skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've also played it semi-recently, and it's really, really intuitive – just like playing another game where you don't quite understand the rules. Things slowly start making sense. Marc (the creator) is an extremely talented designer for building a progression of levels that teaches you the concepts just through level design. You definitely don't get a formal understanding of the 4th dimension, though.
- The Chinese language does not have a single universal pronunciation standard. You may have heard of different Chinese 'dialects' such as Mandarin and Cantonese. The same characters are pronounced differently in different dialects, and it's more than just an accent: someone who speaks only Mandarin may follow something like 20% (ish) of an overheard conversation in Cantonese, if they concentrate hard.

- Even in a single dialect, many words sound exactly the same, but mean different things. Using a phonetic system would harm comprehension. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-Eating_Poet_in_the_Stone... for an excellent illustration of this point.
One that Google has not solved, for instance, is navigating a gas station. When they fill up gas at Shoreline & Middlefield in Mountain View, I see humans doing the driving.
Quality of Service in Hadoop
Nature and evolution seem to be concerned with passing down information. For that, Nature came up with 4 letters: A, T, C, G. You see where I'm going with this.
I think you would have to experience first-hand what it is like to drive in almost any country that is outside the US, Europe or most of the commonwealth to really appreciate the difficulty of developing a self-driving car that could handle such conditions more safely than humans.

It very much is hard.

I've driven in and around India. Aside from the fact that the majority of vehicles have four wheels and generally move forwards more often than backwards, the similarities to driving in countries with more regulated driving environments are few to none.

Try circumnavigating Connaught Place on any day for a taster, or try taking the main highway north from New Delhi any distance.

The smaller more fragile vehicles give way, in the interests of self-preservation, to the larger, heavier vehicles.

Approaching in an intersection in a truck? Blast your horn to warn others of your approach so that they can get out of the way. Slowing down to carefully approach the junction is not what happens.

Need to cut across some lanes of traffic in a school bus to make a turn? Have your co-pilot hang out of the side door waving, shouting and berating other vehicles to make them give way. That's your turning indicator in many cases.

Need to take the same school bus on a circuit to collect kids in the morning and are running a bit late? Why not head straight through some empty fields. Roads can be optional.

All of the above I have experienced first-hand.
> Microsoft has some sort of secret project they are working on

Microsoft has a multitude of secret programming language projects, and the nice thing about them is that when they migrate into C#, people actually will use them.
Why AirBnB should buy Foursquare
I think Glacier works on very different principles, for very different scenarios. Dropbox, Drive...they're more for everyday usage. Glacier's more for archived storage, where you're looking at a platform to store historical files, that aren't used everyday, but you never know when you might need them. IMO, I'm not entirely sure it's accurate to compare it with Dropbox, in these terms.
You just described the problem nicely. The "magic" that turns 3 lane roads into 2 lanes etc, is a situational awareness that is really, really difficult to impart on a learning system. The big problem is that probabilistic models don't have a notion of "common sense" solution to an odd situation. They need to have seen the situation, or something very similar to it, enough to make a reasonable calculation of what to do.
I have to justify that that's what I mean when I say "god," or I have to justify that God created the universe? It is a common definition, so I figured you'd accept it.

The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of God you must deny that the universe was created by something. I don't see how you can make such a claim without any evidence. Last I checked there was no scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.
Help Vulcan Alberta Build the USS Enterprise
Then you run uniq -c (which I do all the time).

But for the examples in the main article sort -u would be fine.
Never underestimate the insomnia of hackers.
That's major problem with any secure system. Even if parts of it would be secure, there's no guarantee what so ever that rest of the system is secure. I see astounding examples about that almost daily. Security is high, until some intergration channel uses plain text http or ftp for data transport over internet, with weak or non existing authentication. In worst cases, using the same credentials you can also access a ton of other data, because only directory separation is used for different data sets. In some cases, the same credentials can be also used for remote desktop / SSH logins. Which makes me smile and cry every time that happens. Yes, even high profile businesses do those ridiculous fails, repeatedly. In many cases, they don't even bother to fix those, when I'm letting them know about insecure system configuration.
Yeah, all of the rice fields are currently flooded. They won't be for much longer, it's almost harvest time.

Despite getting water from the reservoirs, most ranches have had their allotments restricted to the point that they have to use well water to maintain their crops. A lot of the ranches have been forced to drill deeper and deeper wells. I know of a few ranches that are pretty much in competition with their neighbors to go deeper- one ranch drills under the other, and is then draining the aquifer out from under people with shallower wells. Most drilling companies are booked solid for the next year due to demand.

