skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I had the same comment in a post about

Simple Systems Have Less Downtime (2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28061998
Isn't it better to just hire them, so they bring you all their years of technical and operational knowledge?

Of course, it requires the new external hires be given enough influence and autonomy. It remains to be seen if Chinese firms are able to integrate international talents effectively.
I strongly agree with this. I've tried to write about this seriously, and then I tried to write about it with humor. Here is the humor:

http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/my-final-post-regardi...
I'm curious how damages would be calculated in a case like this. Obviously you can't get away with saying "I would have charged them $10 billion for this code, so that's what they should owe me." But on the flipside, should they be able to say they wouldn't have been willing to pay anything for it, therefore they owe zero?
You can plant trees that doesn't have pavement-breaking roots.
Nurses up until now practiced exceptionally higher restrictions to avoid this. But safety fatigue sets in and it won't work forever.
Overall most of the names are of long dead men that are now words that convey nothing about the concepts. Do you object to those renamings?

And please elaborate on why an article about politicization on science can be taken seriously when it doesn’t talk about global warming or the politicization of the pandemic?

And for an article griping about cancel culture, it’s funny people posting critiques get cancelled.
I live in Minnesota, where a good portion of the forests have been absolutely ruined by buckthorn. It changes what should be fairly open woods with large trees to something you literally can't walk or see through. In my experience it also gives cover to mosquitoes, protecting them from predators.

If I were a billionaire I'd fund research to create some sort of Dutch-elm like disease for it and release it in secret.
Mine failed within 5 years, and this seems to be a common thread among LG owners.
Visualisations to understand how many times you have left to do something in your life, like meeting your parents.
> As I said, I do have a healthy work life balance.

If you're working overtime and on-call outside of work hours then no, you don't. That's not healthy and there's no way to make it healthy. You talk about "owning" responsibility for fixing this thing if it breaks, but real ownership is two-sided - do you have a meaningful equity stake (token stock options don't count) in whatever that system does so that you're getting the upside as well as the downside?

If you're choosing to spend your life and health on something you actually own, fair enough, it's your funeral. But if you're a worker then it's not your job to deal with that. I can understand that as a parent you're vulnerable, you don't want to lose your job, and when the bosses say the business wouldn't be viable if they had to pay for a proper night shift (or whatever rate it would take for them to get enough coverage from you and your colleagues voluntarily taking those shifts - funny how the biggest fans of "free markets" don't seem to like being on the receiving end) then it's hard to stand up to that. But doing free favours for the bosses is like paying Danegeld - once you start it will only get worse.

You keep talking about responsibility to your colleagues, but what you're doing hurts them a lot. That's where my anger comes from.
This seems like it would make a brilliant extension for literate programming; a self documenting REPL paired with literate source! And, of course, trivially optimized out of necessary.
Mind sharing which paper/PI you’re talking about?
Okay, so you have Anti-Phospholipid Antibody Syndrome in the system.

How does someone know to search for this, compared to the other, much more common Lupus-related diseases? I mean, even the TV show “House” featured this one.

And how do you not have the internationally renowned Dr. Reichlin in Oklahoma City in the system as one of the world’s leading experts on the disease?

How do you not have Lipodema or Lymphodema in the system? And if you did, how would someone know to search for a doctor with those specialties?

What about fibromyalgia? Or erythromelalgia?

And these are just the rare diseases in my own family and that of my wife’s family.

And finally, how do you determine that someone is an actual expert in a given field, or how they rate in that field compared to others?
The word “yet” is doing tremendous amounts of work in your comment.
It seems like you're trying to make a point about some altogether different topic, probably inferring some intent on my part based on a non-literal reading of what I wrote. (For example, that I'm personally endorsing Graeber. Hard to say, really, because you yourself didn't really say anything.) The literal reading of my comment is the correct one.

I said the relevant name when trying to turn up data would be to search for "Graeber"—which, as your comment indicates, is correct.
Systems thinking is great and all but why should causality be discarded? In the example about population size, a causal graph is built that connects walking distance to population size that certainly allowed for reasonable counterfactual reasoning in that context. Yes, the variation in population size across societies cannot be adequately accounted for by causal reasoning in that same graph - you need to add and modify nodes and edges to restore counterfactual reasoning. This doesn't mean that causality is useless.

I would contend that purpose is multifaceted, not singular. Many parents (speculating, as I have not reached that life phase yet) would say that sometimes, they primarily do just clean up after their kid. We hope that we can hold multiple purposes in their head, to be human and not just a machine. Additionally purposes are subjective and not really knowable. To challenge the author who seems to argue that purpose should subsume causality, I would ask how far science could have progressed with only the former?

