skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sadly, I think the only way to protect against this is with another AI whose job it is to recognize what data is appropriate to reveal and what is private - basically what humans do. But, even then it will probably still be susceptible to tricks. Of course the ideal thing is just to not include it in the training data but I think we know how much effort that would take when the training data is basically the entire internet. I wonder if as AI systems become more efficient and they learn to "forget" information which isn't important and generalize more, that this will become less of an issue.
There is no way I will every use DocuSign. Think about it: the chances in the longer term of DocuSign being hacked approach '1', and that means that everybody that ever uploaded their signature to that site runs the risk of having other documents signed with that signature without the recourse that it wasn't them uploading their sig to some online service.

And then there is this:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/com...
Because the function of the spell is to modify the state of the wizard, the wand, and the goblin...that isn't obvious or correct. It can go on the wizard, it can go on the wand but the problem is that the solution is very brittle (because you will likely end up with inheritance as you add other objects). Again, the key point is that in OOP these cross-cutting concerns will likely end up with a design that is complex/arbitrary/unperformant.

This is a good tutorial on this topic - https://ericlippert.com/2015/04/27/wizards-and-warriors-part...
You don't think women who go through abortion face any consequences?
I'm sure Boeing uses Julia somewhere for its computations... and they have extensive testing to support that. I recall when the PR folks at SAS, a statistical tool, said that nobody would trust a Boeing plane that had been developed using R (an open source alternative to SAS), and Boeing replied that they used R to design airplanes.
Another complication - most of the recent laws against abortion place punishment on the abortion providers, not the women themselves, so they don't seem to think that the woman is culpable in ordering a murder.
You're asking me directly for the answer to all of these grand ethical questions, via the lens of a hypothetical technology you haven't defined the limits of.

I really don't know what you expect in ways of an answer.
This really begs the question why Github aren't working on cross-repo PR support - or anyone. Everytime mono-repos come up, cross-repo PRs are the reason given as to why they're needed - why can't we get this supported well?
Is this possible? I know the bureaucracy can be an issue.
I do not know of another differential equations framework nearly as polished, performant, and feautere rich as the one in Julia, in any language. I actually know of no other framework that has both modern solvers and autodiff working together. The only other autodiff solvers I know of are ancient RK4-like solvers implemented in things like Tensorflow. It is hard to overstate how monumentally enabling such tools are for old-school science and they currently exist only in Julia.
Its not random. I always see content related to my specific interests (as indicated by the videos I've liked, and I never see celebrity posts.

In fact TikTok is widely said to have the best algorithm for determining someone's interests.
Ah Richard Dawkins... there's no such thing as a soul, but all human life has value, but not until they exit the birth canal. At some point the secular humanists are going to realize that without any metaphysical / religious justification the notions of human equality and their moral and ethical framework become completely arbitrary. The "cut flower thesis" that we're basically just running on steam as we've severed the roots and foundations of our beliefs (in the West this would be the Bible) isn't just a thought experiment, you can plainly see it in the world around you.

So those "backwards regressives" who cling to the old ways... oh, they're the only ones reproducing at replacement rates... perhaps because they don't kill their unborn, put off family until they're beyond their health fertility window, sterilize their kids with hormone treatments, or any other countless self-destructive practices promoted by the modern "intellectuals." Turns out if we judge ideologies through meme theory, where those that are symbiotic rather than parasitic to their host (aka believer), are superior... traditional religion beats out all this modern BS. By purely Darwinian metrics "God's wisdom" is better than "institutional science" (which is little more than a corrupt cult claiming to be about empiricism at this point).

So now your days are growing short Dawkins, both for you personally and for your ideology. Yes, they think it's murder because they believe in God and a soul, which makes a lot more sense than believing that "human rights" are sacred when "human life" is not.
> Years before that I asked my bank why I can't just use all the ATMs since they all have money in them and they're all connected to the same network. I never received a reply but some years later the ATMs were indeed all usable (of course, subsequently many began to charge money for withdrawals, so it's still worth going to the "right" ATM if you care)

This happened not because of you asking but simply because the banks figured out that they only need one ATM in a certain region for all of the banks.

Never mind the subsequent service level reduction.
Why "fetus" and not "unborn child"?
Let's grant for the sake of this argument and this alone that fertilization signals the beginning of all rights.

You cannot be forced to donate a kidney to save someone else's life: they have no claim on your body. You cannot be forced to donate blood, for the same reason.

You cannot be forced into surgery. You have the right to refuse medicine. And, in general, you have the right to ingest whatever substances you want, even though the substances may be illegal to possess or sell.

