skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This was posted to HN a few hours earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9098280

My comment there:

---

I'm of two minds about this article. On the one hand, I think it does a great job of emphasizing that AI can turn out to be really different from humanity, and may not end up like a "human-in-a-box" like typical popular culture imagines AI. You don't get human values for free in any intelligence; the space of all possible minds is huge, and the space of minds that is human-like is very small.

However, I think the author fails in truly appreciating just how different an AI could be. I think there's a sort of Star Trek style of thinking about other types of intelligence, where aliens are humans except for bumpy foreheads and behavior that is still plausible for some hypothetical human culture. The article's emphasis on rights-based Enlightenment-style universalism still makes a lot of assumptions about the similarity of all possible minds.

I'd encourage him to read Eliezer Yudkowsky's article "Value is Fragile" ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/y3/value_is_fragile/ ) :

---

>We can't relax our grip on the future - let go of the steering wheel - and still end up with anything of value.
>And those who think we can -

>- they're trying to be cosmopolitan. I understand that. I read those same science fiction books as a kid: The provincial villains who enslave aliens for the crime of not looking just like humans. The provincial villains who enslave helpless AIs in durance vile on the assumption that silicon can't be sentient. And the cosmopolitan heroes who understand that minds don't have to be just like us to be embraced as valuable -

>You do have values, even when you're trying to be "cosmopolitan", trying to display a properly virtuous appreciation of alien minds. Your values are then faded further into the invisible background - they are less obviously human. Your brain probably won't even generate an alternative so awful that it would wake you up, make you say "No! Something went wrong!" even at your most cosmopolitan. E.g. "a nonsentient optimizer absorbs all matter in its future light cone and tiles the universe with paperclips". You'll just imagine strange alien worlds to appreciate.

>Trying to be "cosmopolitan" - to be a citizen of the cosmos - just strips off a surface veneer of goals that seem obviously "human"."

---

A lot of science fiction isn't really about the future or the setting, it's about the present and our society. This article is similar in that it's less about AI itself -- at least I hope so because if not, then it makes the error of only going halfway on the strangeness of minds that is the whole risk when it comes to AI.
Apparently people generally do not "tweet the URL of some snuggly G-rated kittens." Especially not using the tweet button on the porn site. Secondly this is more of a leak from public tweet rather than by visiting your websites. Unless i tweet, you have practically nothing.
Same thing with Tuna - why is it still so cheap to buy a can of Tuna?
It's a bad thing because it leaves space for criminal gangs to make money and does nothing to tackle any harms that result from drug use.

Most people who use cannabis will experience no ill-effects. Many of the harms are reducible - use a vaporiser at the correct temperature rather than burning the plant material for example. A few people will experience ill-effects. Providing help to those people through public health measures is more effective and cheaper than targeting them through criminal justice systems.

> fairly addictive

Citation needed, unless you're misusing "addiction" to mean "habit". Cannabis is not physically addicting and the psychological addiction appears to be weak. There is some element of habit associated with it though.
You have to ask yourself a key (no pun intended) question: Why would a bank sign an email?

Assume for a moment the bank actually wants to email its customers (and leave confidentiality aside). That means the bank will want its customers to trust the signature on the email.

Which means that the bank will want the email client to have an appropriate public key to verify the email signature. Regardless of whether we assume the email client is a browser or desktop app, this is where we enter the world of hurt, the world of wasted money.

For this to work perfectly, the user has to have one or a small number of public keys installed - otherwise, their email client will quite happily validate signatures from dozens and hundreds of sources - and how will the user, who has no skill or knowledge in this area, know whether or not the right public key is being used for signature validation?

To get to the point where the user doesn't have to make this decision, the number of public keys installed has to be very low, perhaps one, that is, the bank's very own certification authority certificate.

What if the user's machine is compromised and another certificate installed? After all, there are thousands, hundreds of thousands of Windows machines in zombie botnets, how do we know the bank's customers are not among them?

Hmm, I guess we need multiple layers of security on those machines. All to protect the root key store.

Hmm, starting to look an enterprise desktop: Controlled by central IT, not by the user.

I'm being fast, superficial, and a little glib in this, but please do think through this from end to end, and be as ruthless as you can in your thinking.

PKI works. But only in controlled enterprise environments. In those environments, it works reasonably well. At ongoing expense, sometimes high.

Outside those environments, there are simply too many places to inject sufficient doubt so as to invalidate any quantifiable risk assumptions.

Which is why email as a consumer service delivery channel is pretty much dead. No control over the consumer endpoint means no assurance that anything there is what it seems.

