skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Maybe being shocked means that the person talking about the subject is misrepresenting it, because they themselves don't understand the arguments and are inadvertently projecting.

For example, Ray Kurzweil would disagree about the dangers of AI (He believes more in the 'natural exponential arc' of technological progress more than the idea of recursively self improving singletons), yet because he's weird and easy to make fun of he's painted with the same stroke as Elon saying "AI AM THE DEMONS".

If you want to laugh at people with crazy beliefs, then go ahead; but if not the best popular account of why Elon Musk believes that superintelligent AI is a problem comes from Nick Bostrom's SuperIntelligence: http://smile.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies...

(Note I haven't read it, although I am familiar with the arguments and some acquaintances tend to rate it highly)
But instead the words just blew your mind as you scrolled down the page.
"BTW I feel the only leading company that is aligned with this vision is Apple."

I wanted to say something to this effect but the last 12-18 months has shown that Apple is losing its way also.
Hellllloooo
There's a slight difference in that we don't have supersonic animals on Earth, we don't see any interstellar spaceships, and we don't see anything even remotely like that - no animal metabolism that compares to the scale of the controlled energy release of a rocket engine or a nuclear power plant -
but we do see much much better information processing systems than our current computers, and they are very energy efficient.

They are built of meat and not exotic superconducting Buckywhatever, they are limited by constraints on heat dissipation and oxygen/glucose supply - problems which are easy to work around with electric pumps, heat pumps and industrial food supply - and by a historic need for sleep.

Maybe exponential progress has to slow, but can we dismiss intelligent non-humans in the same way we can dismiss space stations or interstellar travel?

Space stations are a cost. Free workers is a saving.

Shouldn't we expect human technology will approach animal intelligence in one substrate and design or another? And then surpass it a little by removing some of the obvious constraints?
The threat of a superintelligent AI taking over the world is certainly real -- assuming you have a superintelligent AI. If you accept that it is possible to build a such an AI, then you should, at the very least, educate yourself on the existential risks it would pose to humanity. I recommend "Superintelligence: Paths, Danger, Strategies," by Nick Bostrom (it's almost certainly where Musk got his ideas; he's quoted on the back cover).

The reason we ought to be cautious is that in a hard-takeoff scenario, we could be wiped from the earth with very little warning. A superintelligent AI is unlikely to respect human notions of morality, and will execute its goals in ways that we are unlikely to foresee. Furthermore, most of the obvious ways of containing such an AI are easily thwarted. For an eerie example, see http://www.yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox
Essentially, AI poses a direct existential threat to humanity if it is not implemented with extreme care.

The more relevant question today is whether or not a true general AI with superintelligence potential is achievable in the near future. My guess is no, but it is difficult to predict how far off it is. In the worst-case scenario, it will be invented by a lone hacker and loosed on an unsuspecting world with no warning.
Not crazy, I wish people would take monads off the pedestal.
Paul's Fight for His Life
How to Learn Writing a Compiler
I think you are in a similar situation to me. I have no need for VC money and no interest in taking in outside investors (why sell a golden goose). By the same token I understand that no VC (or anyone from YC) would want to waste their time talking to me or giving me any advice. I would just be abusing YC’s time for me to apply for one of these fellowships - they give me more than I deserve by allowing my posts on HN :)
The main benefit is if you have a group that are traveling. A house/apartment is a much, much better base for a group than several hotel rooms.

But yes, if you are just one guy for a night or two, a hotel is more convenient.
Why Lean Startups Look for *Already Performing* Teams?
I shall pass this way but once; any good that I can do or any kindness I can show to any human being; let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.
Building something like hangman in Racket would be straightforward for father son time. If your son enjoys the making it will be enough, if anything short of Xbox quality won't do, then you'll exceed his interest quickly and he can start on his next project.

Good luck.
There was neither sarcasm nor discussion so I struggle with the meaning (or necessity!) of your reply.
Some companies have non-solicitation clauses in their employment contracts, which make this a troublesome way to meet cofounders.
Got it!

cHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcmVwZWF0IDMgMw0KcmVwZWF0IDIgMg0KcHJpbnQgMg0KcmVwZWF0IDMgMw0KcmVwZWF0IDIgMg0KcmVwZWF0IDMgMw0KcmVwZWF0IDIgMg==
I see a lot of emphasis in other comments on the importance of teams. I'm a solo founder that is close to launch. I realize my company would be stronger with a cofounder, but I just haven't found the right person/people who are willing to take on that role yet. I'll be applying, but I was curious if the chances of being accepted are less for single founder companies.
It is, quite simply, that they feel intense negative emotions and betrayal. It does not really need any more explanation than that. You can tell a distraught "victim" of cheating that they weren't technically harmed, but I don't think that would make many of them feel better.