It's scary driving through the valley and seeing drill rigs everywhere, it really drives home how serious the situation is. I wouldn't want to be someone that lives off of well water, chances are their wells are going to go dry before the end of this, and it's crazy expensive to go deeper, plus the scheduling issues. What would you do if your well ran dry but it's $50000 and six months before you could do anything about it?
Mercedes-Benz S 500 Intelligent Drive Autonomous Car Self Driving Car:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHqB47F12vI

http://www5.mercedes-benz.com/en/innovation/mercedes-benz-in...

http://www5.mercedes-benz.com/en/innovation/autonomous-long-...
How we got into YC – thanks to Twitch's CEO
You can find most clothing produced in the US so at least you're mostly guaranteed that the workers were at or above minimum US labor standards. And chances are any cotton/wool are of domestic origin as well.
Gamer gets swatted live, on stream
It would be too late in the US for most of the user base to be from the US; the users posting begin shifting to Asia and in a few hours to Europe. Fascinating to watch how the comments change accordingly.
Not really. Both Intel and AMD do weird non-RISCy things beyond the decode stage.

The original difference between RISC and CISC was that RISC eschewed arithmetic+memory-operations in the same instruction. Both Intel and AMD processors violate this commandment. Instead their decomposition of instructions into uops is based more on the more pragmatic notion of choosing uops that are easy to pipeline and execute out of order.
Most of the problems yet to be tackled seem to be troublesome for many humans as well. But as for the adding to the maps, couldn't google work with local governments to have stoplights, stopsigns, construction etc added and google will contribute observations of potholes etc.
There are no shortcuts. The straight line connecting 2 points in 3d space is shorter than any path connecting the points that goes through a higher dimension. The same applies to 2d compared to 3d. If you have 2 points on a sheet of paper, the shortest path is on the paper. Any path that went "off" the paper into the 3rd dimension would be longer, so no "shortcuts".
totally right. They should also stop logging the miles they did going around in circles in a controlled environment too.
Yes there actually is! English is a language that really favours the writer while Chinese favours the readers. Most of the time, you can read Chinese a lot quicker because the characters are all the same size (although they might have different complexity), and there is generally a lesser need for linking words to ease the awkwardness of sentences, unlike English, because each Chinese character carries more of a "concept"/"theme", where as english words usually have quite precise definitions, and have more specific places where the words would actually make sense.

This is just my opinion as a native Chinese and English speaker, but I'm sure other bilingual English/Chinese speakers would tend to agree.
I think it may not be a long time until we realize that achieving fully cognizant AI would be faster than covering all these corner cases in somewhat hard coded logic.
I'm with you here. You could essentially build from scratch a traffic setup for autonomous vehicles, instead of retrofitting the autonomous vehicles to a current driving system. And by flying you get to avoid lots of complications that will prove very difficult to work around. No pedestrians, snow, signage, construction, etc etc.
Free EBooks for Learning Node.js
There was recently a car crash here in Victoria, Australia, that resulted in the deaths of two teenagers and injuries to five others. It was apparently caused by the relatively inexperienced driver swerving to avoid a rabbit. In hindsight it would have been better if the driver hadn't swerved and the rabbit had been run over, but in some sense this is a moral choice of the type that robots can't make.

In theory self driving cars sound like they could be potentially safer than human drivers, but there are many edge cases like the one above where a robotic driver following reasonable heuristics (e.g., swerve to avoid animals on the road) could cause fatal accidents that most human drivers would be able to avoid.
Scientists to test whether the universe is a hologram
At least now there are multiple companies and organizations working on these problems. I just hope, there will be some openness and sharing across all these teams.
This is already a problem, as many drivers already don't have extensive experience driving on a snowy road, dirty road, aquaplaning. Most drivers are used to asphalt/concrete roads, and have real problems the few days with rare weather & road conditions. So with little self-driving practice in future, this could be a big issue.
A Better Credit Card
This article implies that the 28% increase in deforestation between 2012 and 2013 was due to illegal deforestation. The measured area is 1,272 km^2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil). The criminal damages amount to $220 million, making each square kilometer worth $172,955. I like to think in terms of acres, so dividing that number by 247 gives me the value of 1 acre of Brazilian rainforest in USD: $700.22. Surely my math is wrong?
Your link does note that at least some of the grazing land comes from squatters "selling" forest. This may be considered a form of that.
Just happen to come by this today: http://i.imgur.com/5zE08DX.png
Flash-Card seeks to evolve the business card by finally taking it virtual
I'll comment on you argument in a moment, but first I want to comment on your EFF quote.

I don't know what is going on with the EFF, but they are seriously botching it on this. I have a hard time believing that whoever wrote the excerpt you quote from their letter even read the law. They say, "In essence, SB 962 mandates the technical ability to disable every phone sold in California".