If you cannot control that endpoint, you cannot ask the user at that endpoint to trust you, because you cannot trust that what you sent there is actually what the user sees, nor can you trust that what the user sees is what you sent.
New drug development in India is in its infancy: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/09/piramal-exits-drug...

("This admission reflects the view that Indian drug companies are finding it difficult to develop successful new molecules. Discovering new drugs requires huge investment, and has not been favourably looked upon by risk-averse Indian investors. Several Indian molecules have failed in the clinic, including Piramal’s head and neck cancer candidate P276 in 2012. Even the antimalarial Synriam (arterolane and piperaquine), which Ranbaxy hailed as India’s first domestically developed drug, was originally discovered elsewhere.")
Right, so can someone explain what the hell these slides mean? I studied a lot of abstract mathematics at uni but I wasn't exposed to category theory, and these slides aren't helpful.

They start off with objects, what are they? Are they sets? I'm going to assume they're sets. Then the arrows represent mappings, something like a function that takes an input and maps to stuff in one of those other objects (set of objects?). Then the codomain is the set of objects you can get to by calling that function on the domain of objects.

Am I in the right ball-park here?
This is why I don't trust ARM. The only way to really make sure is to synthesize your CPU core, and put it into the FPGA (though there are FPGAs shipped with backdoors as well).
Well I still don't understand. Russ says it was for segmented stacks, but doesn't explain why those were necessary. You say it was for compile speed, yet gcc and llvm can crank out millions of lines a code a second at similar optimization levels as the Go compiler. Neither of these are convincing explanations.
Qt 5.4.1 Released
I lived for a couple years in HK and then other Asian countries, and this does stands out. But if the alternative is a debt-based welfare state....

I don't think there's any doubt the Hong Kong government needs to do a better job with affordable housing, but I also don't like the fact that my nephew was born with a $20K debt while 50% of my mother's pension is being payed by taxpayers.
>Nutritional science (not really a science, more research) hasn't been able to produce conclusive results about some of the most simple (chemically) compounds that we've been consuming for thousands of years.

What research are you looking at?
I was actually reading this and thinking, "man, I wish baremetrics broke churn out like this"

Didn't realize you guys were a competitor. Maybe I'll give it a try.
I'm really excited about this type of technology.

I don't think I would boot an entire separate OS in the secure world, but rather a small, simple OS with secure key storage ability, secure display ability, and the ability to boot Android as the insecure OS.

This gives the ability for applications, running on Android in the insecure world, to store keys in the secure world, making them inaccessible to applications in the insecure world. For example, one could create a new secret key, residing in the in the secure would, and specify that it must only be read by code that hashes to a certain hash (running the secure world).

So, a Bitcoin wallet, for example, could create a new key in the key store, and -- upon creation of the key -- specify that it can only be read by a piece of ECDSA signature code which hashes to a certain value, and runs in the secure world. So the only thing the wallet can do is send an unsigned Bitcoin transaction to a program running in the secure world, which then parses the transaction, displays the amount and destination address(es) securely on the display (not modifiable by Android running the insecure world), and then the user can accept or deny on the display. Upon accepting, the ECDSA signature code running in the secure world will sign the transaction (inputs), and deliver a signed transaction to the Bitcoin wallet software running in the insecure world.

Assuming this small "secure key storage" OS is implemented securely, and protected by a password (with exponentially increasing waiting period after each unsuccessful attempt), it wouldn't be possible for software running in Android -- even kernel-level code -- to steal Bitcoin wallet private keys, or any other keys protected by this mechanism. If this key storage OS is kept small enough, it should be possible to create something that can be audited for a reasonable sum of money.

Perhaps it could even be written in a language with superior type safety like Haskell, to make it easier to reason about its security.

This would be a really big leap in information security -- providing we do it right. It would mean other hardware key storage devices like SIM cards and credit card chips would become less necessary, as secure phone apps would be able to replace these. A VISA card could become an app on a phone, that can securely sign transactions, thus reducing credit card fraud significantly.

The secret keys stored on a SIM card could be stored on the phone instead -- using a Diffie-Hellman key exchange between a program running in the secure world and a server run by the cell tower operator. No more receiving SIM cards in the mail.
I don't think so, because the rates are not immutable, and you're discounting causation going the other way. If the women who are hired are treated well (which would require their employers to undergo some training), the rate of women attaining software education is likely to rise. "Downstream" likely has a strong effect on "upstream".
Love the comment about water evacuation through holes reducing hydroplaning.

