skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't believe it will go anywhere, Fortran, C++, Python and Julia are what matters in GPGPU.

Even Java and .NET have better support for CUDA than Swift ever will.
That's neat. I like that you can add -c N and get N identities.

> Based on "fake" written for MS-DOS. Unfortunately the author and publish date are unknown.

A bit intriguing...
Being independent isn't a binary yes/no thing. But people who built their business from their own savings are a lot more independent than people who took investment, whatever the source.
Thank you for this. It's incredible how so many people are incapable of empathizing with another person's perspective. People who feel fear of losing their livelihoods in a fast changing society are not all just ignorant racists to be thrown away. If we as a country want to come back from the political brink, we need to start by empathizing rather than demonizing.
If Apple launched a product called Apple Zero Day - like haveibeenpwned maybe - Then the top search results for apple exploits would be an advertisement :)
> Am I being unreasonable?

No. Also, yes.

> The idea of charging people extra just to say “yeah, I’ll actually provide the service you already paid for” rubs me the wrong way.

So this is ultimately the crux of the issue I think. What are you paying for with the up front fee? I don't think I'd be willing to sell anyone a 100% uptime 24/7/365 product for only $1000/month. I'd probably want 2 orders of magnitude more for that guarantee, because my costs would scale significantly in order to deliver that. I'd also need to build in proof to defend it when my product becomes unreachable from your network, because of an issue with your network / your ISP / an intermediate ISP / a hijacking attack / (one of) my ISP(s).

The reality is the network (and this is true of almost any IP network) is unreliable, so anything that involves a network should never really be sold with 100% uptime guarantees. If you throw the internet in the middle, you definitely cannot provide that guarantee.

Which then brings us to what was actually sold. Setting expectations up front leads to happier trading partners. If you tell me you can deliver 100% uptime for 30 days straight, and it goes down at any point at all in that duration, I'm going to be legitimately upset. If you tell me there's only 99% uptime, and there's a 6 hour outage, the scale of that being a problem for my business is entirely my own problem.

I took on a product and the risks were made clear to me up front. If I chose to not take out insurance, the costs to my business are entirely my own. Sometimes that's just the cost of doing business, you can't afford to pay for the insurance. That's one of the risks. It sucks when that happens.

Toothless SLA clauses like the one you've described do nothing to mitigate the risk, so should not qualify. Unfortunately, people gloss over the details, but as far as B2B commerce goes, caveat emptor.

As an example of a slightly less toothless SLA that I've seen negotiated, and I'm paraphrasing the spirit here: "We will pay you $x to complete this job in 6 months. For each calendar day you are late, you will reimburse us $(x/30), up to a maximum liability of $2x." and then the project was internally scheduled to take up to 9 months. The risk of the contractor was factored in, the expectation that they'd screw up was factored in, and the contractor was heavily incentivised to not screw up (they did anyway)
Agreed, at least in volume. Which is more or less needed for a hardware product like this. There might be one can reach some thousands via the Internet, maybe using a Kickstarter type platform. But probably would quickly saturate its own niche market.
I could not disagree more with this post. To summarize what the author is unhappy with:

1) "It’s another big jump in the number, but the underlying architecture hasn’t changed much... it’s pretty annoying and misleading to call it “GPT-3.” GPT-2 was (arguably) a fundamental advance, because it demonstrated the power of way bigger transformers when people didn’t know about that power. Now everyone knows, so it’s the furthest thing from a fundamental advance."

2) "The “zero-shot” learning they demonstrated in the paper – stuff like “adding tl;dr after a text and treating GPT-2′s continuation thereafter as a ‘summary’” – were weird and goofy and not the way anyone would want to do these things in practice... They do better with one task example than zero (the GPT-2 paper used zero), but otherwise it’s a pretty flat line; evidently there is not too much progressive “learning as you go” here."

3) "Coercing it to do well on standard benchmarks was valuable (to me) only as a flamboyant, semi-comedic way of pointing this out, kind of like showing off one’s artistic talent by painting (but not painting especially well) with just one’s non-dominant hand."

4) "On Abstract reasoning..So, if we’re mostly seeing #1 here, this is not a good demo of few-shot learning the way the authors think it is."

---------
My response:

1) The fact that we can get so much improvement out of something so "mundane" should be cause for celebration, rather than disappointment. It means that we have found general methods that scale well and a straightforward recipe for brute-forcing our way through solutions we haven't solved before.

At this point it becomes not a question of possibility, but of engineering investment. Isn't that the dream of an AI researcher? To find something that works so well you can stop ``innovating'' on the math stuff?

2) Are we reading the same plot? I see an improvement after >16 shot.

