moondistance

Please share figures and references. This is fascinating and of great interest to many of us. Thanks!

Lack of confidence in national governance. Also, in this case, TINA (there is no alternative) and "talking your book" (to build interest).

Large companies have massive governance issues. When you get that large, you end up with an endless stream of people nattering on to compromise values for profits. Eventually, leadership gets sick of fighting or misses the impact of a big change. It's all downwards from there (the next piece of garbage in the room appears more quickly).

I think the only way out of this for companies - and governments - is to build AGIs and put them in charge.

I realize this will sound radical today, but we are getting closer and closer.

If we can carve a path where the AGIs see us as similar to parents, and we "teach" them similar to our kids, I can see how this could all work out (writing about this elsewhere).

My two cents.

I had a horrific personal experience of this grief. It took me a long time to understand it was grief.

This resonated: https://twitter.com/FutureJurvetson/status/14004853611977973...

This also: “Grief, I’ve learned, is really just love. It’s all the love you want to give, but cannot. All that unspent love gathers up in the corners of your eyes, the lump in your throat, and in that hollow part of your chest. Grief is just love with no place to go.” - Jamie Anderson

Remember, as painful as it is, "this too shall pass"

All the best to all of you out there. You have my love.

There should be counsellors / therapists who understand and can help.

They will increasingly go to Li-Cycle [1] and similar. The tech is still not perfect, but it's much better than the historical norm.

[1] https://li-cycle.com/

From the image at the top of the article: "up to 200m range" and "35 degree vertical field of view".

Not this summer, but thanks for checking!

If you have FP experience and are interested in practical applications of category theory, I encourage you to reach out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14025110 - we're hiring mathematicians and computer scientists.

Baidu Research also recently announced DeepBench: https://svail.github.io/DeepBench/

"If one ceases offering one’s patents under the DPL, previous licensees keep their DPLs royalty-free, but the leaving user may have her licenses converted from royalty-free to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND) at the discretion of the remaining licensors." -http://www.defensivepatentlicense.org/content/frequently-ask...

Here's my perspective, fwiw:

Intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. Knowledge is acquired when it is represented in a system. Action is the application of knowledge. Thus, all systems in which actions occur are intelligent.

The potential for intelligent behavior is determined by the existence of a goal, the opportunities to acquire and apply knowledge that are relevant to the goal, the resources available to acquire and apply knowledge, and the capacity of the knowledge representation to express truths. With the exception of the goal, adjusting these constraints scales intelligence.

Intelligence requires a goal to determine action selection. No actions occur in systems without goals, and therefore such systems are not intelligent. The goal of a system does not influence the scale of intelligence of the system (which can be thought of as the magnitude of a vector), but only its purpose (which can be thought of as the direction of the same vector).

Opportunities to acquire knowledge range from stones falling on levers (the force exerted on the lever – from the perspective of the lever) to humans touching hot elements (nerve impulses from the sensory system – from the perspective of the human mind). No observation is fundamentally superior. Representations of observations (as knowledge) determine potential applications.

Opportunities to apply knowledge exist when it is possible for a system to perform an action. At the beginning of a game of chess, each player has many opportunities to apply knowledge. After the losing player has made his/her final move, the player has no further opportunities to apply his/her knowledge. Opportunities to acquire or apply knowledge which are not relevant to the goal do not influence the potential for intelligent behavior because they will not influence action and will not be applied, respectively.

Resources to acquire and apply knowledge make action possible. The resources available to apply the laws of nature are typically presumed infinite (mathematical models preserve truth and the laws of nature conserve energy, but just as mathematical models require resources for the completion of proofs, it can be assumed that the laws of nature may require resources). This differs from the limited resources available to computers and human minds.

Knowledge representations range from the experience of observations (the force exerted on the lever and the nerve impulse) to stored, abstract concepts (mathematical models written on paper and memories in a mind). All knowledge can be expressed as truths. Knowledge representations express truths with respect to the perspectives defined by their grammars. Knowledge representations with wider perspectives (fewer assumptions) are subject to fewer biases, and are therefore more expressive.

The degree to which an intelligent system observes itself determines its level of consciousness. Most humans are not capable of independently observing which of their neurons are firing at a given moment, or the location of the electrons traveling through their electronic devices. The availability of such observations would result in a higher state of consciousness. Perfect observation would allow a system to be completely aware (although attempting to observe all of a system at the same time, including its state of observing itself, is an infinite set), resulting in the highest possible state of consciousness. Intelligent systems that are conscious of their action selection are able to optimize this process, subject to the capacity of their knowledge representation to express truths.

wiggly lines: http://maximecb.github.io/Turing-Drawings/#4,3,0,1,3,3,1,3,3...

