lunula

This. You can also get near 98% accuracy with vw and one quadratic interaction over the pixel space. It takes seconds. But that last .8%, forget about ever getting there with infinite training time.

Maybe the assertion that the WaPo is lying is a little bit extreme for some readers. But they do seem to be overstating the case based on the available sources.

> Excited for the unknown and the prospect that he might shake up the establishment.

A lot of people say he isn't part of the establishment. The idea that someone who is rich and embedded in the media for the entire professional life is not part of the establishment is really confusing to me. Why do you have this perception? I am honestly curious.

> I don't live in the US (anymore), so it doesn't really affect me.

Nor do I, but this person is the standard bearer for the stable world order that has helped lift many of us out of poverty, and has promised to continue doing so.

That world order is pretty chill, in comparison to historical standards. It seems rash to claim maintaining it doesn't matter, and that's exactly what this rich white man has campaigned on.

This long perspective is hard to ignore. It feels like we are walking the same historical path now. Let's hope things move slowly enough with respect to security that the trading networks stay intact.

The left has almost no political power. It is also the popular majority. There are more registered democrats in the us than republicans. Clinton is likely to win the popular vote. The system is physically designed, by districting and the electoral college, to support the political minority. You are conflating the actual demographics with the electoral system, which is lending more power to an oppressive point of view that is precisely what the political elite cultivates.

In this case the popular result is very likely the opposite of what you assert. That is, Clinton will probably win the popular vote and lose the presidency.

So popular sentiment is actually in support of an open, connected world. The political structures in the US systematically oppress this majority, due to its concentration in cities and the legacy of a voting system that respects territory over people.

Is it really sustainable? I guess at this point that's as much a question about the future of world culture as anything. Are we going to continue feeding their machine?

But that message has translated to precisely zero actual change in habit.

Except there is no evidente that anyone would care. They are sharing huge amounts of data on individuals with third parties. People continue to use and pay for the service.

I find it refreshing that they are unsupportive of the Facebook paywall.

To make clinical tests it is necessary to focus on single genes or loci.

Whole genome is not controlled enough to meet clinical standards.

It is pretty hard to ignore the fact that they are elected and meant to serve as representatives of the people. SV billionaires: not so much.

Funding open source scientific software is a huge part of what the NIH does!

Unfortunately there isn't a requirement that the code developed under grants is released as open source, but there is a lot of movement to make it so. Furthermore, researchers have strong incentives to provide reusable software implementations of their research. (I know many people say the incentives run against this, but it is now clear that useful software gets more citations and scientists forget so at their own risk!)

I don't have a recent budget handy, but at least 10% of research funding is going to various forms of software development. I am happy to be shown wrong but 10% seems like a low estimate as literally all analysis is mediated by software. It's not like people crack out slide rules when they get a data set from a sequencer or mass spec. They go to GitHub and download some obscure domain-specific open source analysis package. Point being: a tiny administrative change could ensure that we direct $3B a year to open source scientific software in biomedicine! And further, it nearly looks this way already.

> Chan Zuckerberg is specifically aimed at improving equality.

Do you really believe this? They are doing so using a private company. The Gates foundation, for all their hubris, are at least a foundation and a nonprofit.

I hope the pitchforks come out against Chan Zuckerberg.

They are doing everything possible to build exactly the opposite kind of world that they claim to promote.

I always hope the smart people of HN can see through this. But I guess the folks here are too smitten by wealth to care.

Which ironically means that such people are not uniquely prepared to guide our future. Maybe we could pick selfless but intelligent people as our leaders. Any benefit that this "experience" gives to Mr. Musk is overwhelmed by his penchant for flashy, greedy narcissism. Exhibit: the hyperloop.

I was lucky and avoided running myself into that kind of issue in high school. But I did get stuck with recurrent problems with my lower legs, and I did run through pain.

I was heel striking, which was encouraged by equipment (thick padded shoes) and by coaching. I took years off, learned to row, and came back literally running barefoot and on my toes. Tired of pulling glass out of my feet, I started using racing flats and then vibrams when training.

It took five years to get to where I could do the same mileage as before. Now my knees don't hurt any more than any other part of my body after running. I think the soft landings of toe strike running make all the difference.

Those early years definitely did damage. In my case I feel I have overcome it. I hope you will too. Running is a beautiful thing and a shame to lose.

To pick an example, baristas do make a difference in the world. They help in many small ways to build communities. The wave of services that the author rails against do exactly the opposite. They replace people you could have called and talked to with mechanisms controlled by faraway companies that view human labor as a stepping stone to the totally automated future. Is this good? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Rant:

Often those who seem to be making a difference are just those we notice because they are making the biggest mess. Some companies operate like speedboats tearing through no wake zone. Isn't it grand how fast they go? Behind them is a trail of senseless destruction that they care not to see. Just because you make money doesn't mean its good. If we don't relearn to regulate ourselves this way we risk social order. Inequality will rise. Human interaction will be mediated by corporate lords. Then everything will start to smell. People are going to revolt, and nobody is going to have a nice time.

Ahem ahem...

They also seem to be unable to imagine turning off FB. Which would be the first thing I would do and ask my friends and family to do if I were really concerned with their control of the media. They are seen as default, as if they are the entire universe, so inescapable that we have to beg mercy from the master rather than simply leaving.

You can use other messaging services. But the one you use may get bought up. They are fickle.

Why isn't there a popular p2p solution to messaging (other than email)?

Maybe they consider it works differently than advertised.

The end-to-end encryption cannot be reviewed because the source is closed.

Does enslaving them in a pseudosocial mindcage constitute enfranchisement?

I also know only as much as you, and it seems hilariously weak. Shouldn't it be possible to make a smart contract that dispenses it in accordance to the whims of ETH stakeholders? I guess the trustees will need to decide...

I do not know what you are referring to, but I point out that fiat means "by decree". So US fiat only exists through legislation. When is legislation not ad hoc?

It seems perfectly unambiguous to me. However, ambiguousness may have been an intended affect of the statement.

You did, but if others did they promptly forgot their lessons. These things need to be repeated many times for people to appreciate them. This is an opportunity to do so, and the author apparently found it unimportant.

I'm not sure if a total hegemony is preferable, even if it were incredibly efficient at doing what it was meant to do. Government is one of the few human factors capable of resisting a multinational corporation. I am somewhat sympathetic to their objectives, and I can't blame them for blocking foreign competition if they feel it is in the social interest.

States tacitly support corporations that operate within them. And as we see with the embedding of the US surveillance apparatus inside of companies like Facebook and Google, they can also become dependent on these systems for their security. Security is not only related to external factors, and China apparently regards the internal dominance of WeChat as vital to its security.

Countries should be allowed to promote local media companies. They have the right. These companies are extremely powerful, and are certainly a mechanism through which propaganda flow. In fact, I'm disturbed that essential communication services may be co-opted as they have been, and I wish my government would actively support utility-like alternatives or work to suppress the negative aspects of omniscient platforms like Facebook.

Why should the whole world's communication flow through one company? This seems like an invitation to be abused by whoever has control.

What do you think can be done about this attitude?

I haven't noticed but I wonder if the complexity of making the infinite results pop into the page as you scroll is causing the difference. For me this feature alone is worth a mild slowdown in responsiveness. On Google you gave to click to get to results >10.

I've seen it over the years and every time it seems to have grown twice as long.