IMHO search, hyper-centralization of content creation, and dopamine addiction to bite-sized content happened. You can no longer see new things you don't know about. You no longer want to explore, since search is faster and more rewarding.
My suggestion to refresh the feeling of wonder is to go to site directories instead of the search engine of choice, like: https://dmoz-odp.org
A miner can not tamper with the ledger. A miner can prevent certain transactions from coming through if they are the only miner on the network, but they can't forge transactions.
Which services would you recommend? Last time I searched for free general-purpose website archival sites (for personal bitrot prevention), I could find only archive.is and archive.org.
What people in this thread seem to be missing is that modeling and decision making do not have to be done simultaneously. You always want the most accurate model of reality as you can get, but what you do with that model is up to you.
Perhaps you think there are certain feedback loops that need to be broken (your model is usually a static representation of the reality), or perhaps you prefer low rate of false negatives / false positives, or perhaps if a model is uncertain you would like to defer to a human.
If a model predicts high probability of re-offence, you might decide to delay an action as an example, or re-examine the case in more detail.
I get a feeling that machine learning practitioners are not properly trained to recognize such subtleties, everything is a binary softmax output these days :)
EDIT: This seems to stem from the obsession with purely discriminative models that either directly model a binary function y = f(x) or model a function that returns some kind of score, which is later compared to a threshold y = f(x) > theta. Neither of these lend themselves nicely to this conceptual separation between modeling and decision making.
> If you are at 98% accuracy for autonomous driving right now, you are practically nowhere. In 100 seconds of driving, you will crash and possibly die, twice.
98% accuracy, 100 seconds, crash twice. Take that, (data) scientists!
The reuters article referenced below [1] claims that 58 percent [of adult refugees] had spent 10 years or more at school, and just under a third had attended university or a vocational school. Presumably, if you take children into account the figure will be even smaller.
The referenced article doesn't have any figures on crime. A news article from 2017 [1] claims the opposite (refugees commit disproportionately more crime), but adds that just 1 per cent of migrants account for 40 per cent of migrant crimes. [2] has a lot more detailed stats and supports the claim that there are disproportionate increases in crime associated with refugees.
Even if you do not think that, your fellow humans do. If you put power into their hands to decide who should hang, a lot of innocent people will.
What you are talking about is completely orthogonal to the first amendment. Everyone has a right to speech and everyone is protected from vehicular assault & murder by law. I hope that everyone on Hacker News condemns that act of violence.
Could you please point to the source of your claim that he was a "card-carrying Nazi"?
But who do you trust to decide that someone is a Nazi? Should it be Slate, some government bureaucracy, you personally, AirBnB? What if someone labels you a Nazi?
Should we just throw them into water and see if they float? Or administer a "are you a Nazi" test on a polygraph?
EDIT: This is a problem of the current political climate where words have lost their meaning. A lot of people even remotely right of center have been called a Nazi or "alt-right" or "white-supremacist".
Giving a centralized authority the power to censor whatever someone deems offensive sounds like such a wonderful idea. I especially love the idea of "criminalizing dangerous thoughts". Inside every room we should put a telescreen broadcasting "true-think" and listening on people to prevent "wrong-think".
It wasn't even meant for the entire company. He gave it to a small community of people within Google who later distributed it across the company AFAIU from his interview with Jordan Peterson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU).
Now, I have no idea which one is the original, but AFAIU once you take a jpg and scan it into pdf, it's easy to move the text around (?).
EDIT: I hope my implication is clear. I think that the jpg file is more likely to be the original photo. It was later scanned as a pdf. Then OCR'd version was edited a bit by merging parts of the text (or only parts of it were OCR'd). Then a journalist opened it up in an editor and saw those layers.
Going in the opposite direction would require someone to produce an authentic looking jpg from an obviously OCR'd pdf. That seems like less likely to me.
> you may have clocked that Tuesday's dump was engineered to help the President pin the hacking of his political opponents' email server on the CIA
Why does everything have to be about politics nowadays? I want an unbiased analysis. It is plausible, but not certain. There is a bunch of assumptions here that I'd rather keep as hypotheses.
That's the thing. There is no argument for one vs the other.
There is a statement of the following fact: "It is hard to express heterogeneous array type in most statically typed programming languages and verify operations at compile time." Well, duh. AFAIK this would require dependent types* (not something that you get for granted in mainstream languages).
But can we check types in runtime? Yes. Does it mean that it can only be done in a dynamic language? No. It can be easily done in any language that has integers and arrays. Even x86 assembly is enough.
* Scala's type system should be enough, if we use shapeless.HList's for column and row types and then a ton of implicits to resolve the resulting type and check that everything is sound.
Wow, if that is so, then I am completely sold on static typing. I do not get how dynamic typing gets into the picture.
Having a type system that can catch some errors at compile time but not all is better than having a type system that doesn't catch any.
Having a static type system doesn't mean that you can't use dynamic typing as much as you want (e.g. in Scala you can make all variables of type `Any` and use type refinements whenever you want to call a method).
Nope. Quote from the article: "the process still requires the transmission of measurement data from one side to the other via classical communication (read: regular, non-instantaneous communication)".
How do you measure "bestness" exactly? Is it measured in the number of daily GitHub/BitBucket/whatever commits or in the number of stackoverflow answers? Or is it measured in the overall impact on the world (which is hard to quantify by itself, btw)?
Define "the best", and it won't take much time to figure out who it is.
P.S. Personally, my choice would be Paul Graham (measured by the number of his essays I read and liked).
My suggestion to refresh the feeling of wonder is to go to site directories instead of the search engine of choice, like: https://dmoz-odp.org