Not everything is part of a system. What is the purpose-driven answer to the quintessential kids question "Why is the sky blue?"

Finally, using opaque koan-like statements that are underspecified and semantically nonsensical or meaningless is a fairly daring stylistic choice (an understatement).
https://archive.is/1yleY
I've spent a lot of time reverse engineering long dead hardware (and forgotten protocols), which means I've also spent a lot of time reading ancient papers generated by IBM, Bell, Arpa (so many long gone DoD programs), etc. So I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between what is common knowledge and what is something that only myself and maybe a handful of others care about...

That said, you know that every potential variation of every possible approach to accomplish what I presume your objectives are has already been exhaustively explored, documented, implemented, and finally abandoned by organizations with functionally limitless resources (aka open ended government contracts) - 50 years ago? Have you considered leveraging some of that work? I don't think many people know about the massive amount of work already done - that was just abandoned for a variety of reasons: reasons that often no longer apply, and very rarely have anything to do with the technology's utility. For example: everybody here knows about the OSI model and how sparsely filled out it is - but did you know that there is a layer set aside to do exactly what you are talking about, and that it just isn't being used? Thats right, #6, the presentation layer - specifically the virtual terminal protocol: which is where the designers wanted the object exchange and structured data to go... not in a mess of json one layer up. The VTP was outlined in several papers going back to at least '72. You could also lean on the Airforce's work for your data model, they ran that to ground pretty thoroughly with IDEF. You've also got a huge amount of free work from IBM when it comes to structured documents, and architecture that lends itself to semantic reasoning.

Anyway, my larger point is that instead of exasperating the issue of wastefully bloated software teetering on increasingly high layers of abstractions (do a stack trace and consider the insanity of it), maybe the way to really improve our circumstances has already been discovered and then lost for a time. It would be no more difficult than trying to make kornshell-json a thing.

A Survey of Terminal Protocols (1979) DOI 10.1016/0376-5075(79)90001-1

Computer Network Architectures and Protocols (1983) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-6698-4

IDEF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEF

IBM's various journals (pre-'00) are also worth reading.
There is an enormous difference between a situation where both parties are independent adults, and where the parties are a parent/guardian and their pre-teen child. Trying to make analogies between these is fraught with error.
What's interesting is that Ariely is the chief behavioral officer to Lemonade (LMND) an insurtech company
https://www.lemonade.com/blog/oh-behave/
This is the whole idea behind serverless. But even without, you should be using autoscaling.
Can you give me an example of the nitpicking? Mostly I've been pointing out incorrect information or explaining my prior comment because someone misread the comment or didn't read how it relates to the context set by the parent.
Automotive EE here.

This has been a trend, but the largest jump was every new body since 2009.

In order to meet the practically impossible CAFE and emissions standards pushed for completely for PR by the Obama Admin, a silent change was made to how vehicles are judged and tallied in the CAFE specifically, but also CARB (CA only) and NHTSA (not emissions, but related to size increases).

Footprint became a consideration to emissions.

Larger footprint vehicles are judged differently than smaller footprint. You might be thinking, that makes no sense, and you would be right. Of course this incentivized making larger vehicles. I don’t know the reasoning behind it other than Admin wanted a win for PR, Congress didn’t know any better, automakers got an out and got room to add garbage no one asked for. I know this is the reason vehicles got larger, suddenly in every single body made since 2009.

Obama came in and said we’re going to forgive you a little on footprint, automakers delivered footprint.

EDIT: for the people that can’t stand to hear something bad about politician they voted for… Despite every vehicle getting larger, the CAFE averages have still gone up. StartStop, DEF, multiple displacement, private bussed “smart” O2 sensors, heated differentials (sounds silly, I know), selectable lock Tcase, front axle disconnect, adjustable ride height, aluminum bodies, selectable air intakes, higher pressure injectors, more aerodynamic bodies, etc etc. While we haven’t improved upon the best stoichiometric ratio of air and petrol, we have improved all aspect of ICE vehicles… they’re just larger.
I am proposing a notion of fairness that you can prove. I am arguing that the other notion of fairness is not a useful measure of model fairness because it results in lower model performance and has negative real world consequences when employed.

The example in 5.2 of the Binns paper suggests a definition of fair where the results of model have to be the same for different groups. None of the obvious problems are identified. If you take group A and B, with average income of 100,000 and 50,000 respectively, this fairness definition suggests that a loan approval model for Group A and B should have the same approval rate for a 50,000 loan in order to be fair. If this model were used, the model would be less accurate in predicting repayment than a model that did not attempt to correct for group disparities, Group B would default at a much higher rate and suffer the negative consequences to their credit. This notion of fairness denies the reality of the situation. If there is a group difference in ability to repay loans, it is not the job of the model to pretend that this difference does not exist and make decisions that will negatively affect the financial position of all concerned.

