skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's why that famous model number (can't look up at the moment) for $12 will never die, it's fashionable, cool, practical, and no one know if you're wearing the one you got when you were 12yr old or you vanity seek and seen a celeb in GQ and thought yeah minimalist man I'll dip that trust fund twelve dollars and have it air delivered. Decent watch for a watch, apple watch can potentially disrupt the medical scene though so thats my interest in these new devices (cgm, EKG,sleep) but fully agree on the casio
I don't buy this. I think it would have been the WORST time for Xi to act or get aggressive.

Trump is legitimately unstable and so selfish as to try to use the military and provocations - even on US soil he wanted to deploy forces - to win or fulfill his deluded post election craziness.

Just today excerpts came out of Woodward's new book; one revelation is General Milley called up his counterpart in China, kind of roguely, in a Nixon esque attempt to say hey, this guy is freaking crazy let's use bureaucracy to try to maintain status quo and go around any dangerous orders.
My Apple watch pops a notification to "charge before bedtime" if it's going to die while I'm asleep. Does yours not? Maybe it only does it if you have the sleep features enabled?
Well there are a couple of things to address here. The first is that the invariant mass is invariant - it's the same in any reference frame. So the invariant mass of a system will either equal the sum of the masses of the particles or it won't, irrespective of frame. And equality will only hold if there is no internal movement.

> Can you make a convincing case that it's reasonable to apply that equation in that way?

Even hpcjoe did not object to that, only to the name "rest mass" for the result. We saw that the number you get out was useful upthread, because it allowed predicting if pair production can occur or not.
Indeed, Kotlin's null handling is great. NPE's in Kotlin code aren't common.
Profits are also a thing.

Business generally prefers to do neither 1 nor 2.
Here is strong evidence to the contrary from the NIH:

>The proposed DSM-5, slated to publish in May of 2014, contains in this new addition the diagnosis of Hypersexual Disorder, which includes problematic, compulsive pornography use. Bostwick and Bucci, in their report out of the Mayo Clinic on treating Internet pornography addiction with naltrexone, wrote “…cellular adaptations in the (pornography) addict’s PFC result in increased salience of drug-associated stimuli, decreased salience of non-drug stimuli, and decreased interest in pursuing goal-directed activities central to survival.”

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/
>I won't be bullied into getting an unnecessary procedure just because the burden of proof has not been met (re: spotty studies).

Bullied? Where I live (NYC), they will pay you $100[0] to get vaccinated. I wish more folks would "bully" me that way.

I'd add, that at least in the US, no one is forcing anyone to have an unwanted procedure. Every single "vaccine mandate" has come with the caveat that you can avoid being vaccinated by getting tested regularly.

As to whether or not a COVID vaccination is necessary or not is, for some strange reason, a controversial question.

Have you been vaccinated against Polio? If so, why is that different than COVID? Not being snarky here, just genuinely curious as to how you see those as different.

[0] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/coronavirus/vaccines/vaccine-incen...
This is awesome. Thanks so much for sharing!
Doesn't unmediated in the context of the text mean without first translating into your native tongue?. If you need to translate it to any other language first, that to me means that it is mediated.
At least on Series 6, processor is more than enough. Batterylife improvements with new provessor is another story.
Argh, it would allow another stupid round of “But the browser is built into the OS”.
The notch is a whole lot better than a hole punch, in my opinion. If we have to wait another year or two for them to perfect under-screen FaceID or TouchID, I'm all for it.

There are far worse design compromises than the notch.
As a Saivite, this perfectly aligns with both my religious and scientific understanding of the universe.
It doesn't matter how many votes they had (1 would be enough). They were necessary for forming the coalition, therefore they could extort other larger coalition parties to give in to their demands.
You forgot one option.

3. Take less profit.
I'm on GrapheneOS since last December. Yes it's tough, but before that I had come to resent my phone and wondering what it was doing in the background.
It's kind of tiny. Instead of the expected ~8 out of 79 hospitalised it was 1. They quote p=0.006 . Feels like in the real world that could easily be luck.
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1079173-i-made-this
Not available? But that's exactly what Go's panic/recover system does.
Or you could do either of:

3. massive bonuses for execs and wage increases for white-collar workers

4. stock buybacks and dividends to directly distribute profits to shareholders

Let’s not pretend that both of these don’t happen at the cost of regular employees.
> What matters is how much the next buyer values those changes.

The next buyer usually feels like the home is over priced. Because it is. They know it is, but they lack optionality because a majority of the active MLS listings are flipped homes. Think of it as they are forcing the next buyer to pay as much as they can possibly afford. Sure, low interest helps the "afford more" but it doesn't mean they are comfortable or happy spending that amount. It doesn't mean they necessarily value it either. They may have been happy with the original condition at $300K but they never saw that option. It was an off market transaction.