I really like the planned features (http://mostpop.com/idea/):

-link recommendations and anti-recommendations (things you likely wouldn't have seen, but lots of other people have read)

-a map of the Internet showing clusters of news sites that are frequented by the same groups of people

-make the web page visitation data available to everyone (anonymized, of course)

Clickable link: http://littlestat.com

Couldn't it - or a similar algorithm - be used as a bittorrent alternative with superior anonymity? If yes, this might become a more common use case.

Understanding that number requires some context:

"share-based compensation expense related to pre-2011 restricted stock units (RSUs) was not recognized in advance of the initial public offering, and as a result of the initial public offering during the second quarter, the company recognized $1.3 billion of share-based compensation and related payroll tax expenses"

and

"Excluding share-based compensation and related payroll tax expenses, non-GAAP income from operations for the second quarter was $515 million, compared to $477 million for the second quarter of 2011."

I'm interested in this platform, so I signed up and clicked through to the point where you are prompted to pay.

I didn't see cap tables or information about the round being funded, beyond the amount to be raised.

I assume most people would want to (at least) know more about the current round before investing. For example, how can I determine how much of the company I would (indirectly) own?

Thanks, I wasn't aware of EPIC. Now that I've read more about EPIC and the executive order referenced in this article, I regret posting this link. The article does appear to significantly overstate the EO. But I appreciate all of your comments - this has been enlightening :)

I also thought that might be the case, before I read this part: "In explaining the order, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) writes that the president has authorized the DHS "the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications.""

I'm curious - what happens when an engineer wants to propose an idea? Do they need to get a PM on-board to lead the project? Who decides if the idea is good?

The PM/engineer divide feels uncomfortable to me, but I have limited experience with these roles, so it's likely simply for lack of knowledge. I hope someone can clarify this for me.

This is actually already partially implemented. If you insert a snippet that includes a method/class (e.g. search for "screenshot"), a comment uniquely identifying the snippet is included in the inserted code. We currently aren't inserting these comments for the smaller snippets because we thought it would be annoying (but we could implement an option to enable it). It would be pretty easy (once versioning is up and running) to notify programmers when newer versions of the identified snippets are available.

How does CodeMatch encourage "overlyDescriptiveNamesThatJustMakeTheCodeHarderToRead"? I don't think it does. Search results are not code snippets.

If you're suggesting that the tool isn't useful or to be encouraged (as you seem to suggest in earlier posts), I'm interested in better understanding your rationale.

As far as I can tell, you have only critiqued possible ways that CodeMatch could be used, not CodeMatch itself.

How would you respond to this? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2905201

"Programmers would still need to search for methods to call. You can use CodeMatch to write snippets that call methods and CodeMatch can also auto-import libraries (or insert the classes/methods inline)."

Interesting point. Programmers would still need to search for methods to call.

You can use CodeMatch to write snippets that call methods and CodeMatch can also auto-import libraries (or insert the classes/methods inline).

Of course, this isn't featured in the video.

Thanks, versioning is really important. By default, when you create a snippet, it only appears in your search results. There is an option to submit a snippet to be included in the shared results. We're building a moderation system to handle those submissions. In the meantime, we're manually approving submissions to the shared repository. The moderation system will include versioning.

We're also building a feature to allow users to define groups and share snippets with groups.

We think parameterized shortcuts will be the primary use case, but there are several other cases that we're also excited about. Code snippets can easily be shared (they are stored online) and code snippets are searchable (beyond memorized shortcuts, you can find snippets previously unknown to you).

Thanks! Xcode and MSVS plugins are in progress. Should be available this fall. This is just the first release :)

I attended the first startup school (in Boston). There was a large gathering at YC's office the night before the talks. A few of us were still there when pg was ready to leave. Despite having never met any of us before, he let us stay, asking only that we double-check that the door locked on our way out.

I'd like to think that I would have the same trust in my attendees if I were him. Not a big deal, but a special moment that I'll never forget :)

If there are many defendants, they could work together to find prior art. Crowdsourcing might also be an option - for example, ArticleOnePartners.com pays cash rewards to individuals who find prior art.

Mandatory arbitration (prior to trial) might also be an interesting alternative, especially with the burden of proof on the plaintiff.

Rates below market rates? I think most people would disagree. They aren't salaried but the equity often pays well.