Every phone? The bill only applies to smartphones. It explains what a smartphone is thusly:

-------- begin quote

(1) (A) “Smartphone” means a cellular radio telephone or other mobile voice communications handset device that includes all of the following features:

(i) Utilizes a mobile operating system.

(ii) Possesses the capability to utilize mobile software applications, access and browse the Internet, utilize text messaging, utilize digital voice service, and send and receive email.

(iii) Has wireless network connectivity.

(iv) Is capable of operating on a long-term evolution network or successor wireless data network communication standards.

(B) A “smartphone” does not include a radio cellular telephone commonly referred to as a “feature” or “messaging” telephone, a laptop, a tablet device, or a device that only has electronic reading capability.

-------- end quote

(It's interesting that under that definition, no iPhone prior to the iPhone 5 is a smartphone).

The original article says "The law raises concerns about how the switch might be used or abused, because it also provides law enforcement with the authority to use the feature to kill phones".

What does "authority" mean? I generally take it as something more positive or more active than "not forbidden". Suppose the bill said nothing at all about government agency use of the kill switch. Would you say that the bill gives them authority to use the kill switch.

I would say no.

The provision in the bill adds a restriction to what might be allowed if the bill was silent on this. (I say "might" because I think one can reasonably read 7908 as applying even if the bill were silent on this). Since I think silence would not be a grant of authority, I don't see how allowing less than what silence would allow can be a grant of authority.
On the other hand, traffic in the air might become a very messy problem. Last I heard autopilots are not used during takeoff and landing, so they barely deal with any traffic at all...
RFC1918 will likely not work since NAT'd users will be using ZeroTier. But there is a solution to this EXACT problem. RFC6598! http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598

I think they could safely use 100.64.0.0/10 -- It's arguably designed for this kind of thing.
I tried this it's really really simple to set up (than openvpn tinc etc). However NAT traversing is still a hard problem and I cannot get online behind two NATs.
I think this is a poor example. You could just as easily program the robot not to try so hard to avoid hitting a small animal (or at all). It's not a moral choice, it's a decision based on size and shape. Also, a robot might be less likely to swerve into other cars or dangerous locations.

There are problems for robot cars, sure, but this doesn't sound like one of them.
Yep. Cattle just don't do well, long term, on grain. It acidifies the stomach(s) which they're not equipped to handle. All cattle in the US is grass fed for the first 2/3 of its life, then moved to grain for most. Mine eat grain as a treat, it's like candy to them. But the primary source of their food is grass. Grass that I would be mowing otherwise (well, my wife - I'm allergic).
From the examples I'm familiar with, shifting from undefined to unspecified actually makes invalid programs _more_ likely to blow up spectacularly, because they're likely to go on and try to use the unspecified value rather than having the code path that uses it quietly excised or transformed.
Approaching this problem as 'navigating around X' is a wrong way to go about it. Once you solve the problem of navigating a gas station, the next you will face is to drive around a school, or a lane where kids are playing. The list would never end.

The idea must be to come up with a generic algorithm that solves these problems as a whole. Not one specific case at a time.
I decided to test a Google self driving car as it crossed the intersection by accelerating into its broadside - no reaction at all. Well, got a reaction from the humans inside.

I recently narrowly avoided getting killed by a broadside collision by braking just in time. If I were further I would have sped up out of the way. Would a probabilistic approach handle this? Maybe they need to compile a list of special edge cases.
There will always be more "tool users" than "tool builders". I think what you're really lamenting is that the "tool users" are claiming the same title and status (aka "programmer"). Perhaps the "tool builders" need a new brand to set themselves apart. How about electron whisperer?
Interesting. It has bugged me for some time that if the Web of Trust was bigger, it could grow exponentially and become universal: once someone you personally know has entered you into the WoT, you can be trusted and can trust others based on a number of public signatures on their public key. However, currently the WoT is so sparse that you cannot do this.

My idea was to use the existing web TLS platform to bootstrap the WoT to a sufficiently large level. I run my email on my own domain. Why can't I tell the WoT (and have it trust that it is true) that my public key is XYZ by putting it at https://igorpartola.com/pub.pem? GMail could do something similar and at least to start, we could get enough emails validated to start having the WoT spread on its own. Then we could modify the infrastructure to remove the public CA's and central authority entirely, by using the WoT itself. Google's HTTPS cert would then be based on its PGP key and be verified by humans inside the WoT.

I also think that the important part of the WoT is verifying emails/digital identity, not government docs. I don't care if I am talking to "Bob Bobber", I care that I am talking to bob@bobber.com. I may never have met bob@bobber.com, but I see his/her public git repos, blog, etc. and I want to connect to them securely.
Cool, it's basically the same thing google did last year with youtube; they have the same basic algorithm and automatically applied it to videos, only youtube had to do image recognition and a lot of cpu power where instagram can just use the gyroscope data.
Each approach has a different challenge.