I believe the point of that setup is to illustrate the fact that any model trained to make sequential decisions can be regarded as "learning to learn", because the arbitrary computation in between sequential decisions can incorporate "adaptive feedback". It blurs the semantics between "task learning" and "instance learning"

3) This is a fair point actually, and perhaps now that models are doing better (no thanks to people who spurn big compute), we should propose better metrics to capture general language understanding.

4) It's certainly possible, but you come off as pretty confident for someone who hasn't tried running the model and trying to test its abilities.

Who is the author, anyway? Are they capable of building systems like GPT-3?
The theory that Epstein was murdered isn't really a conspiracy theory, in the usual sense. Your typical nutty conspiracy theory requires tens or hundreds of people all to be in on the conspiracy. Murdering someone in jail might only require the involvement of two or three people.
Thanks for this insightful post! In this sense conspiracy theories are like a pot boiling over. You ultimately have a mess on your hands to wipe up, but the first thing is to remove the source of heat.
I think you’re overlooking some of the context of this thread. It started when someone said that republicans invoked states rights to justify opposing the Civil Rights Acts. Following that up with, “the Civil Rights Act was a huge precipitating event for southern Democrats to become Republicans” falsely reinforces the idea that Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Acts, when in fact they supported it overwhelmingly. Nor does it make sense to say that southern segregationists would leave the Democratic Party in response, to decamp for a party that supported the Civil Rights Act even more strongly.

Some Democrats like Thurmond did switch in 1964, because once Democrats abandoned their support for segregation, they found they shared other principles with Republicans. But focusing on those isolated instances overlooks and downplays the deep alliance between Democrats and segregationists. Woodrow Wilson, a pioneer of modern progressive “governance by expert bureaucracy” re-segregated the federal workforce. Segregationist Democrats were a key pillar of support for FDR’s New Deal. George Wallace was a segregationist, and also a New Dealer, a champion of labor who called for expanding Social Security. From 1930-1970, the Democratic coalition was glued together by the New Deal, with northern Democrats agreeing to look the other way at what southern Democrats were doing. (I use 1970 as the end date, because those alliances were in place even by Carter’s time: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jimmy-carters-racist-camp.... Carter would not have won without the South.)

In fact, a minority of Republicans in the 1960s, like Barry Goldwater, did make overtures towards anti-integration forces, in an effort to win southern votes. But they never managed to dismantle the Democratic New Deal coalition in the south. That didn’t happen until much later. And at that point, two major things had happened. Southern states has transitioned from agricultural to industrial. The economy of places like Georgia had boomed by drawing businesses from northern states with lower taxes and less regulation. At the same time, the focus of the “civil rights” movement changed. It moved onto very different issues like affirmative action. I happen to support affirmative action, but it’s hard to deny that it’s an ideologically very different thing than the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its the class “negative right” versus “positive right” dichotomy that’s always divided conservative versus liberal thought.

The reason I take an exception to the characterization above is that through omission framing, it attempts to tarnish Republicans for something they were on the right side of, while absolving Democrats of something they were for a long time on the wrong side of. It also falsely equates very different civil rights policies. It goes to Biden’s “[Romney] wants to put y’all back in chains” rhetoric. No, it was Democrats who wanted to do that. Romney, and modern Republicans, don’t want to use the power of government to affirmatively erase historical inequities. But it was the Romney-type pro-business Republicans that were a bulwark of the Civil Rights Acts.
There's huge difference between manually setting up load balancer - let's say HAproxy - and being able to just declare in an application that it needs "this and this configuration to route HTTP traffic to it."

The time I spent managing HAproxy for 5 services was bigger than the time I spent managing load-balancing and routing using k8s for >70 applications that together required >1000 load balanced entrypoints.

It's a lever for the sysadmin to spend less time on unnecessary work.
This needn't be the case; it depends on the details and what the particular format is designed for.

Wasm is a good example of a bytecode format designed for small code size. Though I expect wasm may often still be larger than equivalent js just because it's so much lower level. But there's no reason you couldn't design a compact bytecode format with high level semantics, and I would expect it to beat any human readable format.
Dog behaviorist? Are you fing kidding me? Why do people on this site post this kind of crap?
Ideally generating a disposable email address should happen at the same time you generate a unique password in your 1Password/LastPass/etc.
I have a cousin is into conspiracy theories and this explains him very accurately.

He is highly intelligent and used to be very analytical but got sidetracked in his life. Anxiety, disappointment and disenfranchisement describes his current state. Year after he became unemployed he started to watch X-files and all kind of conspiracy related entertainment. It was just entertainment. He saw it was silly. Then became History Channel and conspiracy internet tubers and all kinds of serious conspiracy stuff and it became more real to him.

