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.