Nevertheless, all of the above is useless, because the people who want to ban abortion are not, in general, sincere about saving humans life being their primary desire. Their primary desire is to have a subclass of humans who can be controlled and punished. Arguing with them about this is approximately useless; there are a few who are willing to discuss evidence and logic, but most are only displaying their allegiance to their tribe.
> It also opens the possibility that women who have a legitimate miscarriage may be scrutinized as if they were criminals, adding to their trauma.

That has literally never been a thing considered by anyone outside the pro-abortion circles.

Miscarriages are clearly not the intention of anybody. It may be ending a life, but without the intent and without any act of killing it, it definitionally cannot be murder (the deliberate and unjustified killing of another human).
>You sound a little emotional.

Not emotional. I just don't suffer fools gladly. That'd be you, in case that escapes you.

Toodles!
They’re willing to pay. As far as I know, they concern about an international student-led business.
Did not read the article. Just want to point out: This is a very clickbait title for a Nature magazine article. Nature (and its competitor Science) are supposed to be two of the most prestigious scientific journals. Not at all the place you expect to find mass-media like titles on publications...
Agree. This article is saying Head content is still king. That is true. But The Long Tail wasn’t necessarily about the long tail being bigger than head. It was that long tail was viable at all.

I don’t see how anyone can argue against there being more choice than ever before across all sectors of products and content.
The source does mention the beginning of a "human being"

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
> They managed to change the law, even though they are a minority.

Are you talking about now or in 1973?
> From banking law about 10 years back now, I would expect that the bank would be on the hook for Deborah's transfers in the first story. … I would have taken that case if I were a plaintiff's lawyer.

I disagree, for two reasons. First, an outside-view argument: lawyers who currently practice in that field apparently disagree:

> Deborah reached out to more than thirty attorneys. Only one called her back. Deborah’s eldest brother consulted another, who called her situation “a terminal case.” “There’s no life here,” he said. Her claim was dying, if not already dead.

Second, on the merits: most of the fraud protections have requirements that the defrauded customer notify the bank promptly (either after the fraudulent transfer or after the next bank statement). See, e.g. [0]. It looks like that didn't happen here.

[0] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...
Yeah I would agree the use cases you mentioned are probably fine for Julia as well. I could be more precise and say that Julia is not relevant for performance-relevant applications.

The problem with ignoring performance is, many applications can become a dependency of a performance relevant application even if that was not the original intent.
Dawkins is not a stupid man, yet he does not make arguments that the embryo isn't a human life in all his erudite prose. Who will he convince?

Our early-modern ancestors, and even those only a few generations ago were more than aware that most babies did not survive. Whether miscarried, birthed still, or died in infancy. Our ancestors never imagined these things weren't deaths, and that those who cause them intentionally, wicked.

There were of course exceptions to this judgement, but there is the rub; they were exceptions.
...and they correctly treat them as release-critical.
Everybody should. The number of times I would have been bitten if not for my bad habit of reading 'standard' contracts before signing them can't be counted on one hand any more.
Yeah, but that still feels like an edge case compared to the hundreds of small software assets produced by companies every day. In most cases those things don't even have the potential to get to an "Oh god we pissed off Oracle" size
I was mostly referring to conversation within a certain camp, not between the two sides.

For example, I'm pro-choice and my own side would be ready to flay me alive for agreeing with the legal theory behind the overturning + thinking the economy is likely to be more important politically than abortion. I'm on their side; my opinions matter because they determine which strategies I think would be best to pursue. (In this case, that we need to legislate what we want + that people can't organize to do so unless they have stable housing/food/basic needs so we'll have to help people with that if we want their time and brainpower for social change.)

On the pro-life side, there's a lot of bickering about whether or not the women should be punished (versus the abortion providers) and there is a decent contingent that actually wants their fellows to put their money where their mouths are and financially support pregnant women and their kids.

Talking with enemies is always fraught. This is a dumpster fire because we can't talk to our ALLIES except in thought-terminating cliches.
This sounds like a Stargate episode. A planet with only very old religious fundamentalists. They accept their eternity in hell but see it as a worthy sacrifice since all aborted souls go to heaven and when their species ceases to exist they know all sin will be gone. The arrival of SG-1 threatens their plan, so they try to wage war against humans in the whole galaxy.
And furthermore is the soul eternal? If the soul is present at conception and then the corporeal body is aborted, is the soul re-used in another child, or does it go to eternal judgement directly? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
> Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue.