I'd love to know what's holding these back. Perhaps it's just a higher cost:MTBF ratio, and one day it will surpass regular tyres. Perhaps they're really truly better, but pneumatic tyres are just Good Enough. Perhaps there's a fundamental flaw in the idea that only experts can see. Probably we'll never know.
منتدى ستارديما عالم جميل من المفاجآت
Money is always overvalued, because money is the technology we use to delay the completion of an economic trade. Money is where we "store" our pending transfers of value. Money is the bubble that does not burst.
Could anyone comment on whether it would be possible to use a system like this for producing on-demand aggregations with filters over 100M rows with sub-second response time?
75 would have been somewhat unusual in the US in 1900:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Tbl_10.html#w...

It shows the age 30 life expectancy, in 1900 it was 35 years, so 65 year old. Compare to today which is 47 years (77 years old).

There are life tables for historical periods, but the modern data is likely more reliable and still shows quite some difference.

Your link makes a good point about life expectancy at birth not being the right measure, but there is a very real expansion in life expectancy that has taken place. I guess infectious disease control probably pulled a lot of that expansion into the last 100 years.
Thanks, I understand now.
Demonstrating Golgi's Mobile Cloud Service on Intel's Edison Board
Have you seen ReactJS ? 135Kb (http://facebook.github.io/react/)
Have you seen RiotJS ? Only 6Kb (https://muut.com/riotjs/)

It's all about reiterating over your current library, throwing out what's no longer needed, refactor what is inefficient and only retain what is absolutely needed.

React has already grown too much and is becoming too big, while Riot has only taken what was good in React and made it better.. If we keep doing this iteratively, we can keep any framework to a more manageable size
I'm giving some light consideration to running for Mayor of London with all my policies focused on one aim: Hyper-Aggressive Rent Control.

Quite simply, the current situation for renters and first time buyers in London is unfair and needs to be addressed in a way that restores the balance between those that live and work in London, and those that just own property here.

Although it costs £10k to run, because that's the type of democracy we have here in the UK apparently.

UPDATE: I've not outlined a single policy - and I'm already being told I'm wrong.
Have you looked at (really) random-access memory bandwidth?
Importing a dll from a UNC path to load the file over WebDav is quite an amazing trick, many props to the author.
Whoa, there: You're shifting your argument. Are you now accepting that it is 99+% correct? Your original objection was as to the correctness of the regex.

If it is 80% good, then, yeah, your underlying assertion is likely good: Too little coverage to be all that useful. But 99+% coverage? For a quick pass filter? That's pretty good, we can work with those numbers.

After all, one could have multiple layers of progressively more accurate but progressively slower filters. Not an uncommon or unusual approach.

Besides, the JS version could be very useful as a quick pass usability check, validating whether the user made a silly mistake. And adding some logic to record the bogus entry, compare it to what they write next, pass it to the server if need be, can all be very useful.
It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Therefore it is unreasonable to require that something, including GMOs, would be entirely without risks.

But the scientific consensus is: “Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”

And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. Then you pick some of them, examine them, and hope they're not hurting anyone. That sounds much more dangerous than the approach of genetic engineering (research genes, then modify only the parts that you have identified, nothing else).
Valve Announces SteamVR Dev Kit
Google says its moonshots do, in fact, make money
You're not missing anything; I wrote that comment in haste, as you can tell from the grammar errors. The CTR nonce doesn't need to be random.

The interface is still treacherous!
That's not proof that they /store/ your password in plain text at all.

It's proof that they email you your password in plain text.

It's still equally idiotic though.
I think it's "explained" when you go from slide 6 to 7.
Slide 6: objects are points in space.
Slide 7: arrows are ways of transforming objects into other objects.

I'm no expert, but from my understanding, there is nothing more to be said (other than stating the composition / identity laws): you're at a level of abstraction where you cannot say anything more. Objects. Arrows. An arrow goes from an object to another.

If it's any help, you can think of them as mathematical functions, where the origin point is the function's domain and its destination point the function's range (called co-domain in category theory, because why not).

Bear in mind that while this example is correct, that's all it is: a concrete example of an abstract notion.

