skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From TFA:

“Each table is in its own sonic zone,” John explained. “But it’s not isolated.” He mentioned a colleague’s earlier attempt to address restaurant noise, which succeeded in suppressing chatter but led to a muffled, sterile environment: “Everyone hated it—the room ended up being completely dead.” Instead, Constellation undertakes a process akin to the Photoshopping of an image, with undesirable elements removed. John explained that there are two components to a sound as it resonates: the early reflections, which contain most of the intelligible information; and the later reverberation, which is blurrier. “Right now, with those loud people right behind me, we’re hearing only their reverb energy—it’s not enough for intelligibility. Early reflections have been cut out: you can hear voices but not what they’re saying.” The effect is conviviality without chaos.
Microsoft adopts first international cloud privacy standard
For any man wondering what he can do about this: Keep your eyes and ears open.

I think a broken windows theory applies. Small comments can signify larger issues. Addressing small, offhand comments can help create a culture that doesn't tolerate this stuff.

I work alone, so I don't get many opportunities to have any impact on this kind of thing. But if you're in a group culture, you may be in daily contact with men who treat women poorly.
I think as we progress we are increasing the level of skill-set required to get a job. Industrial jobs wouldn't have required anything other than vigor and endurance. As we moved to clerical jobs, being literate, and a typist became necessary and in the future, it is possible that a certain level of programming competence might become a pre-requisite.

As we will be creating high functioning AI, robots and self-driving cars, we would also be creating jobs for people who would need to do the grunt work. I don't believe that we would be able to reach a level, ever where everything would automated without slightest of human intervention. The more sophistication we will have in the things we build, the more we would start have problems with them, which would need human attention.

People in every generation have been awestruck at the progress of human civilization, such that, they always have believed a computer that can think on his own is just near, like in 2001: A Space Odyssey. But it just never happens. At least in my lifetime, I think I won't have to worry about robots that can kill us.
Two thoughts:

1. There is a reasonable probability that from a temporal distance equivalent to ours from the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and the software revolution will be seen as one big thing, not two.

2. The idea that the amount of available work should be related to the number of available people does not inevitably lead to creating new forms of work.

"An atom-blaster is a good weapon,
but it can point both ways."
-- Salvor Hardin
Show HN: dokibox – an open source music player for OS X
An extremely high-altitude plume seen at Mars’ morning terminator
> A number of things that used to take the resources of nations—building a rocket, for example—are now doable by companies, at least partially enabled by software.

This is nothing new. Organized humans have always been able to cause outsized amounts of harm to other humans, they hardly needed software to do this. And in far greater orders of magnitude than a rocket. The effective answer to new, software-enabled threats is the same as it is to mercenaries, industrial polluters, rampant loggers and strip miners, arms manufacturers, human traffickers. Organization at a bigger scale to combat it. Pull the rug out from under them economically, understand their place sociologically, raise awareness culturally.
What I meant to say then is that the problem is not pseudoscientific nonsense but the nonsense done by authority figures in general.
Agree that earlier advancements created a lot of new ones. But do you think that lack of globalization in previous instances had a very significant part to play? Especially where and how the cost savings achieved through automation were invested back? (honest question)
Hopefully/presumably the gpg-signing key wasn't on the box (no reason for it to be) -- so the only way to compromise the debs would/should be by uploading/using a new gpg-key -- which apt would warn the user about.

Now, if anyone followed only part of the instructions:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:deb.haskell.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=fzXiVKr5NuvXyQPe9oKoCA

They would be owned:

Repository keys

To avoid warnings, you might want to install
the key used to sign these repositories:

GET http://deb.haskell.org/deb.haskell.org.gpg-key | \
apt-key add -

Unless they paid attention to:

The key is signed using a key from the Debian keyring,
in case you want to verify it first.

This is of course backwards: it should list instructions for verifying the key before instructions on how to add it to apt...
I really like Apple keyboards because they allow for an economy of movement. With most keyboards, the keypress has a lot more travel in it and the keys are much thicker, and they're U-shaped on the top, which means I have to expend a lot more effort to move my fingertips horizontally from key to key. Typing on an Apple keyboard is like shooting a rifle with a hair-trigger; there's an economy of motion and effort. After using Apple keyboards for a long period of time it's extremely awkward for me to go back.