> Only if they spent 50K on improvements that the next buyer feels are worth it an increase the value, then they'll offer more. But in that case, value actually was added.

Sure they feel $50K was added. But not another $100K of profit for the flipper who only held the property for 8 weeks before re-listing it. The $100K, 20% of the new "value", is completely intangible and not real. This is supposed to be real estate after all.
The only algorithm that gets me is
Experts Warn of Rising Suicide Rates of Black Girls
> I'm claiming that both interviewer and interviewee have a similar workload

I do not know what this means or what relevance it holds to our context.

> and that usually only one party feels like they need to engage, the other is in a position of power and is the gatekeeper to 'the job' and so feels no need to engage

Again, what are you saying? Recall, we are discussing the very silly claim that "you'll end up with team players but with nobody who will actually get the job done" based on an interview scenario where the interviewee is required to perform part of the problem-solving a job entails, just not a part which is not explicitly implementing a solution alone (coding).

This language about the interviewer not "engaging" and "[not realizing] they represent the company" seems like an entirely separate conversation. Additionally, your usage of "I've seen this numerous times" and initial assumption that the interviewing company would "start off with insulting [the interviewee's] intelligence" don't really make me feel like you're discussing a good-faith interview, instead pre-supposing all interviews are performed in bad faith and interviewees are right to be offended by what they are being ask.

I dislike this muchly, but indeed, the top of this comment tree addresses this attitude directly, something you entirely ignored:

> [As an interviewer], I'm asking [each question] for a reason; you might think it's stupid, but I wouldn't ask if I didn't care what your answer was

So I do not understand why you continued to go forward assuming the interviewing company is acting in bad faith. They are not, that attitude makes no sense, and the context has already directly been set for our conversation that the interviewer is asking this question in good faith because they believe it to be a signal wrt employee value.

Please understand, as someone who interviews, one of the critical filters we introduced was evaluating candidates on their interactivity & collaboration. Doing this explicitly has resulted in a marked uptick in the quality of our candidates. Of course, we still aggressively apply filters that ensure these candidates can code and have implemented solutions of similar complexity & domain as we expect them to architect & create, but introducing the collaboration filter has resulted in coworkers of remarkable ability to solve problems quickly and continuously, both as individuals and in direct collaboration. I would easily say you would fail this filter entirely, and you should take care to not allow your bitter attitude to calcify.
If by acceleration you mean offloading inference to a different IP block (GPU/DSP/NPU), then yes. XNNPACK is the inference engine for CPU.

CPU is the default backend in TensorFlow Lite, and CPU inference always works and produce correct result. GPU/DSP/NPU inference can be faster, particularly for large models on high-end SoCs, but generally you need to make sure that the model is supported on the IP block, the result is correct and performance is better than the CPU baseline. And that quickly gets very complicated:

1. NN API, and TFLite GPU/DSP backends support a limited subset of all TensorFlow Lite operators, and if a model is only partially offloaded to GPU/DSP/NPU, part of it will still run on CPU, and commonly synchronization overhead kills all potential speedups of the specialized hardware. The situation is even worse in CoreML, as CoreML doesn't provide an API to even learn which operators failed to offload to GPU/NPU.

2. Bugs in GPU shader compilers and NN API drivers do happen, and unless your model is a standard MobileNet, you're likely to hit them at least on some mobile phones. Then you'd need an infrastructure to detect this situation and disable offloading the model to this IP block on particular phones.

3. Low-end SoCs usually completely lack DSP and NPU, and their GPU is often slower than CPU even in nominal peak performance. This happens because CPU cores in low-end SoCs are typically just downclocked versions of the CPU cores in high-end SoCs, but low-end GPUs have 8-16 times fewer GPU cores than their high-end counterparts.
Near Misses at High-Security Lab Illustrate Risk of Accidents with Coronaviruses
This $25/$26 figure was what was being quoted >5 years ago. It's more now.

The comparison comes from (iirc) purchasing power parity based on the minimum wage when it was first established.
Maybe put that at the top?
Better be careful what you say here, guys, or you and all of Hacker News will join the growing list of "enemies" and "traitors" to the Pale Moon project. For example, r/opensource and r/programming in their entirety are already on there, not having responded favorably to their previous escapades.
We already have. Thinking of HK, Xinjiang makes me feel we have lost moral standing. But I do understand the calculus and nuance of weighing what an actual war would inflict if we stood up to stop the wrong.
Yes, indeed we have seen decreased prices in housing, healthcare, education, etc in the last 40 years.
That's one way of seeing it and it could definitely be a factor. An increase in the workforce numbers could be another factor
The reason why #2 doesn't have the same effect as #1 is scale.

Wealthy people are not affected by prices in the same way as average people.

I hypothesize that being able to buy more with the same income rather than being given a higher income helps the wealthy more. Let's take a practical example:

A banana now costs 50 cents. It would have to cost $2 if we paid for higher labor costs, for that $20+ minimum wage.