The mention in 6.2 of the second paper didn't convey much on this topic, but they do admit "statistical parity is insufficient as a general notion of fairness." It does even take it back to Rawls, one philosopher I find most offensive. I was hopeful when they started with "We capture fairness by the principle that any two individuals who are similar with respect to a particular task should be classified similarly." Yet, they then dissolve this only having this condition hold within a subgroup, such that similar members of group A are treated similarly, and similar members of group B are treated similarly, but a member of group A that is similar to a member of group B is not treated similarly.

The notion of fairness I advocate is that the selected features have to predictive, independent of group. Thus, the fairness measure for whether income could be included in the model would be whether income was predictive for group A and group B. If you took the data for group A and income was predictive and then then the data for group B and income was predictive, it would indicate that it was a valid measure for each groups. If you had a feature that was not predictive for each group, it would fail this fairness test and could not include it in an uncorrected model used for all groups.

In terms of what we care about, I find it vastly better to discuss these topics with things we don't care much about. However, if we discover that driver safety courses really improve driver safety and lead to lower insurance costs, creating "fairness" by faking the results so that those who cannot afford these courses are given artificially lower insurance rates to compensate for this, we are actually being unfair to the society that would benefit from better drivers, rather than attempting to correct the underlying issue by subsidizing the cost of the course for drivers that cannot afford it.
Because sometimes you just want a bit of tabular formatting within a note. The table feature is really, really cool when you want to use it, but if you don't it's a bit OTT - e.g. every table has a bunch of chrome at the bottom with a row count, some auto-totalling things, a new row button etc.

I'm also a little unclear what happens if I export to another product, do my tables show up as tables in the new product or as a thousand small notes each with one row of one table in?
Discriminating self from non-self in nucleic acid sensing
I assume the commenter was talking about situations where it wouldn’t be possible for a car to pass another 30mph car (or the overtaking car driver wouldn’t be bold enough to try).
One grieving father got lawn darts banned (2012)
China has one of the older ASML DUV machines, they got it thru a scam :o) and proceeded to pawn it for $90mil to a local bank for a quick scam exit https://chinatalk.substack.com/p/billion-dollar-heist-how-sc...
https://interconnected.blog/chinas-semiconductor-theranos-hs...

but even non scam Chinese initiatives are failing https://techtaiwan.com/20210714/tsinghua-unigroup-bankruptcy...
I was literally having this conversation yesterday with my girlfriend as we were driving country roads in my Datsun, which is significantly lower than the front grill of some of these jacked up, military style pickups. She made the classic small dick comment, but I was more hung up on the way our society has changed to make people want to style themselves in these militaristic, confrontational ways on a civilian road. You could argue that guys who drive turbo sports cars or restored classics or anything unique are compensating for something... but whatever they're compensating for isn't some sense that they aren't taking up enough space. I was going through a tunnel a few weeks ago when a modified F150 decided to roll coal on everyone behind them in the tunnel. The thing that's broken about our society is the fact that people who modify trucks to roll coal can afford to do that. They should really be out growing potatoes if we didn't have so much cheap credit.
Excellent advice. You ultimately can’t argue with a machine after all. I feel I should tell HN the circumstance under my termination for posterity. I was assigned a bug to fix on a new system that was designed in isolation by my coworker. After about a day, I realized that the bug didn’t exist. The bug was actually a large feature my coworker never implemented, but no one noticed, because it was on the back end. My coworker was severely autistic but could function if he didn’t need to communicate with others and often had fits. Because he was the first employee, my boss didn’t realize this fully until I was hired. Some months prior, my boss had told me the coworker was slated for termination, as he was bringing more developers onboard, but this was supposed to be down the road. Knowing my disabled coworker would be fired if I told the truth, I did what I thought was the responsible thing, and quietly worked on implementing it at night. However, after a week, my new manager was irate with me on why the bug wasn’t fixed. I was forced to tell the truth but was sleep deprived and lost my temper for the first time in my career. As a result apparently my manager didn’t understand what I told him, and because he was the younger brother of my boss, I was terminated instead. Maybe it was for the best, but sadly I heard that my coworker was fired about three months into lockdown, I was terminated the very day lockdown began. He will never find another job, but I will. Not long after that I heard my manger quit for a better paying job. Am I the asshole? At any rate, I think you’re right, but how hard is it to break into embedded programming? I actually started learning OS design not long ago and finished learning C and Rust, but never considered it an option career wise.
This reminds me of a physics joke:

"Dr Heizenburg, do you know how fast you were driving?"