Basically, it is irrelevant if they "should" or "shouldn't" be harmed, most of them will feel harm once the affair inevitably comes to light. I don't really agree with it, but even if it is irrational to feel harmed over an affair, and even if it is based on self-referential beliefs, people still feel the feelings, and those feelings hurt.

If the cheater knew those feelings would probably happen, and they already promised they would not engage in the behavior, and then they do it anyway...in secret...that is obviously wrong by most people's standards. There are a lot of important "if"s in there. Notice that I did not say that having multiple partners is harmful, or that leaving a partner is wrong, or that it is "always wrong" for someone in a relationship to go off with someone else for awhile. I did not say any of that.

However, when the relationship is a committed relationship, in the most common, Western, traditional sense, it is wrong to have an affair, especially a secret one. If you disagree with that kind of relationship and commitment, that is totally fine, but don't promise that to someone, and if you change your mind be up front about it.
Hey, original Tetris proof guy here. Glad to see it works with two lamps! However, since the 'one of each colour' property is a necessary property for a rectangular arrangement to exist, not a sufficient one, simply having the 'same number of colours' doesn't mean that such an arrangement definitely exists. (It's pretty easy to think of an example of a set of pieces where one doesn't, but the property is satisfied).

The fact that an arrangement does exist in the two lamp case is neat though.
There is always someone on HN who thinks whatever data you're collecting is too much, and plenty of hacks were the result of pretty sophisticated 0days in underlying systems despite reasonable precautions being taken in administration processes. There is already negligence on the books.
SmartSpot (YC W15) Is Hiring a Full-Time iOS Dev Passionate about Fitness
Sending a message like that is part of the work to ensure the culture of your organization allows it. Otherwise managers at all kinds of levels will bring with them their own ideas of whether or not this is acceptable, and act accordingly.

Besides, this is unusual for a company the size of SpaceX. In most companies of some size I've worked at, most people may have the CEO's e-mail. Maybe. But usually the one filtered by a PA. But most of them don't have the CEO's cellphone number.

> Also, does he really think a person can send a message like that - when their manager does not agree - without torpedoing their career?

If this is usually the case, does that not mean that all organizations needs to work on their culture? So what is the issue with sending am message like that again?
I normally would not post an off topic, but the disease itself is amazing and so deadly, I am sure it could spark some discussion, especially about viral injections and such as new treatments. Paul is a great guy and even the smallest donation would uplift his spirits.
I disagree wrt software engineering. I have been a dev for 10 years, so still new. But. I don't think the problem can be solved with better techniques. I think the problem is humans just aren't smart enough to do the work. There is a fundamental limit to how much you can compress certain things. It's called the algorithmic complexity of the thing. Some things are just complicated. Some things are just large and hairy which ever way you turn them, whichever basis you construct. This is why we are spinning our wheels, why the next big architectural technique never lives up to the hype. There comes a point where the complexity of the thing you are trying to construct exceeds the capacity of any network of human beings to construct. I think there is a way to go with tooling, freeing people from the overhead of mundane work, which fractures people thinking time and reduces the complexity of the things that they can hold in their head at any one point in time. But the fundamental limit remains. I think ML is going to be the next big tool set. It will allow us to add layers of perception over the code and allow us to perceive the code and problems in different ways, freeing us to think at a higher level. But the fundamental limit remains. What we need is the ability to not just apply the human mind, with it's 20watts of power, but to open up a multi megawatt power station on the problems. We need genuine AI and I think this should be our main focus, not pissing around with little problems around the edge, not building the next phone app. Every other programmer and scientist in the entire fucking world should be working on AI.
This is a great. Finally, early stage ideas can get some support. Good one YC.
No mesos under the hood. You can bring mesos as your own scheduler.
TESV – The Redguard Expansion – Exotic DLC Showcase
Fascinating that you are even considering making 1,000 investments per year - how are you planning to handle the processing of applications? Outsourcing, growing the YC team, AI?

