the facts is an extremely broad scope. A small mom and pop company is hardly able to support such a mission unless they happen to be multidisciplinary experts/geniuses. I always seemed a bit doubtful about some of the conclusions drawn from that site.
Proof?

I see absolutely no reason to believe that, and plenty of reason to think it's total bunk. E.g., blind children exist, and they are not psychologically damaged by not being able to read faces.
Before there's something to redistribute, that something needs to be created. Productive people do not need and do not depend on redistribution of wealth, they create it. Crooks and collectivists on the other hand, are only capable of redistributing someone else's wealth.
You read the headline yourself and went off asking a dumb question that's answered in the article.

'On record' implies 'since we started keeping records' and that length of time is specifically stated in the article.

The headline isn't "July was Earth’s hottest month ever" - that's the clickbait headline that would justify your reaction.
Of course they won't. The idea of a company refusing to comply with the laws of the countries they operate in purely out of some grand sense of principle just seems naive. Especially if it's the country where HQ is.
> It is too bad, but it's your government.

"Too bad, but it's your monarch. He's anointed by God. You must care about him".

Not really a very strong argument.

> Think of NASA - the greatest explorers in the history of humanity, with nobody even close - is a government agency.

USSR had dozens of space projects, all by a government ministry. Doesn't mean you'd want to cherish the regime and all its inefficiencies & injustices.

And the Chinese government was building huge ghost cities where no-one lives at the greatest pace in human history, with nobody even close. Yet that isn't considered a positive achievement.

The thing is governments are taking resources out of economy. People don't devour money, they'd spend them or invest anyway (using their own scale of preferences). They could go to a cafe, sponsoring this industry, to a journey, buy a new car, start a new business. But after the central authority takes that much away, there will be that much less for the industries of people's preference. That means new people wouldn't be hired, new car models created and produced, new enterprises started; no new building would appear that otherwise could. And the central authority will at best build something useful at twice the price; because private citizens are motivated to be efficient, the state bureaucrats don't. And at worst, the funds will be squandered, directed to their oligarchic pals, stolen.
I really, honestly wish the people believing it's not a big issue were right. Sadly, that does not appear the case.
> US isn't even in the top 10 when it comes to carbon emissions per capita

I think you are correct when we use this very narrow measure. However, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...

The US is (a) among largest polluters and (b) from that club it is up at or near the top of per-capita pollution. Quoting the article:

The United States produced 6.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2019,[3] the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GhG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%.[4] In total the United States has emitted 400 billion metric tons, more than any other country.[5] This is over 15 tonnes per person and, amongst the top ten emitters, is the second highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person after Canada.[6] Because coal-fired power stations are gradually shutting down, in the 2010s emissions from electricity generation fell to second place behind transportation which is now the largest single source.[7] In 2019, 29% of the GHG emissions of the United States were from transportation, 25% from electricity, 23% from industry, 13% from commercial and residential buildings and 10% from agriculture.[8]
Any policy should be evaluated on the basis of costs and benefits. Too much of the conversation on global warming is either broadly dismissive or exasperatingly alarmist.

Fundamentally policy changes to curb global warming will have economic consequence, those of which will be borne disproportionately by the poor. E.g. efforts to curb oil and coal extraction will naturally result in the price of energy going up.

I can tell you it makes no difference to me if gas is 3 or 4 dollars a gallon, but it matters a lot to those who live paycheck to paycheck. And especially to those impoverished and living in emerging markets.

Im not suggesting a specific policy course of action (at least in this comment), but we'd be a lot better off if there was more of an effort to quantify impact of action/inaction using real numbers.

Temperature is projected to be X by year Y (we have varying projections of this), and the cost to humanity is Z.

What level of economic sacrifice is justified to address this and how much should we frontload that effort?

Should the poor bear the largest burden, or should we normalize the cost somehow? (Energy subsidy, remittances to emerging economies to use cleaner energy)

I have no doubt people have run these numbers, but I don't see the connection being made to specific policy proposals.
Transforming data in real-time with WebAssembly
People were actually saying we shouldn't have to deal with covid because it came from China? In what world does that make the tiniest lick of sense?
Caliber Conversion Sleeve
Yes, and I'm not sure it's worse than the people who think they've already done enough (but in practice have comparable emissions to those who don't care).
It was Nancy Pelosi.
I remember seeing the 2,400 year old fruit baskets discovered in Egypt [1] and wondering what political machinations, public scandals, soap box issues preoccupied the fruit eaters of that time.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28113085
you’re a piece of shit. fuck you and fuck your censorship.
> It is extremely hard for people who are working on facts based stuff to get their heads wrapped around people who are religious, let alone those who are religious and who are working on facts based stuff at the same time (there are plenty of those).

It is also hard for religious people to wrap their heads around facts and certainty. Before I was atheist I would debate Christians on the merits of theistic evolution vs. intelligent design. Intelligent design proponents will literally accuse Christians who believe differently of blasphemy.

My mom even lost a science teaching job over something more minor. She was unwilling to say with 100% certainty if the story of creation happened in 7 contiguous days, or may have happened over 7 non-contiguous days. While she believed it was most likely 7 contiguous days she didn’t have enough evidence to be sure.
i was very careful to phrase that in a way that was neurtral to which party was paying off whom

its a terrible waste either way
tyrants

That old saying about patriots and tyrants comes to mind...
How long would you wear a mask if the risk levels remained consistent, for the next century?

What's your personal threshold? Another year? 5 years? 10 years without seeing a stranger's smile/laugh? The rest of your life?
I find it amusing to compare how we treat fundamentalists vs how we treat children. They both can be extremely stubborn and say the darnest things, but with one group, people think ridicule is going to yield good results, even though with the other, that's a big no-no.

You know you're not going to get a good result from a yelling contest with your kid about who's more right, so I don't understand the reasoning that dismissing religion altogether is somehow going to "make the sheeple see the error of their ways".

Semi-ironically, I'm reminded of an episode of a kids-oriented podcast I listened to recently that talked about a different approach to conflict resolution: negotiations. The gist being to strive to meet the other party at their level and work together rather than against each other. You'd be surprised at how fundamentally you can shake some people by pointing at some relevant Bible passage that supports your position (for example, showering them w/ direct quotes from Matthew 25:35, Leviticus 19:34 and a dozen other similar passages in response to xenophobia)

For climate change specifically, there's a bunch of passages written where the gist is that God made Earth good, but humans defiled it[0]. One could probably start a dialogue by pointing at those.

[0] https://www.openbible.info/topics/climate_change
Y'all are too optimistic.

I will predict for you the future of that, based on the past.

The next people in line who control most devices are the carriers.

They will set up app stores that are required on their phones (since the laws will not prevent this).

Each will have exclusive apps that require their app store be installed (and will not be available on other phones).

Things will be a mishmash.

Nobody will be actually happy.

The carriers also have great lobbyists, and are really great at doing this kind of thing.

It will take a long time to undo it.
"This site is sadly run by militant commies who are triggered by the existence of better men."

I lol'd at this part from your profile. I mean, you believe this and are literally trolling right now. This should be flagged.
Who replied at snopes and who did you speak to?
Because unlike the cost of mitigating climate change (or covid for that matter) the global cost of switching to other chemicals was very small, on the order of single digit billions of dollars. It turns out most people don’t want to radically upend their lives for the benefit of others who knew?