But if you're upper-middle class or above, or way above, it doesn't really matter if that banana costs 50 cents or $2. Heck, for some people, it wouldn't really matter if it cost $50 or $100 or even $1,000 if you're Jeff Bezos.

There are only so many bananas you could possibly want.

In this way, I think that option 1 would be more beneficial for the common person. Sure, they'd have to pay for a $2 banana, but they'd be making a more comfortable salary and they still only want one banana. Meanwhile, Moneybags Factory Owner would have to dispense their wealth to labor instead of hoarding it in capital.

I'd also argue that we don't do #2 "because of competition," instead that it was an intentional choice not to tie minimum wage to inflation and to keep it at rock-bottom levels. That is corporations-write-the-laws policy. If the minimum wage were raised there would absolutely still be competition and companies would still be trying to make productivity gains from option #1.
s/capitalism/the universe/g

Anyways, your statement is not true. Capitalism absolutely has a moral compass, it had the moral compass of the consumptive patterns of society; if that compass points the wrong way then either we must take a hard look at ourselves, or, think about what policies are twisting consumptive patterns to go the wrong way.... Probably a bit of both.
> false negatives. Self correcting problem.

A false negative is something that is broken, but you are confident it is not. It will not be known without either 1) someone taking it upon themselves to study test code/output which no one really is incentivized to do if all tests show green or 2) something going wrong at an unanticipated point that forces you to seek answers in the you spot the problem.

So, tautologically, a false negative cannot be self-correcting.

> False positives are also not a problem

A false positive is a test that fails even though the code is good. Fixing it requires one to prove that the code is good and the test is wrong which tends not be so simple (if it were, the test would not have been wrong in the first place). That takes effort. Therefore, still not self correcting.

> Tests should be ubiquitous and cheap.

Sure. Correct tests which pass if, and only if, code is good.

If you think that it is OK to expect some X% of tests to fail at any time, you have my condolences.

> They are not a thing to fear and over regulate.

Tests are code. They should be treated as such. Since all code has bugs, tests have bugs. These bugs themselves can impact the ability deliver, maintain, and sustain code that solves the business goals.

If you think identifying bugs in tests is "over regulation", then we don't really have a common understanding of the situation.
In the mid 70s I contracted measles. I was only 9 or 10 but I think I remember it was because there was a batch of vaccines that didn’t work, or maybe it was doctors learned we actually needed two doses. Whatever; I’d had the vaccination prescribed at the time, it didn’t work, I got measles.

Fast forward 25 years to when I applied to grad school. There was a measles outbreak happening and in order to attend I either needed to have a recent vaccination or a blood test proving immunity.

Even though I had natural immunity I just went ahead and got the additional vaccination. It was faster, cheaper, and I didn’t care.

The point is, medical knowledge changed. No one made a big deal about needing an extra vaccination. No one made a big deal about even needing certain vaccinations to do things like go to school. Why now?
>I would be surprised if we don't experience some type of a push back from the companies.

One thing could be to hire fewer people. Oddly large software companies is an evergreen topic on HN. Every middle manager wants to empire-build, but if each new hire is a potential leak, then that could be a brake on Google's relentless goal of hitting 1M employees by 2030: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106318886-157800431271...
It's another incremental improvement but the asymptote becomes clearer each year.
I disable Always-On at home and only enable it temporarily when I’m going out and feel like people need to see my edgy anime faces.
> All of the JEE packages were "javax.enterprise.". Oracle wouldn't give up the "Java" part in order to not dilute its trademark, so now its the "Jakarta Enterprise Edition", and all of the packages are being renamed to "jakarta.enterprise.". I mention this just as an example of the hoops the community going through, even today, over what's happening with java.

That is quite a change, and probably not very backwards compatible?
Which is what all those "conspiracy theories" was about.

Honestly, I feel like the conspiracy guys has been far more accurate than the media about covid. The things they said would happen has happened, with about 6 months delay.

What's next? Watching and seeing if the vaccinated people get much sicker than unvaccinated people when confronted with new variants of covid.
At least at geosynchronous altitude it seems like it would be significantly biased in the direction of Earth's rotation, especially along geostationary orbit.
Thanks, I need to check that out. It's conceivable that Baudelaire made a few improvements. It's certainly not unheard of. Fitzgerald's translation of Omar Khayyam is by some accounts close to an original work. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam
Why fight over a minor problem with my example? If you can't come up with a parallel statement that shows the absurdity of the claim, you're not trying hard enough.

Pick a society that didn't have women voting; imagine someone making the argument "there is no precedent", and notice how it's an absurd argument. It sounds like a conservative's wet dream, implying that whenever there is no precedent for something, it meaningfully counts against that thing. Sure, there is no precedent for surviving a guillotine, but are you saying the intention of my sentence wasn't clear?