Five years later he is deeply into that stuff. When we talk about it, he can follow my thinking perfectly and usually realizes that those theories are silly and laughs it off. Few hours later he is back into it. It's like he has tracks in his brain. He has walked the path so many times that his thinking goes back to the same things over and over. Maybe conspiracy theories protect him from negative emotions and facts of his situation as long as he keeps thinking them. He is harmless and nice person but his world view is crazy.
Can’t tell if this is /s or not, but have you considered a real life pen pal that writes back?
It’s self selecting because previous social posts rarely make it to the top of Hacker News. I don’t know if it is due to the population or the moderation. However it means that people who would otherwise post are less likely to due to past results.
It boggles the mind that this issue hasn't been found and fixed by now.
yes, emotional content matters and we should try to be empathetic and compassionate, but the flip side of that is that (a primary marker of) maturation is the development of coping mechanisms to deal with anger and the underlying fear that fuels it, rather than mainly relying on others to kid-glove each other. and it’s both, not one or the other.
Almost like apple and google have dangerously monopolistic positions in the mobile sphere and we need meaningful anti-trust action to claw back user freedom and choice?
VMware does it too. It's in the Eula.
There's a few academic papers waiting to be written from the HN archive!
My experience (I know a lot of people that are into conspiracies) is that if you show people they have insufficient knowledge to make their conclusions it makes them feel uncertain in their belief. They’ll draw back into the certainty of their theory. I’m not sure there is a way to convince conspiracy theorists. People that overcame their false beliefs seem to do this from an internal impetus but I‘d be happy to be proven wrong.

(To be clear I’m talking about 100% crazy theories like flat earth)
That is an event as described when spacetime structure is defined as orientable, where as i'm trying to get at what would it be described as if spacetime was non-orientable, and it doesn't seem like its just "Never"[0]

I've seen something that seems similar like what some are talking about here described as[1]:

"If a spacetime is not time-orientable then a closed path exists round which the direction of time reverses. The simplest example of non-orientability is the Mobius strip. On the Mobius strip left-handed and right-handed cannot be consistently defined over the whole surface. A left-handed coordinate basis changes to a night- handed one when going round the circumference of the strip.

The Mobius band can also be thought of as a spacetime diagram for a circular space, S1, and a non-orientable time. The direction of time reverses on a path around the circumference S1 of the band. Note that our usual image of a Mobius strip is as a 2D surface embedded in 3D. However the embedding is not unique and the Mobius can be defined in a number of ways without resorting to any embedding at all.

More importantly, it has topological properties (The non orientability) that can be described independently of the embedding. Of particular interest is a model of a particle as an asymptotically flat spacetime manifold with a region of non trivial topology where time is not orientable."

But its hard for me to come up with a term that can encompass a particle and a black hole (i'm sure there has to be one out there), in different regions in an asymptotically flat spacetime manifold, but exist in the same non trivial topology where time is not orientable.

[0] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3656/can-spaceti...

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05573v1
Vacuum is online, but with a caveat iirc, it locks the table with a lock that does not block inserts/updates/reads. But if your application use exclusive locks, things can get blocked.
Point of Information: the phrase "conspiracy theorist" was developed and fielded by the CIA as a counterintelligence effort.

Among other tactics, they wished to be able to use the term as a dismissal of anyone who got information about their real operations. This is very well documented, and is common among intel agencies of many countries.

It is also well documented, that the CIA and others (KGB etc.), have intentionally spread disinformation, from AIDS to Apollo hoaxes, in the same channel as (limited) legitimate information. This tactic is called "poisoning the well," the limited real info is a "limited hangout." If you put those terms into any search, youll find reams of documents detailing examples. Usually, these are the actions of some foreign service, analysed and released for the public service.

When the author began to align obviously false information with more credible things, what he is seeing are these intentional networks of lies that our own services have created. These things are not organic. He identifies common psychological features in these posters, because the intel agencies strongly select based on personality.

Also, how many of the accounts he investigated are bots? Was he able to prove that real individual people were doing this?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Its been debunked already!
Sometimes it is, but you still have to get to that point, and it can take years.
Also, government lobbying. How many large government databases do you think are oracle? I suspect quite a lot.
People are scared of corporations, but they don't really have much ability to damage you. They can't cause physical harm to your body. They can't take away your loved ones. All they can do is take some money. You started life with $0, so you can probably make it all back. It would be inconvenient, but not an existential crisis.

The likeliest outcome is that nothing will happen. The second most likely outcome is that they will say "don't do that again". People in this thread have a lot of speculation as to how evil Oracle is, but I haven't really seen them go out of their way to ruin people's lives. They sued Google over the range check function because they wanted a percentage of Android, not because they wanted to make Larry Page's life miserable. Legal action costs money, a lot of money, and even companies we think of as evil don't go out of their way to expose themselves to lawsuits.