You're opening up to the entire world with that seed amount, that volume (which lowers the effective level required) and no requirement to move, so there could be as many as (say) 100,000 applications a year...
Do Vegans Secretly Wish They Could Eat Meat?
As final note the 'big explosion' was the air force blowing up the falcon9. This is standard procedure to stop the rocket doing damage in further locations and stopping a much of the fuel hitting the ground as possible (it's apparently nasty stuff).
In fact, there are 4 keys randomly chosen, so 4000 requests are available.
Nice clean design, my code always ends up as pile of mess of files, comments and code...
His answer is boorish, frivolous, and, quite simply, factually inaccurate. I usually like MOC, but his Quora writing has become excruciatingly hostile lately -- bordering on bitter.

Any undergraduate business school encompasses a large number of disciplines, and not everyone studying for an undergraduate degree in business is doing so exclusively to other degrees (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_majors_in_the_United_St...). Additionally, many business schools host their university's economics department.

But even putting that aside, his argument seems to be that to study a "synthetic" major (that is, a career-preparation major that brings together elements of other disciplines, eg. Marketing: Statistics + Psychology) is somehow lazy by (his own, arbitrary) intellectual and Maslowian standards. Why? Many people choose to study broad subjects in undergrad and then specialize in graduate school. And in the cases where "business majors" (again, the term is so unspecific as to be meaningless) don't ultimately go on to study at the graduate level or specialize by some other mechanism, they generally don't make a lot of money. Since MOC's primary point of distaste over "business majors" is that they generally tend to become the superiors of computer science majors, it should be obvious that his argument is built upon a flawed premise: the best of the best "business majors" might ascend into management positions (above their CS-educated colleagues), but most don't: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/11/19/the-colleg... (and that doesn't even control for eg. finance majors that go on to get MBAs and become MDs at Goldman Sachs. If you stripped those from the average -- the best of the best -- the discrepancy would be even greater!).
Cheating is not cool, but acting like all of the users of that site "deserve it" is such a horrendous broad stroke. It just reeks of White Knight BS. Every last person on earth struggles with balancing their own inner desires against the expectations of the society around them. Some are better at this than others. I'm glad some of you are such perfect little angels that you feel that wrecking other peoples live is ok. I've been cheated on before. It was fucking god awful but I wouldn't expect that the other person's life be destroyed as a result. Relationships are WAY more complex than some holier-than-thou promise that people make to one another.
I wouldn't think stronger than Debian, but there are plenty of distros with equivalent policies. At the moment I'm running FreeBSD (not especially for security reasons).
I never knew him and scarcely used GrooveShark. But reading through these comments it is clear we've lost a wonderful guy. Very sad this happened to him. Rest in peace, Josh.
Can you elaborate on the intra- inter-* latencies your are seeing? for AZ independent services this should single digits.
Branding. .com is the top-domain. It's synonymous with Internet companies. Without a traditional TLD, your domain doesn't even look like a domain. Instead it look s like a bunch of random.words.smashed.into.one. (Which coincidentally, is a valid domain.)
Pikkabox – Mystery box with local curated products from a new city every month
One problem is that, for a lot of industries, San Francisco is the wrong place to be.

If you want to be in fashion-tech, for example, you want to be in New York (or possibly London). And, there are lot of other industries concentrated in specific areas around the world.

Limiting to San Francisco is limiting your industry. Sure you can get a ton of web developers, but you'll lose access & relationships to the REAL industry insiders that matter for your vertical.
Lithium is not lithium ion.

Single-use lithium batteries are made in a variety of voltages. This chemistry is in fact three volts.
For pedantry's sake: Falcon 9 blew itself up once an anomaly was detected. The Air Force kill command was not sent until dozens of minutes after the vehicle disintegrated.
Here's an recent assessment from an actual AI researcher. http://kruel.co/2015/02/05/interview-with-michael-littman-on...

The threat of super AI is like the threat of nanotechnology. Fun and exciting to think about in a scifi way, but less and less credible the more you wade into the details.

Kruel's blog in general has a lot of nice skeptical responses to Yudkowsky Thought.
From the article:

Soviet engineers lacked the computers to calculate all the bending and wiggling the wings would do if you hung the engines under them, so they just strapped engines on the back.

This sounds like a myth to me, is there any evidence that missing computer power was the reason for tail-engine-designs? There have been a number of western civilian jet planes from that era with tail engines too (for instance the Boeing 727). AFAIK the wing-mounted engines won in the end because they are easier to maintain, which might not have been such a strong factor in the 50's and 60's.

