skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're inventing problems that don't exist. Every thing you said is applicable exactly with 1, 2 or whatever based indexing. It literally doesn't matter.

Julia's sequences/arrays are monoids too, I don't see what it has to do with anything.
Writing Software from the Outside In
I think you should. People are always attracted to new shiny objects and most folks don't understand the complexities of blockchain and AI. While I think it's worthwhile to educate your management team, I think the best way to do this is to align their blockchain / AI aspirations to core competencies for your company.

Deploying technology for technology's sake is a problem I see often--this comes down to people's attraction to new shiny objects; and it's extremely important to make sure that this tendency doesn't have a negative impact on the core business. I work for a leading AI and blockchain behemoth and I see this all the time--quite honestly it benefits my firm's sales but it's a massive problem for shareholders.

My advice for most leadership teams is to focus no your core business. Blockchain and AI are all the rage right now, but they are complicated to implement--especially in production! AI systems are very brittle and AI-Ops is not simple. There is a great paper from google titled "Machine Learning, the high interest credit card of technical debt", I suggest you have a read.

In terms of your company, if you believe these solutions will improve your core competencies and provide a competitive advantage then you should absolutely invest in these capabilities. However, it's really important to get the basics right before moving onto fancy new technologies that aren't well understood.

There is a great meme/cartoon that I like to show folks that depicts a teacher and a few students in a class where the teacher is demonstrating basic arithmetic on the blackboard and one of the students raises their hand and asks "when do we get to machine learning." I like to use this cartoon when I discuss these types of solutions because it helps me to put things in perspective.
I don't see how that's relevant, as I was talking about the man, his actions, and the presumption of motive.

Cummings disregarded capitalization norms in his prose as well.

Edit: Maybe you meant: since Cummings wrote a lot of poetry, he is a special case and therefore can be forgiven for disregarding capitalization norms in his prose?
You should know that Techcrunch URLs are blocked for anyone using uMatrix, as per the following discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22228159

Just making you aware, as the site causes lots of problems and is not GDPR compliant. Top comment on the thread above: "Yahoo/Verizon is cancer and should die in a fire."
What's the problem? I use Firefox and Firefox Focus as my only web browsers on my Android phone.
If one interprets that "set you own goals" is the task of AI then it's probably Sci-Fi AI, but that wasn't my question.

Let's say we have a goal, "evaluate persons impression of a particular book/topic/etc".

So the goal would be to have a conversation on this and related topics that would (re)construct person's impression.

Hence my question if there are any publications/articles that explored that?
There are boilerplates that encapsulate best practices for some use cases but they
may end up obsolete after a year or so...
Must confess I am a bit too tired to parse that text effectively at the moment, but I don't think that is a solution. It is basically a solution to deal with generics across libraries. In C++ this is a big problem right. Templates cannot really be put in libraries. You put them in header files.

So if you put generics in a library and link it, how are you going to know what to specialize and what not to specialize? That is the problem it seems to be they are solving here.

But this is still a compile time issue they are solving. What I am talking about is an issue that happens at runtime.

If I call a function f(x, y, z) and don't know the exact types of x, y, z at compile time, then Swift has no way of generating an efficient implementation of f. Julia OTOH due to its support for multiple dispatch CAN create an efficient implementation of f(x, y, z) for all possible types of x, y and z.

Actually on further reflection I cannot see any way an AOT compiler can solve this problem. Say you got this definition:

f(x: Number, y: Number, z: Number)

A Swift library could in theory compile all sorts of concrete variations of this function for concrete number types. However there is no way it can provide all number types. The user could provide new subtypes of Number not known when the library containing f was created.

I was a big Swift fan before and did not like JITs but Julia really convinced me how absolutely amazing Just in Time compilation is, especially combined with a dynamic language. You can just do so much crazy stuff that you have no way of achieving in a sane way in a statically type ahead of time compiled language.
I have a friend in the domain regulation industry. His take on the .org sale, was that everyone's worries about what a private equity firm might do to a TLD has already happened under ICANN.
Thank You for all your contributions to Xfce.
I switched to it on FreeBSD and it is rock solid.
When WinXP went EOL I setup a FreeBSD desktop and it has been fabulous. Truthfully my only gotcha is bluetooth support on FreeBSD is pretty bad. I can work around it as I listen to all these horror stories about Win10.