For autonomous cars, the challenge is software. It's very difficult to build software that handles all the edge cases mentioned in the article. The hardware (cars) is a solved problem.

For autonomous personal flying machines, you're right that the software is easy, but the challenge is power density. The only VTOL machine that can carry humans a considerable distance without refueling is a helicopter. Helicopters are too large, disruptive, and expensive for everyone to have one. But no one has figured out how to shrink one down and still be able to carry a person.

If you compare the two approaches, one big difference is that software is improving much faster than power density. So my money would be that we solve the first one first.
When air vehicles fail they fall from a great height. They also tend to be vastly less energy efficient, at least for a personal vehicle. Maybe the second is not an issue if you go far enough into the future though...
> People aren't that great at this either

The robot car has to be considerably better than people to become acceptable. This is a serious burden for the technology.
Being able to abstract away the 3rd dimension is a huge boon, which is why we're still doing self driving cars.

In the air you can't ignore the 3rd dimension. Every calculation your car AI was making before, will now have to grow by an order of magnitude. Even making a helicopter stay stationary in 3d space is a challenge.
Yes! I wish I understood how to approach it as a hybrid social enterprise.
Around 6 months back, when there were hardly any books on AngularJS and related JavaScript technologies (Jasmine, Karma, etc), I was got a running start on my project after going through several courses on AngularJS and JavaScript on Pluralsight. Writing a book takes way more time than creating a video tutorial and, I think, in this rapidly developing programming landscape Pluralsight provides the right edge when it comes to learning new libraries, frameworks and techniques.
Nope. Mittens are animals not bacteria and they are very tought, here are some still alive after 30 minutes in alcohol. http://youtu.be/EUa6jZeUUOY
The One Word Men Never See in Their Performance Reviews
Where is Google in this context then? They are the 800 pounds gorilla, but a steady stream of innovations still seems to flow from them.
If you're looking for a simple way to install it I made a single line command installer with ansible: https://github.com/gmontard/grafana-graphite-statsd-ansible-...
> this is a moral choice of the type that robots can't make.

The driver in Victoria did not make a moral choice. Did they really weigh the life of the rabbit against death and injury of seven people? Extremely unlikely.

A robot, like an experienced driver, could easily use the heuristic that hitting the small thing is safer than hitting the big thing.
Thanks for that, I thought I knew a fair amount about C but I'd never run across the nethack easter egg.
How many programming languages can you guess right here?
A few days ago I published a little game: Babel. This is a mobile application quiz game, works this way:

You sign in with your GitHub account.
Choose between 3 difficulty settings.
A random source file is pulled from a random GitHub repository.
You have to guess in which programming language the file is written.
It has Game Center and Google Play Game Services integration for leaderboards.

Would love to hear what you think about it, it’s pretty much work in progress and I’ll be constantly improving it.

Download iOS version: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id908721192

Download Android version: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ruenzuo.babel
I interned in PCS 2002-2004. Android wasn't out yet (but Danger Sidekick was) and Moto was already working on a Linux+Java OS. That project was the division's great hope, but missed deadlines on and on.

Cramming a Java OS onto 2004 mobile hardware, very risky choice of a savior.

Half the interns used Treo, Sidekick, LG. Half had a Razr.
> it is logical to assume that the same can happened with these mites

Bacteria are about 1/100 the size (1/1,000,000 the volume) of these mites. The mites can be seen by the naked eye (barely).

How would the mite even get in? Much less breathe. Bacteria can get in the same way sperm do, mites are not able to swim through the fluid.
Well, I mostly agree with this.

The gas station is a special case though, because the objective isn't just travel from here to there. Finding a parking space is somewhat similar kind of special case, where there is a specific objective.
The self-driving car has trouble telling whether a white object on the road is a piece of paper or a rock. Most humans don't have that problem.

I don't why we like to think that all people are stupid. At the moment, the human brain is still significantly more intelligent than computers.
As far back as I can remember, lispm.de was hosted on some guy's personal box, so it was prone to downtime and simply being overwhelmed.

Come on, man. We're living in the era of clouds and virtual server images. Servers are cattle, not pets.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned paracites/worms.

Areas of the world where worm infection is prevalent and the areas of the world where allergies/autoimmune diseases are prevalent have almost no overlap.

There is even evidence to suggest that infection by certain larvae can actually alleviate certain conditions (like inflammatory bowel disease) although this research is at a very early stage and carries risk (you certainly shouldn't try it as a DIY solution, for sure!).
Isn't that last sentence describing common sense?
The information density of Chinese characters is enormous compared to English. This becomes very obvious when you find yourself trying to say something in just 140 characters. ;)