"No, but I know exactly where I am"
> In that case the problem would be 100% solved

Not until you added the geofencing I wrote about :-)

> with "the last 1% [being] the hardest."

I might have misunderstood the context here, but my point was to make an example were the last percentage wasn't that hard.
My wife is asleep now but I set a reminder to ask her tomorrow. I believe it was this one https://retractionwatch.com/2018/03/23/caught-our-notice-the...

Posted in 2018 but people knew about it for years. I will try to get all the details as the link is fairly dry but basically they are working on this protein and this paper and the science that followed set back many grad students wasting time and money trying to create more science based on the fake science.
Dweck's a good example too of how the research and/or the media coverage can misunderstand the results. I think it's fair to say that the growth mindset effect is understood as having come from knowledge, i.e. you teach someone about growth mindset and then their performance improves. But my mom, a teacher, tried to apply that idea to her class and the change actually came down to habit. She made her class institute a self-talk habit related to growth mindset and then she reinforced that habit for an entire year. That's an anecdote, not hard science, but it certainly seems like a much more sensible pathway between the concept of growth mindset and then improved results. I wrote up her protocol, which is for third graders, here:
https://betterhumans.pub/growth-mindset-is-a-habit-you-want-...
well it depends on what the gas tax is for. If the gas tax is to pay for road maintenance, then ideally the gas tax for a given vehicle should be commensurate with the amount of road damage that we then have to pay for through maintenance. the correlation however is not nearly strong enough between the tax and road damage, so the tax for heavier vehicles should be hiked significantly.

if you want to charge a carbon tax to dissuade burning fossil fuels that's another thing entirely, but the gas tax has never really been designed to do that, it's always been for road maintenance. Electric vehicles don't just become weightless on roads.
Having public debate about issues around race does not mean that racial relations are worse. Silence on race issues does not mean that relations are better.
The algorithm is flawed. You are prioritizing a number of physicians from corporatized hospital “foundations”. In reality, those often push out private practice physicians with high expertise and hire cheaper newly trained doctors. To raise trust you need to make your rankings a lot more transparent - why be is each doctor ranked so highly? Is it because they have better statistical outcomes (those often don’t take on the hard cases, doctors who save the riskiest patients have worse mortality because they try more)? Is it because they are more published? (A surgeon can have as many papers as you want, but if they don’t do at least 15 whipples per year, they likely deadly for whipple patients (you need to have whipple surgery on your list too). Many medical metrics are counterintuitive. The most important ones are how many of these types of procedures does the Doctor treat per year. And what do other doctors who see that person’s outcomes think of their work. If you want to know which surgeon is good, ask the other surgeons that operate with them.
The average quality isn't the only thing. What about the correlation of errors?

There are situations humans can't handle, and notorious "hot spots" where crashes repeatedly happen, but if AI is more consistent, it might lead to more concentrated failures.

Have you heard about the problems caused by navigation routing, where large numbers of people are directed through roads that aren't suited for heavy traffic?
Parkinson’s Law comes to mind.
I am wondering how much of such non replicated studies leaks into the decisions and recommendations by federal organizations like the CDC or ECDC or WHO.
It creeps me out to think that some organizations adopted some of the ideas outlined in this person's book.
Having been a notational velocity / Simplenote user for ages, I’m very happy to be able to migrate my stash of notes into FSNotes, and bonus - it can take images/ photos (far better than standard notes manages - a neglected purchase I have) and even encryption for specific entries that works easily!! Wow all my ideals in one place. I’m a convert for sure, but have to admit, still using NV on my desktop and Simplenote on iOS, but it looks like they will be left behind slowly, as I’m only adding to FSNotes now. I hope they keep it independent and avoid the eventual buyout offers to come.
This is also my experience in my wife's small Mazda. The window placement or something makes it hard to check my right hand side blindspot. I had an easier time in a bigger / boxer Mitsubishi. I'm not really quite sure what it is but it feels like I can't see a spot I should be able to.

Granted I should be using the little blindspot mirror anyway.. but old habits
I started using them since they where the cheapest I could find that had free TLS. Been using them for ~3 years for a small Wordpress site. It has worked fine so far.
From what I've read about the other cloud providers, they make it easy to report matches to NCMEC but I haven't seen anything about a human review as a middle step. I really only know of PhotoDNA which it seems like Apple essentially has copied but not identically. PhotoDNA does not include human review.

From what I understand, legally, only people at NCMEC are allowed to view the material raw which is what's confusing about Apple's announcement of human review.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/photodna
https://archive.is/IJgj8