Xfce allows me to mimic XP quite well. Drag the bar to the bottom of the screen and setup a dark blue background and I felt at home. I like feeling in control of my desktop experience.
The switch to GTK3 was not better but GTK2 is getting stale so I understand..
I just use vanilla JS. For transport I use JSON over Websockets (with fallback to long-polling if the user is behind a proxy that doesn't support Websockets). I format the messages like id+command+json-payload. If the message contains an id, it calls the callback function given by the API request. If no id is given, the event listeners for "command" are called. In a higher level there are more events that can be listened for.

For layout I use a mix of both pure and imperative functions that either creates a new element for every state, or modifies existing elements - however all isolated in a component or widget.

I try to use standard HTML5 elements rather then creating my own. But they are often inside a component or widgets which takes care of events like keypress, mousedown etc.

There are no string templates! No server rendering, just API endpoints. There is no JQery, there is no framework - besides the functionality for handling server messages and passing data to event listeners and callbacks.
Some components and widgets are generic and can be reused in other projects. But most are specific to the app itself.

The advantages is that it's simple, fast, and customizable. The disadvantage is that layout is a bit tedious using appendChild instead of XML/JSX.

I use CSS for styling. I like CSS very much probably because I used to do web apps before CSS existed. To change theme you just change the .css file. Components, widgets and elements are not aware of theme and style, that's all handled by CSS.
Animations are handled by CSS, and different screen sizes are also handled by CSS. Sometimes you need to the change components/widgets though.

The only advantage I see with frameworks is that you get to write XML/JSX/HTML, which makes it more easy to move things around vs just using JS functions and appendChild. But when looking at React apps the components are broken down into individual files anyway, so it's difficult to get an overview.

Probably the biggest advantages of going vanilla JS eg. no JSX nor frameworks, is that debugging becomes easier, and you do not need a build pipeline, just refresh or hot-reload individual functions. No bundles or package managers needed.
As an owner of thousands of domains, I can tell you a minor price increase is not going to change the economics of the business.
Berners Lee should be proud of ICAN't
Id recommend a vipassana with a compassionate teacher.

Our traumas want to be experienced and looked at. But we learned the art of unconscious repression so we can “function” - no one tells you the price is being unknowingly sent to a near literal hell.

Climbing out on Jacob’s ladder is always an open option. Dune’s Qum J’bbar is real, and a vipassana is a good place to start.
Because it doesn't seem anyone actually saved that page. If so it was just a scare...
Reminds me of Jonathan Blow's observation that knowledge doesn't necessarily make it to the next generation and progress is sometimes lost.

https://youtu.be/pW-SOdj4Kkk
> Liberal policies in the west are overwhelmingly framed in terms of safeguards and safety nets. For example, it would be great if churches and family structures would prevent homelessness, but when that fails, what is to be done?

That depends where in the West. In America, certainly there remains a place for churches and philantrophic clubs even among liberals who want a strong state-provided safety net. But if you look to e.g. Finland, the Church (there Lutheran and Orthodox) has stepped away from any real charity role now that there is a welfare state. One doesn’t tithe directly to one’s church, but instead a portion of one’s tax money goes directly to the Church one is a registered member of, and that money generally just pays that Church’s administrative bills instead of being spent on societal woes. That is, even the Church believes that the state is broadly a more effective force for these things than private charitable endeavours. Lions Clubs and Rotary Clubs still exist in the Nordic countries, but there are very niche compared to elsewhere.
Here's a great check list for frontend performance: https://github.com/thedaviddias/Front-End-Performance-Checkl...
I don't disagree that complexity can be good! I was just correcting the "longing for that simplicity" statement, which was incorrect.
Domain squatters will exist no matter what. It’s just a business that exists to resell stuff. Price goes up, and their price will go up.
> over half of them would work in farming

Why would throwing more people at the problem solve or mitigate lack of fertilizer?
> Is it getting a lot of internal use already (beyond the example we just heard about)?

We have hundreds of internal users of DeepSpeed using it to train production ready models, many of which have been already shipped.

> Is it possible to do inference using a CPU and a lot of RAM using a model trained on multiple GPUs via DeepSpeed?

It is definitely possible to do inference on CPU using a model trained on multiple GPUs via DeepSpeed. For models trained without model parallelism, this is straight forward. The tricky part is if the model was trained using model parallelism, which would require merging checkpoints corresponding to different pieces of the model into a single one.

> Does it work with TPUs right out of the box? It looks like maybe not - if not, any plans to support them?

The ZeRO technology is compatible with TPU or any accelerator in a cluster setting, but we have not tested it with the TPUs. It likely would require some small refactoring to get DeepSpeed to work with TPUs. We do not have any internal plans to support them yet, but of course completely open to contribution from the community.