People sing the praises of mechanical keyboards, and I guess it's satisfying for them, but I don't want to have to punch the keys like I'm using an old typewriter. I just want my fingertips to dance across them. I think the preference for mechanical keyboards is half nostalgia and half machismo.
If you have the time, it's worth listening to Mc Kenna's talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PucjQXO2k0

McKenna is very dense and goes into immense detail about how we got here, and more importantly where we are going. I need not say more, except that Mc Kenna compares technological revolution as being similar to a birth of a child ― bloody and traumatic, but at the same time wonderful and awe inspiring.
Think "NSA develops AI cyberwarfare capabilities", with the kind of infra access that it has.
Yeah, that's a shitty thing to do. It's called Pussy Privilege. If a man did this, it'd be screamed at from mental abuse (drink) to rape(kiss).

It sums up to : I'm a woman, get me something because I "might" have sex with you. But not really. And those that realize this to its full potential can screw their way to the top.
1.

You're assuming redistribution wouldn't happen through heavy taxation of existing capital and property, like France's wealth tax[1], where you pay when your worldwide net worth is above 1,300,000€.

2.

The US taxes citizens regardless of where they live[1], and in the case of renouncing the US citizenship it is required you pay an exit tax[2] equivalent to the capital gains of selling all your property when above $680,000.

[1]: http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxatio...
[2]: http://hodgen.com/does-the-united-states-stand-alone/
[3]: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Expat...
Author here. Been working on this on and off for about 3 years now as a side project and it's my first 'large-ish' OSX app. Would love comments or suggestions! Thanks.
The reason these scientists are upset is because we are no where near being able to do this. They're not saying we can't do it someday, just that it's a crazy waste of money right now. We don't know enough about the brain to make reasonable full scale models of it yet.
What did she accomplish then? If naming him burns bridges does telling this story help?
I'm not sure how to make this any clearer: The question on this subthread has nothing to do with the article except for the location.
The "I am not a lawyer" should be in the back of your mind whenever the author talks about the legalities of this software agreement.

It is possible to both anonymize and aggregate GPS-data to a degree where it is neigh impossible to reverse engineer.

The "we provide data to governments when we have a good faith belief that legal standards are met" is boilerplate. From Facebook, to Atlassian to Wordpress.com, all privacy policies have that wording.

I found this article to be unfounded and harsh of tone. Google doesn't even need Waze to spy on you. If anything: Google-NSA spying has decreased since the Snowden-revelations. They now actively secure most communications, lobby to be more transparent to their users, and fix security bugs like Heartbleed. All the while keeping their profitable marketing profiles on you (call that spying and the word loses its meaning).
Hi Duncan - another option is matrix.org - we're similar to XMPP although at the same time different: Matrix is effectively an eventually consistent DB with open federation and pubsub semantics - it's all about synchronising state, whereas XMPP is about federated messaging - sending stanzas around rather than synchronising conversation history.

In fact in Matrix we don't even have the concept of sending a message over federation - the only thing you can do is to synchronise the history datastructure.

We don't see Matrix as undermining XMPP: if you want decentralised conversation history then use Matrix. If you want fast stateless message passing, use XMPP. Infact, we're building an XMPP<->Matrix bridge, so that XMPP can federate with Matrix - so it's not like we're fragmenting things further. The point for Matrix is to try to defragment all the different protocols out there.
I heard hundreds of long time employees were newly minted millionaires at IPO, but from what I heard from my peers, new grads don't get anything close to $1m. In fact, everyone I knew with an offer at Facebook 2012/2013 declined it to work elsewhere.
I know humour isn't always well received on HN, but this article about Facebook's "authentic name" policy reminded me about a recent-ish Onion sketch:

http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatic...
I can't see that this is down to fundamental attribution error. That is the fallacy of assuming that because someone acts in a particular way, its because they are always that way, or that its because they are a member of a group that is always that way. However this kind of sexual harrasment is unacceptable no matter how many times you do it. Even if its just once because he was feeling lonley/sad/drunk/whatever, its still showing that the guy is an asshole.
I'm very surprised to hear how hard it was for you to swim in light chop. I grew up surfing and you paddle with your head up so you are used to craning your neck and stroke at an angle down.

When I finally starting doing some swimming in a pool I was amazed at how much easier it was to swim. Especially maintaining momentum. I also swim quite frequently without a board in open water when the waves are small, but there is still light chop and although it's surprising how slow it is I've never felt it was particularly difficult. Interesting how things work much differently transitioning the other way.

Also when you talk about wetsuit, it sounds like you haven't used a good/thick wetsuit. Or maybe this was a while ago. Wetsuit technology has been pushed really far in the last 5 years. Dry suits have always been good thanks to the military, but sports wetsuits have really progressed a lot with the explosion of the surf industry. I stay in the water easily twice as long now than I did with my first suit I bought five years ago.
I hope we will have houses around 5-10 places.
Google’s BebaPay is shutting down in Kenya after
Why Americans still use Fahrenheit
Some Libertarians have kicked around the idea. Basic income would replace all of the welfare bureaucracies.