If it feels simplistic, that's because it is. Arrows are a trivial notion. It gets more complicated when you study different kinds of arrows (homomorphism, isomorphism, whateverism), or arrows in "concrete" categories (functors are arrows in the category of categories, natural transformations are arrows between functors...).
[2] is beautiful, but I wouldn't feel like staying a long time in a website using it... (paradoxically?)
Given wage inflation over 40 years her salary would not be the same. Given asset inflation I'd expect the house to go up say 4x. Prices in London have been frothy recently, but as someone in a similar situation it is possible to buy in a nice area if you compromise on some things first time - either garden house/flat, or area. If you are in the top 10-20% (as many posting here are) there are lots of options in London for a good quality of life. Personally I would rent right now, save and await a correction.
Republican FCC Commissioners Ask to Delay Net Neutrality Vote Release Proposal
GMO by itself may be safe but 99% of GMO plants sold are engineered to be able to be doused in pesticides which are NOT known to be safe for human consumption. These pesticides have not been rigorously tested using double blind studies on humans.
I have noticed a big negative vibe in the HN Community when anti-GMO talk surfaces. People down vote anybody who talks against GMO foods. Even the most respectful and reasonable posts are rebuked.
Kickstart your campaign. You will get my vote.
ON the Internet these days having an opinion that differs from that of the person you are commenting after is "having a melt down". It's a 14 year old's way of 'winning' the argument. It is also why reddit is dead to me now. Too many people can read words without understanding sentences.
This is a top-down approach starting with CT fundamentals and connecting them to CS concepts/patterns after 150 slides.

The air is thinner near the top of the abstraction ladder and more or less unbreathable for people who don't spend considerable time in the Ivory Tower.
> If you asked a average person three years ago whether they thought that all their calls were being recorded and that the NSA was hacking into companies and stealing data you would have been called delusional

A person can still be operating under a conspiracy theory and talk about pervasive government surveillance. Just because it's true doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory.

But also, for your example, anyone paying attention had been saying, pretty loudly, that governments were surveiling their populations. See, for example, the EU parliament report into ECHELON. We know about ECHELON in the early 1990s. Thus, if someone had said "They've done it before, look at ECHELON, they're probably doing it now" -- that's a reasonable bit of evidence and a reasonable conclusion. If someone says "I hear clicks on my phone line and so the government is spying on me" that's a conspiracy theory (because the evidence is bogus) even though it's true (governments do spy on citizens).
While in theory Bitcoin can be adapted to "2.0 features" and beyond, in practice it's impossible.

Bitcoin code, protocol and marshaling formats are a mess. Bitcoin blockchain and transaction data structures make too many hardcoded assumptions about underlying application - payments with a single token.

Bitcoin scripting language was designed for transaction validation only, which makes implementing a smart contracts with it a hack and requires external Oracles.

TL;DR: Bitcoin is a good PoC which gained a network effect.
Move Over Ed Snowden, Al Jazeera Has a Huge New Stack of Spy Documents
> If you take the aspect of watching gay porn alone: people will lose their jobs over this if their boss is conservative or they work for a conservative institution. People will lose their families or be beaten up or killed for that in fundamentalist societies or regions. Look at russia, the middle east, african countries.

I know, and I agree that having porn habits suddenly public worldwide will cause short-term problems there (though one could argue that sudden reveal of how common some preferences are could also force their societies to reconcile official values with reality).

> So, it's great that you have no problem. And yes, people should be more relaxed about watching porn. But in reality they aren't, and the decision whether someone wants other people to know about his sexual preferences or orientation has to be his and his alone.

Well, for one, part of the progress of mankind is people being more relaxed (that seems to be the only stable solution with good cost/benefit tradeoff).

But in general, the very notion of being able to be private seems misguided. If you really want to make revealing someone's sexual preferences his and his alone decision, you'd have to reduce human interactions to text-only chat.

Scratch that - even that wouldn't help, you could always infer stuff from prolonged conversation.

The point is, we really suck at hiding anything and it makes no sense to limit our ability to perceive and interpret the world to perserve a flawed notion of "private information".

> Privacy is a human right and it's _important_.

I'm not convinced. We give up a lot of privacy to form a society.
I am Swedish, and I can't say that I've seen (or even heard of) this where I live. Could you link any sources supporting your claim?
Rare earth metals are not that rare. Most of them are about as abundant as copper. The problem is their extraction. While copper is present in relative high concentration in sulfide ores that are easy to extract, rare earths are usually present in dilute concentration in many rocks, making it less economical to extract, and is hard to extract even when there is a significant portion of it, leaving behind much toxic chemicals. Furthermore, the rare earths are very similar to each other and often present together, which makes it hard to separate them. In addition, such ores often contain thorium and its decay products, which makes tailings radioactive.

The shortage of rare earths has been because it has been uneconomical to extract with any sort of environmental regulation in place. China has almost none of them and has obtained a near monopoly for that reason. Here the "there is no shortage ever" arguments from economists make sense. For helium, the situation is different. The helium that is there is relatively easy to extract (it is a certain percentage in some natural gas fields), but once it is gone it is gone forever.