> Can you use DeepSpeed to train using a lot of CPUs + ram rather than GPUs?

It is possible to use DeepSpeed to train using a lot of CPUs. The major limitation of the approach is that CPUs can be an order of magnitude slower than GPUs in terms of computational performance.
Ah, but if you "build an experiment (at any scale) to test out an idea that you think is going to work", you've already gone wrong.

This is the Tao of the null hypothesis: if you build an experiment to test out an idea you think won't work, things can only go one of two ways—either you'll be proven right, or you'll discover something about the universe. Either way, you get to brag!
Leveraging the “Display Server” to Improve Debugging
I haven't looked for a .com in a long time, but when people are looking for .com's, do they really find that their choices are mostly taken by squatters and not by other people with legitimate uses for the domains? I would think that .com's are just saturated because it's the standard TLD and also because it was only recently that new TLDs appeared.
There’s a non-zero amount of blame that properly lands on the pilots and their training, IMO.

Failing to acknowledge that would be passing up an additional improvement to safety in the system.
Being able to register a .ninja or .space domain does not eliminate the limit of practical .com domain names. Does an apartment building opening in Pierre South Dakota have much of an effect on the scarcity of housing in New York or San Francisco?
I don't have a complete answer for you, but:

> probably offended so many people in my circle by not seeing/not replying to their emails.

If I were you, I'd BCC everyone whose addresses you remember with a short note saying to the effect of "I lost my other mail address so-and-so@gmail.com, gimme a sec pls" and I'm sure this incident will have no long-term impact on your reputation. Shit happens.

As far as getting help from Google goes, I think the only reliable method for non-paying customers is to raise a huge stink on websites like this or Twitter. Take this with a grain of salt, however; I'm much more likely to observe these big stinks and less likely to hear about people just calling support and getting help. It _may_ be possible.
I think the intuition behind your Stooge sort example is that for an array separated into three segments:

A | B | C

The first sort moves the largest elements of A and B into B. The second sort moves the largest elements of B and C (and therefore of A, B, and C) into C. And the final sort properly orders the elements within A and B.
Spotify going into podcasts will be like uber in the early 2010s, it'll make a handful of people decent returns while they burn through their cash hoping for dominance. If they achieve dominance they'll start the squeeze, if they don't they'll just dump the market.
Fire is old. Electricity-- or at least it's control -- not so old, but I'm not sure I'd count it as simple. Making a functional battery or generator that doesn't just create or store trivial amounts energy is quite a challenge.
This is very shallow short term view on things. Performance also impacts customer retention, loyalty, satisfaction and word of mouth advertising because of that, makes engineers feel good and proud about the things they do, rewarded and motivated to keep going and not leaving to do something else, etc. Hardly "a waste of resources".
Nice. Actually some of these remind me of Windows, too. It's less common on Windows but plenty of applications seem to link against antiquated libraries which provide really unusable and nonstandard file selection dialogs. One thing I remember being annoyed with is old-style ones that are very small and you can't resize. Here are some, but I've seen weirder ones:

https://i.imgur.com/jYa3qX8.png
Wood pulp paper, dimensional lumber (and related framing methods), and I see someone already mentioned the AM radio.

The manipulation of the aether thoroughly meets your definition of modernity, and the principles of constructing a simple radio aren't terribly complicated.
As elsewhere, making a non-trivial battery ain't so simple.
Can Linode Compete with AWS?
I recently wrote a "remix" of visual6502 (just for fun), with C (and a bit of C++), compiled to WASM to see whether the rendering performance of the chip visualization can be improved while still running in browsers, and also to improve the "UX" a bit:

https://floooh.github.io/visual6502remix/

Check Help -> About for a list of dependencies used in that project (lots of good stuff in there), the two most important being the original data sets from visual6502, and a C re-implementation of the transistor-level simulation, called perfect6502 https://github.com/mist64/perfect6502)
Conversely, the upvote button (which I used for your point) doesn’t perform a full refresh. Both are good.
Nicely Design – Hand-Picked Products from Amazon
It's a closed book exam, an in-person oral exam, and a high-precision practical flight evaluation. Plus minimum 1,500 hours of experience.

Along the way they've probably taken at least 3-4 other other written/oral/practical exams, including private pilot, instrument, commercial, and multi-engine. And possibly the flight instructor exam as well, since that's a common way to pay for flight training.

Not to mention aircraft-specific type ratings, and biannual flight reviews with a check airman.