EDIT: rcfox beat me to it by a few minutes.
Can we really say that we are in a revolution while we are in it? And if so, can we, in all seriousness, measure it against other revolutions?
Well, no. That's just a case of bad communication that I hope you both were able to transcend. And that sounds like it could have been a fun date. Smart, non-asshole men and women are fun to date.
> because it takes huge amounts of energy to enrich Uranium. One effectively needs the resources of nations to do it.

False. The electricity to enrich a bomb's worth of material costs about $60,000. The plant itself is cheaper than the Tesla gigafactory, and it'll yield 1,000 times the energy it takes to run making regular reactor fuel (gigafactory will be lucky to break even). Laser enrichment is even cheaper, of course.
I would guess the wheel was part of the agricultural revolution? Maybe that's wrong.

edit: yes, it seems I was wrong, the wheel was discovered much after the agricultural revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel#History Given that though, I wonder if its impact was smaller than the other great revolutions.
Using your logic then she should've taken the money.
The last few posts from Sam Altman have been deeply troubling and make me worried for the future of YC. He presents leftist ideas as fact without evidence of serious critical thought or even basic economic education.

"The previous one, the industrial revolution, created lots of jobs because the new technology required huge numbers of humans to run it."

This is factually wrong, but its easier to demonstrate with a thought experiment. Imagine you are a weaver or a smith. You have dedicated your life to mastering the craft and slowly produce products by hand. Now a textile factory or a foundry opens up. You will suddenly find it impossible to make your products profitably. Not only will you be out of work, but so will all of your colleagues in the rest of the country.

Or imagine you are a farmer, and then the green revolution happens. In 1870, 80% of the US population was in agriculture. Today, its under 2%.

In both of these cases, it will seem like the end of the world to the displaced workers. But new technology frees their labor for new purposes and uplifts the standard of living for everyone in society.
Better visibility is helpful but even that doesn't do much in rough conditions or at night. Many of us scuba divers now carry Nautilus radios which include a GPS receiver and 2-way VHF marine radio with distress beacon. I bring mine whenever I go out on the ocean, even when I'm not diving.
http://www.nautiluslifeline.com/nautilus_lifeline
Wow, you'll really flip when you find out you find out about mineral and water rights.
For anyone interested in exploring the topic of human labor becoming increasingly unnecessary in more depth, there was a very forward thinking (published in 2009) book written about this by a computer scientist called "Lights in the Tunnel". The author goes as far as to propose new societal structures to maintain order as this process unfolds. Highly recommended.

http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/1448659817
So doesn't that also apply to the whole simulated universe as well?
See what's happening here? She didn't do nothing. But what she did do snapped two nerd tripwires:

* she didn't "name and shame", and so managed to suck a lot of the personal drama out of the story, making it less fun to discuss on a message board, and so now us nerds will bitch about that --- but from up on our high-horse, so as not to have to concede that we're looking for a soap opera to distract us from our unit tests and CSS tweaks.

* by not naming the person who did this, she interrupted the flow of first-principles logic (the one that goes from "distilled raw facts in her narrative" to "preferred conclusions"), and the crudded-up plinko machines our brains use to evaluate these stories therefore lead us to doubt her narrative instead of just accepting the painful conclusion that sometimes good faith requires us to stipulate things and accept incomplete information.
> The charitable interpretation of his question would be

and

> I suspect the latter.

Interesting to see how selective you are when using that charitable interpretation technique.
> What can we do? We can’t make the knowledge of these things illegal and hope it will work. We can’t try to stop technological progress.

I think the best strategy is to try to legislate sensible safeguards but work very hard to make sure the edge we get from technology on the good side is stronger than the edge that bad actors get.

> But I worry we learned the wrong lessons from recent examples, and these two issues—huge-scale destruction of jobs, and concentration of huge power—are getting lost.

Yet, we still promote "beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission". You can't have both -- "legislative safeguards" and a bunch of entrepreneurs running around begging forgiveness when they create destruction.
He calls it a C trick but the actual trick is implemented in asm. It would be a cool trick if he did it purely in C. Especially today, "all the world's not x86".

(And I used to be a gcc maintainer for m68k and i860. I'm quite familiar with frame pointers and their non-use.)

Btw: you can do this trick without resorting to assembly - start by taking the address of a local variable.
I think what they were going for is the water can be so cold you loose the sensation in your fingers so trying to get a response combined with decreased body temperature, results in applying too much force to break it off.

Also makes for a good cringe factor to make the simulation feel even more real.
Two very good questions, but my ideas about those go way off topic.