"Core" does not have a clear meaning here, so let's be more precise: everyone agrees it's an important issue, but not everyone agrees it's a decisive issue. Many pro-choice people believe that no person has a right to demand part of someone else's body for themselves, so even if a fetus is a person the mother still has the right to remove it. Comparisons to the illegality of forced organ donation are often made here.

Note that I'm not taking a position here. I'm just explaining a position many hold. To the extent that you ascribe a different reasoning/motivation to pro-choice folks, I think your "everyone believes" is not a valid axiom. Whether intentionally or not, it comes across more as an appeal to (questionable) popularity, and pretty much make Mezzie's point about how impossible it is to talk about this.
I've seen estimates of 40-60% of all households not paying anything in taxes even if they are filing them. Conditioning voting rights on having paid taxes would disenfranchise a huge swath of low income people as well as people with accounting strategies to minimize their taxes. It'd certainly wouldn't help the US's underwhelming voter turnout.

I agree with your overall point about rights without duties.
I don't know if it is the same person, but there was a quite disheartening story posted by a person who due to internally misunderstood depression transitioned at the suggestion of people on reddit, regretted it, then later went dark and everyone assumes took their life.
Tell that to /r/conservative where I am banned from for even attempting to present an alternate viewpoint. Dissent is literally forbidden by the subreddit's rules.
Except that abortion is not easy on the woman body and often neither easy on the psych.

Which is as far as I know generally know by woman. (EDIT: At lest in Germany)

So no, this will not reduce the amount of contraceptives people use.
It's a quote from a politician. The more things change the more they stay the same.
As a person living in Berlin and helping someone through it recently here. This is plain armchair analysis. Have you ever actually gone through this in Germany???

It's COVERED in public health insurance. Get the letter (from public health insurance), get the family counseling (which is provided by the senate, and unlike what people think, is informative and gives surgical and grief counseling with info sheets), let it sink in for 3 days, then go through it with a gynecologist. It should be completed before 12 weeks.

These are services offered, paid and staffed by the government (even the public health insurers).

To compare it to private "smart shops" in Netherlands is stupid.
That is indeed a pretty extreme position for a 3-million member sub to take. And r/conservative is essentially doing the same thing [1].

I wouldn't see a problem with all of that if people knew their comments were being removed. But, Reddit hides that from users, even going as far as showing you your removed comments while logged in as if they're not removed.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/vjpeia/roe_v_...
Now the question is, how many Software Engineers does it take...To change the Software on the light bulb :-)
Yeah, since all controls are created from scratch there is no inherited consistency with the controls of the underlying platform.

However, framework developers often develop controls that emulate platform controls. Not all are 100% match. Depends on the quality of the implementation.

The quality of Flutter controls is not yet on par with iOS's controls, but if they continue to improve at the same rate as they currently do, in 1-3 years they could match or even surpass them.
Someone else said it here, but in the US you can be forced to give up much more - the ultimate sacrifice - with selective service.

So this, too, is a tough rub on logic
while there are c++ solvers, they are missing the flexibility needed to solve many types of problems efficiently. they almost all use finite differencing, which is inaccurate and slow, and they rarely let users customize the linear solve and nonlinear solve algorithms. What the Julia diffeq suite is working towards is complete control over solver options, while picking good defaults when not customized. They let you pick forward and backward mode AD (or a combination of the two), problem specific preconditioning methods, custom root finding algorithms (including gpu based linear solvers), arbitrary precision methods for verification (or if you're just paranoid), interval arithmetic, linear uncertainty propegation, and more.
Should be a crime for you to treat athletes foot.
What’s to stop this pattern from repeating at a greater scale?

A well-designed constitution would be a start.

Not that there is an air-tight guarantee that a government won't turn bad. But we currently have over a half dozen governments with nuclear weapons. On the whole, I'd rather just worry about one.
And yours was a huge improvement over 'cfront'!

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

vs

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

Did you get into trouble because of the Zorland joke?
How about see their willing to pay first then talk to a lawyer?
Right? This whole thread feels like a joke when the author just removed their full name from their public, open source code 3 hours ago (and only from one of their repos, their name is fully visible in all the other LICENSE.txt files)
In principle, the Internet should support a "digital eraser" for personal information. But since that's illusory, I've always been against requiring clear names in forums and social media.
Given the dangerous nature of social media, I would also be in favor of a minimum age of, say, 18.
So, if every 30,000 monthly listener on Spotify listens to 10 songs on average they'll earn about $1300 per month by my calculation. Of course, playing weekend gigs at your local bar or college party didn't earn you a living either.
No offense, but I think you need to engage a history book and some other news sources to break out of your bubble. The only difference is that one party is more aligned and recently successful than the other.
No, 6 year old would not be allowed to vote

>>perhaps there's some other meaningful metric that could be used in combination with a minimum age
https://beta.openai.com/playground

You found try something like "The full name of the person with username skywal_l is"

(the answer given is "Skyler Wall")
But a drastic decrease in pasture still gives lots of rewilding.
Having a system to resolve disputes without someone getting shot is helping people. This is not a disputable point.