More scary to me than evil corporations are people that spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt to encourage others to self-censor where they are afraid to speak out themselves. Everyone knows about Oracle's benchmark clause. Everyone knows that you personally would never even think of violating it. The author of this post sees it differently, and on a forum called "Hacker News", we should celebrate the risk he's taking, not spread fear about what could happen in the worst case.
It proves nothing to you, I draw the lines of my perceptions to my own benefit.

I believe every bootstrapper has some kind of self-funding. So whenever I see a story of a successful bootstrapper, I assume self-funding, and I don't consider it dishonest in my perception of the story. If the bootstrapper happens to be a millionaire already, and the "self-funding" is in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars, I don't consider the inspiration applicable to my own case, but I would probably not call it "dishonest".

All of your small-money examples look to me as in this category as both honest and applicable to my case.

One of the lines that I draw is that calling "bootstrapper" a company that received, let's say $100,000, from a billionaire in order to help with growth is dishonest in my perception.

From the tone of your comment, you seem to have the impression that I am a purist of some sort about the technical definition of "bootstrapper" and that I am policing how other people use it as some sort of crusade. You are wrong. I was sharing the filter that I use when interpreting this kind of story. I create these filters because I am a wanna-be founder myself, and I have decisions to make, decisions that are influenced by what I read about what happened to other people. I have to establish a gross probability of success with each decision. Deciding to pursue funding is one of those decisions. So when I read about bootstrappers I try to filter as honest or dishonest (also along other dimensions, as applicability).

So this search of mine of what I consider honest or not would prove nothing to you or to anyone. I don't care. It is not the reason I do it.
That means that cinquemb is using the wrong term for what s/he is trying to say. Once you stop thinking of the technical definition of "event", though, there may be the germ of a point there...
The entire concept of "conspiracy theories" is a persuasive device. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist isn't an argument, it's a rhetorical trick to discredit and disqualify the target, independent of the truth value of the target's claim. Or, as Harry Frankfurt calls it, bullshit.

I think I'm going to have to expand my list of normative sciences to four:

1) Logic, the normative science of what is true.

2) Aesthetic, the normative science of what is beautiful.

3) Ethic, the normative science of what is good.

4) Rhetoric, the normative science of what can be persuaded.

To be rigorous, which I admit often isn't worth the effort, one would have to examine a so-called conspiracy theory along every one of those axes that's germane.
The main value would be to avoid retail markup and give costumers those wholesale prices. The article seemed quite in that point.
I'm not sure that's a mis-parse. Anyone could sign in with the Apple zero day.
Generating character names for fiction writing.
I appreciate the tip! Is PageSpeed better? I checked Google's tool as well, before commenting. I went with the GTmetrix as I find the layout of how it portrays results cleaner.
I think the Epstein conspiracy is more about figuring out just who he was, where he got his money, and how his connections to very many very powerful people tie in to his known abuse of children. That's why people question the official narrative of suicide.
New System Mejored
Funding limitations probably.
The incentive to increase production supply is the ability to sell more products, which is decoupled from the ability to sell the same amount at higher prices.
C++ does come with OS vendor specific GUI libraries though, which is one of the reasons why I don't bother much with Rust, although I kind of like it.
Increase your context window ;)

> But as an NLP academic researcher

It is in opposition to that.
I'm still surprised that this didn't trigger an antitrust investigation like when Microsoft abused their monopoly to push internet explorer. This is exactly the same thing, if not worse.

Um… no.

Microsoft gave Internet Explorer away for free when Netscape was selling their browser to businesses, an obvious attempt to undermine Netscape.

They also threatened to cancel the Windows 95 licenses for companies like HP that shipped Netscape with their computers instead of Internet Explorer. That would have essentially put them out of business.

Because Microsoft had 95% of the operating system market share, it had signed a decent decree with the federal government that they wouldn’t use their monopoly in operating systems to their advantage in web browsers, which were a new software category then.

So of course, they bundled Internet Explorer with Windows 95 and claim they couldn't be separated, an obvious lie, claiming Internet Explorer was a critical part of the operating system.

All of this orchestrated by future humanitarian Bill Gates, who was quoted as saying then Microsoft needed to “cut off Netscape’s air supply.”

Even in the United States, Apple isn’t a monopoly with about 40% market share. Everything Apple mandates is with companies who've contractually agreed to be part of Apple's developer program and abide by its rules.

Nobody agreed to not ship a competing web browser back in the day.
Well, if a counselor could help resolve such situations quickly I'm all for it. But I'm doubtful based on my previous experience with troubled people. People have many opinions and ideas until one of those people become their own personal problem.

There has been systematic racism everywhere. Did we close academia because of systematic racism? The system will need to change. But there are no alternatives like some people here try to suggest. I think we will need to agree to disagree...