How about this, at some point in history someone could have said "there is no precedent for the internet" -- would that have been a meaningful "con" against creating it?

As my follow up question goes: "How many examples of vegan people living healthy lives into their 90s would be enough to convince you?"

A good parallel about veganism is from the past: people were saying "hey, we shouldn't have slaves" and slave owners saying "but I like it this way". To ignore the arguments of the anti-slavery movement by gesturing at some generic concern for well being is absurd. If in fact having no slaves meant that the rich families were going to have less money and would eat less-nutritious food is not a good argument for perpetuating slavery.
>Does that mean everybody else should be making 3.5x

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Productivity gains have not been distributed proportionally; which is what this metric is underscoring for our lowest wage workers.

EDIT: If I'm misreading this, I welcome the enlightenment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-9wo_apQ1s

Looking for HD but this one actually has video; the others I found didn't.
I use it to talk to my wife and kids, track my workouts, play music, send me notifications (everything from text messages to home automation alerts), set timers, record my EKG when my ectopic beats start getting noticeably frequent, etc. And also show the time, date, show me the current temperature, among other things.

And you know what? It does all this while I leave my iPhone at home. Because I don't always want to carry around a full size smartphone.
> I would like if I had the option to opt out of that and get considerably longer battery life instead

If you would really like that you would have clicked on display settings and realized that they’ve had the option to opt-out since the day Always-On Displays were announced.
Yeah this seems like a dream world, if you're a publicly traded company you have a legal obligation to pay people as little as you can, and with most companies in general the founder/owner feels like they're entitled to as much as they can take for "taking the risk"
This one stuck out to me, because I moved to Idaho.

It’s also not clear if a employer could cut such wages by 25%; that has less to do with CoL and more to do with the labor market. Or to use your formulation; do workers charge for their services according to the local cost of living, or do they charge for their labor what the market will bear?
I don't think following maritime law is aggression. From my understanding, CCPs claims to islands and waters become legitimate if we cede the ground under maritime law.
> What's the right solution? It's case by case, down to a mixture of morality and expertise to decide.

I think the idea of minimizing harm is a really good one.

I've never done any machine learning type stuff, but, based on my limited understanding, I think there are probably a few issues at play that make things difficult.

I think the feedback loop for an algorithm is likely important. If you're training an algorithm to match fingerprints, you have a few things that work in your favor. First, matching is easier with fewer samples, so you can train the model incrementally with larger and larger data sets. Second, the process of identifying false positives is easy, relatively definitive, and isn't influenced by external factors. If the ML algorithm only has X% confidence you send it to a human who assesses the match and tells the algorithm the answer so it can "learn" for the next situation that's similar.

Contrast that with something like payment processing. First, you need to scale with demand and it's not easy to incrementally train the algorithm. Second, false positives don't have a tight feedback loop. A false positive negatively affects a customer and every case is different. You need to rely on external, subjective data that isn't definitive enough to be useful to an algorithm (IMO).

I think matching fingerprints is a good analogy to illustrate some of the problems, especially when you hear things along the lines of "looked too similar to fraudulent activity." With fingerprints, you could give 10 to an amateur and they could probably match them accurately. Scale that up to 10,000 and you have so many that look similar, but not identical and you need a professional to do the matching.

I think ML is similar. It's better on a small scale than it is on a large scale and just doesn't scale up as well as the sales pitch says (unless it's assessing problems with definitive solutions). The issue here is that tech companies are treating ML like it scales in a linear fashion. Just throw more compute at it and 10x the scale, right? Wrong (IMO).

There was another comment here that said something along the lines of getting to 98% accuracy and deciding not to serve the other 2%. I think that's what's happening everywhere, but rather than explicitly telling customers they're not welcome, companies are simply letting their ML algorithms run to find the equilibrium where they can manage the "not positive" rate.

And that goes back to your idea of minimizing harm. They don't want to. They don't care if they promise you service even though you're borderline in terms of triggering false positives. You're part of the data set for their machine learning algorithm and that means you're viewed as acceptable collateral damage. They'll ruin your life to train their ML algorithm(s).
My aged Pebble Time Steel lasts 8 days (fresh from factory, it was 10!). I still consider it the pinnacle of smart watch tech.

The tradeoffs are that the screen is "e-paper" without touch functionality. Personally I think it's the right choice: always-on tech and having tactile controls vs a clumsy touch-screen (due to small size).

The watch itself is pretty small so there's room to increase battery life by making it bigger.
> You can't do both.

I'm being entirely serious: I don't see why not.

> It doesn't really matter which you do.

It really, really matters if productivity increases are uneven.
Yes, thank you so much! I wanted to enjoy it and tried to power through without invert-y, but I just couldn't get used to it and stopped playing.
How to qualify for the proposed $12,500 electric vehicle tax credit