I like the false equivalence between reducing air pollution and not doing hate crimes against Jewish people. I haven’t asked them all individually, but I’m pretty sure my Jewish friends all enjoy breathing clean air.

You’re going to have to explain how you read from what I wrote.

From the site guidelines:

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's quite impressive to quote the guidelines to someone when your first post breaks a whole bunch of them.

I’m one of those many who owe her a debt of gratitude. May her memory be a blessing.

As am I

I couldn't agree more with your enthusiasm, but it's worth noting that Senakw is the name of the development, and the Squamish Nation are the people backing it.

More details on the Senakw development are available from the Squamish Nation's website: https://senakw.com/

Oops, thanks! I've been following Khelsilem for a while but do not live near the area, and have only visited several times. Would love to live there eventually if prices fall a bit.

Thanks for linking these past threads.

Alon has continued their work on this subject with a team of other scholars as the "Transit Costs Project": https://transitcosts.com/about/

I found this terminology confusing for many years, hope this clarification is helpful:

- “Coaxial” refers to the design of the physical cable (Wikipedia has a better explanation than I can offer)

- CATV refers to “Community Antenna Television”, the first cable systems in the USA, which fed the signal from a shared “community antenna” to homes in areas with poor broadcast reception.

- “Cable” is the generic term for pay-TV and ISP services over coaxial cable

Yeah, the problem is indeed that everyone points to the same general concept but isn't using the same terms which adds to the confusion.

Technically you are using a DOCSIS connection which happens to use a coaxial cable. But not the same cable one as you'd have with CATV because that one didn't have the same ratings. There is also a difference with one-way broadcast and two-way communication where you also need a CMTS for that purpose. And to make it worse, sometime EOC is used which in itself is Ethernet, but not over CAT5/6/7 cables.

However, all of those words are better than people calling it 'the internet wire'.

Another positive review for Central Computers. I was sad to see their Pleasanton store close, presumably due to rising rents, but the Sunnyvale store just reopened in a new location, so hopefully they’ll be with us for years to come.

It would be nice to see them enter (or re-enter) the Northern California market now that Fry’s has imploded. It seems like they have the niche figured out, and apart from Central Computers’ handful of good-but-small locations, they’d have the market to themselves.

I'm glad to have kept reading to the author's conclusion:

> As a hybrid approach, you could produce a large number of inferred sentiments for words, and have a human annotator patiently look through them, making a list of exceptions whose sentiment should be set to 0. The downside of this is that it’s extra work; the upside is that you take the time to actually see what your data is doing. And that’s something that I think should happen more often in machine learning anyway.

Couldn't agree more. Annotating ML data for quality control seems essential both for making it work, and building human trust.

This approach only works if you use OP's assumption that a text's sentiment is the average of it's word's sentiment. That assumption is obviously flawed (e.g. "The movie was not boring at all" would have negative sentiment).

Making this assumption is fine in some cases (for example if you don't have training data for your domain), but if you build a classifier based on this assumption why don't you just use an off-the-shelf sentiment lexicon? Do you really need to assign a sentiment to every noun known to mankind? I doubt that this improves the classification results regardless of the bias problem.

Sure, it's flawed, but that's the point of the post: that assumptions about your dataset can lead to unexpected forms of bias.

> Do you really need to assign a sentiment to very noun known to mankind?

No, but it seems like a simple (and seemingly innocuous) mistake that many programmers can and will make.

I was just trying to explain in this comment why I think the human moderation solution is solving the wrong problem.

Heck, it's so important that it needs people with detail-orientation and solid judgement, because crowdsourcing (ie populism) may not be the best source of Godwin's law ethical mooring.

The old Wise and Benevolent Philosopher King model of governance applied to machine learning?

Another point in favor of having moderators.

Well, Chelsea Manning just got out of prison for leaking the collateral murder tape.

According to many experts, this would be an easy way to shield humans from the radiation. A glass dome could also work but would be more expensive and could be fragile.

On the other hands, tunnels do not provide any sunlight but I don't know if humans can actually use the sunlight on Mars (so a dome might be necessary as an addition or completely irrelevant anyways).

Protection. Meteorites not burnt in the sparse atmosphere. Thermal stability. Radiation.

The article mentions that communicating Mars houses with tunnels might be the best way to deal with the loss of breathable air.