I find it more likely that Soviet design bureaus didn't pay much attention to operating efficiency and put more effort into building planes that can operate from 'rougher' air strips, etc. But I'm not an aeroplane expert.
R.I.P Josh :(
U of M challenges Silicon Valley for automotive tech crown
At SpaceX? Not that I'm aware of

At Nasa, people raising red flags before the launch of a manned vehicle? STS-51-L, Challenger, January 1986
Hjs-webpack – presets for setting up webpack with hotloading React and ES6
Self-control improves your prospects, but it may harm your health
FBStart – new program from Facebook for early stage mobile startups
The bars are overlapping each other. You have to use the next button to see all of them.
Well that leaves it in the hands of caring individuals, intelligent sentient beings, to refrain from speculation here.

No need to call for a tech-solution, when the solution is simply to be found in human decency and kindness.

Having gone through a quite similar loss myself recently, I view things maybe slightly different and would not have liked reading/hearing speculation about fathers death while mourning his loss and having to deal with the shock of his last farewell.
I think you're both finding different things to appreciate and dislike when comparing Unix-like systems to Windows.

Unix-like systems really are relatively stable, in terms of, once you get it working, it will generally continue to work. And, for the majority of superficial commands you might want to run -- ps, top, uptime, w, tcpdump, vi, pico, nano, mail, etc. -- there haven't been many big changes for decades. Somebody that was pretty handy with BSD or Linux in 1995 could still find their way around the commandline on most systems today. They'd have to figure out newer init systems and a few other things, and the popular windowing environments have changed a lot, but basic CLI stuff is pretty stable.

But you're right, trying to get these systems to work in the first place, or trying to keep them up to date without incurring significant cost or downtime, can really be a pain. I've experienced the same. I think the worst offender to date was Samba; at one time, Samba 3 could do file shares with Winbios authentication but not talk ActiveDirectory, and Samba 4 could talk ActiveDirectory but not do file shares (or some such thing, it's been a few years), and they were both being released at the same time, so if you wanted a Samba server in an SBS 2008 environment you had to run both -- on two different systems. And configuring either one of them successfully was an absolute nightmare. I still have a text file under my Documents/sysadmin/ directory that has some shorthand notes on troubleshooting Samba installations and that thing is a gold mine. Every couple of years, after I've forgotten everything about Samba, I get a call to fix one that's not working. I'd never be able to do it without those notes.

That's just one example; I've had lots of issues with Network Manager ("Network Mangler"), print drivers that require 32-bit OS support which, once installed, completely bones other software updates and installations; OS updates that irreversibly break a working Apache installation (that one required me to pull a 24-hour shift building a new server), and yes, trouble with systemd/journald. All kinds of fun stuff.

It's a mixed bag. Windows-based systems usually just work, as long as you throw expensive enough hardware at them. They either do a job or they don't. But they aren't very fixable. There's no advanced logging system in the Windows environment, so whether you have any logs to work with in the event of trouble is entirely up to the individual software vendor, error messages are opaque, and I can't just go grep some source code to try to figure out what the hey is going on. Linux and BSD systems are a lot more fixable, I generally prefer working on them, but they have some of the worst quirky little bugs caused by software affecting other software, and documentation still leaves a lot to be desired.
As I've been trying to explain, the issue is with the secrecy and broken promise/contract because it puts one person's interests ahead of the other. If you disagree with that kind of relationship, that is fine...don't agree to enter into one. If you are in one and you find it is no longer what you want, that is fine too...tell your partner and proceed how you wish.

I am not applying any overly austere morals here. I think you would be hard-pressed to successfully argue that an affair in the traditional sense is not an immoral act. If you promise to be "faithful" to someone, and you break that promise and try to hide it, it is immoral based on most people's morals and understanding.

Sure, you might disagree with popular morals, that's fine. However, a relationship involves two people, and both should be valued equally. If one person thinks it is fine to break their promise and cheat in secret, so they do it despite knowing how the other person feels...they are putting themselves first. They are not treating both they and their partner as equals. That is the issue. It has nothing to do with some sort of ideological anti-affair "beliefs." It is simple respect.

I guess it is even technically "fine" to think you deserve more liberty than others, or that you think others' feelings don't matter as much as your desires (I'm not saying you do, I'm speaking generally). If that is the case, just own up to it and people can choose how to react accordingly. If you find partners that align with your views, great, everyone is on the same page, but if not, people deserve the truth. Everything else is up in the air, but they deserve to know. Keeping it from them is like robbing them of the choice to deal with it or leave.
Nibble Sort