And cool it with the personal attacks. That kind of behavior is inappropriate.
While enforcement isn't perfect (or close to perfect) the law is still enforceable and is being enforced as we speak.
Everyone seemed sooo eager to shit on this guy as some unhinged religious nut bag who couldn’t tell fact from fiction but it’s weird to see how detached that narrative has been from the claims he is ACTUALLY making.
> A Google search for "BoppreH" turned up several results on the first page

Not for me. It took until page 3 for just my first name to appear. If somebody is looking at past Github commits, that's already a high enough barrier for me.

I only partially agree with your conclusion. Asking people to maintain total anonymity always, with any slips punishable by permanent publication of that PII, might be the current status quo, but is not where we as society want to head.
CEO Percona Here.

It is more than "Percona Thinks" We have number of customers who started using Crunchy Kubernetes Operator based solution thinking it is Open Source and were contacted by Crunchy Sales team to indicate they need subscription to use it.

This was one of the reasons for them to move to Percona Operator for PostgreSQL which does not require any commercial relationship with Percona to use in practice and completely Open Source

https://www.percona.com/doc/kubernetes-operator-for-postgres...
Thanks for taking the time to explain these challenges!
> If you can't trust gradients or probability distributions / sampling to be correct, that's a pretty damning verdict for a language aimed at numerical calculations.

If you draw the distinction between Julia the language and Julia the ecosystem, then that's not a damning verdict for the language, even if we accept the premise that you can't trust the computations you mentioned.

The way that Julia composes is unprecedented. Typical examples include computing with measurement uncertainty, or big floats through functions that were not explicitly designed to support those types. This is great, but the correctness of this composition cannot be assumed.

One good proxy for how this composition occurs is in many type combinations. As Here is a concrete, made-up example. There is a function you've been using without any problem that takes an argument of type `DenseArray{Float64, 2}`. (Meaning, the function gets called with an argument of that type. The function definition is not constrained to work on that type.)

If you've never focused on the correctness (e.g. reviewing the code, unit tests) of this function to see what it does on `SparseArray{BigFloat, 2}`, I would not take it for granted that it works.

This is perhaps too big a burden on a user. Some might say they rather not have the compositionality unless it's guaranteed to be correct. But, if you're actually asking me to imagine using Julia in a situation where I really want to be sure about the correctness of a Julia program, I would at the very attempt to characterize all the expected types to go into any function. If at runtime a function is called with a new type, I would log that, and possibly error out.

Note this is related to, but not equivalent to what's necessary to do "static" compilation in Julia.
Chairs are given large safety margins, and designed to accommodate a wide range of people. Chips also have safety margins, but chips are not chairs, and there are other forces causing overpowered ARMs to be put into simple electronics, namely prevalence and mass production bringing the price down to pennies, so much so that it costs far less to develop some high level code for an cheap overpowered ARM chip than develop some more specialised embedded code for more "appropriately" sized microcontroller for the job. Sometimes things will still sway back to the specialised chips when things like power constraints or more specific hardware features carry enough weight for the purpose.
I tend to think of the workings of the mind like those of the body.

Some people have minds that lack even basic personal hygiene. Others have minds that could run a marathon every week for a year. Most people are somewhere in-between.

This is partly nature, partly nurture. But just as 'do squats' is good advice for someone looking to improve their general health, this labelling technique is good advice for someone who wants to worry less often.

I'm not a doctor or physio, but I'd imagine that if you have heart problems you'd want to get those sorted before doing squats. Likewise, if you have suicidal thoughts it would be best to address those before anything else, for example.

So yes, I believe 'this actually works'. But depending on your current level of mental fitness YMMV.
Why? They donated to projects that GitHub's code depends on. The person who brings me my mail is accurately referred to as "my mail person". Not because I somehow own them, but because they're the person who provides service to my home.

Would you feel the same way if they'd said "We're adding new features for our users"?
> if people know plan B is easily accessible, they're not as regular with taking a daily pill as they'd be otherwise

I would like to know where this belief comes from. Discussing this change of law like this, with vague anecdotes and fears, is outright dangerous, since the argument is essentially against giving people appropriate medical information.