I think you're selling the requirements a bit short. It's certainly not easy.
Easy isn’t always so simple.
>I think it is unfair of you to assume his motive, and inappropriate to use the idiom normally used to impugn one's character.

The post I replied to basically said that asking for capitalization makes you stickler to pointless rules who won't get far in life. I merely replied in kind to the tone of that post which probably isn't exactly nice of me but I would say it is fair.
Pedantic: "Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for academic knowledge and formal rules." The shoe fits exceedingly well, in my opinion.
> more registrations and renewals, aka squatting

People falsely equate any domain they can't register and doesn't have a website with squatting.

I get at least one angry email from someone a month trying to buy a domain that only has MX (mail) records. Another is a 3 letter .com I use for my internal lab environment, and I explicitly don't want it to resolve on the public Internet.
Def. not simple!
Not simple.
> A framework that has no community support, no stackoverflow articles to help out and most likely minimal explicit documentation.

But there are gains too. The custom framework is probably much smaller and less complex, easier to know 100% of. It can be stepped through in the debugger. It's much easier to change and add features that your company needs, there's no outside bureaucracy to get in the way.

I disagree you're inventing your own framework too, there is a distinction to be made between libraries and frameworks. Just because I'm not using a framework doesn't mean I'm reinventing it, I could be using something like knockoutjs instead, or even postbacks.
To be honest, the author's capitalization didn't bother me, and I didn't notice it until halfway through. Even his comments here are readable to me.

However, your heuristic worked because the content of the article was crap. Or to be more charitable: over-promised with a good idea and under-delivered with incompetent data-analysis, mangled conclusions, and ax-grinding (reiterating an opinion that he admits isn't supported by his data).

Sadly, it gives us another data point: a person who doesn't follow "fake rules" and totally uses "totes" in comments didn't write a good article. not a good look
Also not simple.
> The server still needs to validate, no? I've never seen a form that really benefitted from client-side validation. As long as required fields are clearly marked, I don't really understand the value here.

Any non trivial form is going to have non trivial validation. Validity for some fields will depend on other fields, the validity for a single field could have complex rules, and forms can be lengthy. It helps the user to get validity feedback without sending information back and forth from the server.

> Hmm? What about them needs React?

> You can poll very cheaply. And even Websockets are pretty simple. Check out Phoenix LiveView or Rails Action Cable for decent examples of trivial solutions to this.

Like I said in my OP, none of the things I listed require React, some dont even require JS. But having worked in large codebases of jQuery and large codebases of framework code, frameworks scale up better. LiveView is cool tech though.

> Even Apache server-side includes let you do this. We're not talking about hand-rolling plain HTML files in MS notepad (or even going wholly js-free). We're talking about React being overkill in a lot of places.

If you need to share markup with dynamic values, you need a full programming language. I'm aware that there are many solutions for sharing markup, but there are fewer solutions for sharing markup with dynamic behavior. Again, a framework scales up better.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting React for everything. But the GP comment was suggesting it was good for nothing, so I provided counter examples.
https://aka.ms/stopusingsmb1
- Using a UI framework maps well to working with UX designers in that you design the interactions of a given component in accordance to UX spec.

- Combining multiple components in a given page to transform or process user interaction becomes simpler as the components are plug and play with the state of the page.

- Combining multiple pages where state can move across an entire application can allow for a seamless user interface

- Employing techniques like code splitting and Server Side Rendering allows for smaller js payloads with an incremental approach to assets versus loading everything at once.

The largest advantage UI frameworks provide is that it makes what you would normally do with javascript a lot more _composable_. You can do the same with vanilla JS, but it gets a lot more difficult when you attach events to the DOM, it's hard to reason about how you might organize your code which doesn't scale well across teams.

I think the simplest way to consider the advantages of a UI framework is to build a search application from scratch with vanilla JS. You can get pretty far but once you start adding in things like pagination, it can get a little hairy. jQuery and it's libraries can help you there, but there's a good chance that you're adding in some overhead to the load times of your page.

If you rebuild the application with a UI framework and employ practices like code splitting, the code (usually) ends up being a lot more reasonable and easy to extend (which businesses tend to like). Adding features becomes less about reasoning about which DOM event fires what and instead more about transformations in state with the components subscribing to state instead of DOM events.
Some people? Do you mean everyone who's distro did not change the default value?
I wrote a blog post on the difficulties of memory-efficient training, which seems relevant: http://mitchgordon.me/machine/learning/2020/01/13/do-we-real...

The methods discussed there take a different angle at the problem.