But with respect to question 1, the most important response is that we can't let the sunk cost fallacy stop us from adopting good ideas.
Thanks for that, TFoB is promising so far, though it seems to notch up CPU usage.
Sidetrack, but I'm curious. What do you mean by "a postulated mechanism by which it could actually happen that isn't pure SF"?

It reads as if you're asking for a mechanism for a future technological event explained purely in terms of present technology. The whole "existential risk" concerns aren't about what present systems can do, they're about what future self-improving system might do. If we postulate this hypothetical software becoming smarter than humans, arguing about what will or won't be easy for it becomes a bit silly, like a chimp trying to predict how well a database can scale.
I do think that lack of globalization made it easier for societies to achieve good resolutions to internal labor disputes-- globalization prevents employers from going outside a nation's socioeconomic framework to break the negotiating power of employees. But I think this is a linear term in the equation, not an exponential one. Exponential effects always dominate linear ones.
I would like to clarify that Andrew Nacin is not just "one of the lead developers", he was the security team member who self-assigned this deficiency.

Let me put it another way: I contacted the security team, Nacin responded. Then a mix of human and technological error (he says it was an aggressive spam filter) led to a communication breakdown.

> Arciszewski's original patch wasn't merged because it was overly broad, lacked unit tests, and had whitespace problems.

The problem was that my subsequent updates that addressed these issues were met with radio silence. Now the developers have gotten actively involved and they're on version 9 (thanks to dd32). Since the FD post, their response has been largely professional, proactive, and conservative. I have no complaints there.

EDIT: Also, my follow-up post to FD about this: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2015/Feb/53
The biggest risk is not getting retirement started at all or matching 401k.
> That made me very, very uncomfortable. Probably one of the worst things I've ever felt while comfortably sitting in front of my computer, browsing the web.

No kidding. I only noticed after it was over how much I was sweating. It was pretty powerful.
You'll need to replicate the full physical feedback, i.e. you'll need a simulator machine akin to what flight pilots use.
> The industrial revolution was the same as other technological revolutions and not distinct from them in that it reduced the exertion and strain put on workers ... the condition of workers improved dramatically in the 19th century

Industrialization, massification, standardization of production and moving to big cities have had tough consequences on worker's life. Charlie Chaplin shows just that. It was a tougher life than traditional community life with flexible work amounts.

You could definitely argue that there was an improvement in caloric supply (except in some countries). For the general happiness, though, industrial revolution has been a tough time.
"Trying to hold on to worthless jobs is a terrible but popular idea."

I'm not sure I agree with this proposition. When I was in India, I noticed a large amount of roadwork was being done by men with shovels and other fairly low tech. I asked about it, and was told, to paraphrase, "Sure, we could do it better and faster with machines, but it is better for society to provide employment to those who would otherwise be unemployed."

It is laudable to provide people with the dignity of a job, even it it means some things don't run as efficiently as they could.

While I doubt this would happen to me as a software engineer, I would certainly rather work and have my dignity that sit on my ass, collect basic income, and feel worthless.
This is a very sensitive issue, but frankly men will always try to hit on women. However, right now this is completely ignored. It looks like everyone is trying to sweep this under the carpet and hopes this way, sexism in tech will go away. It won't.

A major reason for that is, because right now, men are only told what is NOT okay, without telling them what IS okay. This makes a lot of men behave very strangely in towards women. Firstly, because they don't want to appear sexist for the woman's sake and secondly, because they don't want to be accused of sexual harassment. Women feel this and for that reason feel unwelcome in tech. It seems like no one tries to reference any gender study researxh even though this is such a huge problem in tech and is holding up our industry.

A way to solve this, would be starting to create an open culture about how men and women can work together in tech, NOT leaving out the whole dating aspect.

A first step into this direction would be to clarify what IS okay and not only what is NOT okay.

For instance, telling a woman she is gorgeous without asking for anything in return is okay. Then the woman can make up her mind if she is interested or not. This is how it works and it will happen anHowever, basing a business transaction on sexual favours is not tolerated.

This has to be more specific of course, however, the only guideline being "inappropriate behaviour won't be tolerated" is just not enough to solve sexism in tech and to get more women into tech.
Look here: http://skyvector.com/

You need to know a little about reading aeronautical charts but for an airport like Boston the inner thick blue circle labelled 70/SFC would probably be the most relevant usage restriction.
When I was a boy scout we were taught to take off our pants, tie knots in them and fill them with air either by blowing or by throwing them over and down on the water. You can create a makshift life jacket this way. Wet fabric can hold air. It isn't perfect, you have to keep refilling air as it leaks but it does work. I was in a swimming pool and not high seas so not sure how effective it would be in that situation. Definitely better than just treading water though.