skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Everything seems to work on the surface, until you actually start using it.

Many newer features are half-implemented or not implemented at all.

Some features which previously worked are broken.

The setting for preference of the old.reddit interface is not stable, and gets reset sometimes.

Even when the setting is preserved, there are nag messages to switch to the new one and/or the app.

Also, I think just calling it "old." feels a bit condescending and patronizing to the user. It certainly communicates that its days are numbered, so why would I want to invest any more of my time into it?
“ Is there hope for Google Brain? One glimmer can be found in the fact that most of the articles I cite here, criticising Google’s overall approach, are written by their own researchers. But the fact that they fired Gebru — the author of at least three of the most insightful articles ever produced by their research department and in modern AI as a whole — is deeply worrying. If the leaders who claim to be representing the majority of ‘Googlers’ can’t accept even the mildest of critiques from co-workers, then it does not bode well for the company’s innovation. The risk is that the ‘assumption free’ neural network proponents will double down on their own mistakes.”
> Nearly any program can be written any language. I can write in functional programming using Ruby, but why on earth would I do that when Haskell is "out of the box" useful for an application where functional programming makes the most sense.

That's only true in theory. In practice, you can't write a program that has soft realtime constraints for example (e.g. a game engine) in Go or Java, you have to write it in C++ or C or maybe Rust. This is true in general when you need utmost performance: while in general it's easier to write the same functionality in Go or Haskell or Java than in C++, the opposite is true when you need to extract as much performance as possible: it becomes easier to work in C or C++ or Rust than in Go or Haskell or Java (of course, this is a generalization; there are exceptions, though the rule holds pretty well overall).

> My understanding is that the syntax and philosophies are much more aligned to people of those backgrounds (Erlang -> Elixir is a great example of this) and gives them access to a lower-level language without having to learn many of the common more "computer sciency" things that are involved with those languages (C++/C).

Yes, because Go is is much closer to this paradigm than to the the paradigm of (Modern) C++. The only programming languages whose vision is similar to C++'s in my opinion are Rust and Common Lisp (even though of course Common Lisp is applicable to different hardware constraints, it being garbage collected and dynamic, it still has a very similar philosophy at its core).
The course is what you make of it. It's possible to scrape through the compulsory programming modules in the first 2 years with poor programming skills, and then by careful choice of modules and leaving the coding to others in group work, get by without really being able to code. They will have needed to code during the first few years to some extent, but can mostly get away with not coding in later years if they go for modules that skew towards maths or academic research.

When I say "unable to code" here I mean unable to produce working solutions to problems in a professional environment. I'm sure these people can get a few ifs/loops together in Java.

Because the course is what you make of it, there are plenty of excellent programmers by the end, and the department has a good relationship with some great grad programmes at companies like ARM, Google, Microfocus, the finance industry, etc. IBM just look for a different kind of student.
They do have competing products though, like other games and things. 30% of all of the money spent on devs, marketing, ops, that's a LOT of overhead just for checking some code isn't malicious
The Ami seems fine to me as a replacement for the only thing I'm using my ICE car for right now, going food shopping once a week, it would probably still work out cheaper to just get food delivered and never leave the house at all though.
Wouldn't you just end up with (for example) "Python-flavoured JSON", just like we have "GitHub-flavoured Markdown"?

On the other hand, there is an RFC for JSON where there isn't for Markdown, so it ought to be possible to make use of the usual standards process to formalise a successor to the original JSON which might include some of the very common additions some people always want (trailing commas, comments, proper dates) - that this hasn't happened over the last 15 years suggests really that the problem is actually due to lack of agreement.
That's displacement, not fuel. It's running at low RPM and likely significantly more fuel-efficient than a car engine. You could make an equally powerful engine with lower displacement (by building it to run at higher RPM), but that would likely be a much less efficient engine; car engines have to do that because they have to be physically small, but that's not such a problem for rail engines.
Yeah, when they follow Twitter and lock down third party apps will end half my Reddit usage and turning off old Reddit the other half.

I would have said in the past that users like me who are resistant to introducing engagement mechanics/monetisation are why they're valued less than the likes of Twitter but recent stats I saw indicated old Reddit was like 15% of desktop users and the official app also had the majority of mobile users so looks like their plan to wait our the dilution of the long term user base is working so maybe that all changes in a few years.

The unbundling suggestions seem like it'd hurt the long tail, a lot of the value that Reddit has to me is the smaller specialised communities which are able to get users because people can eventually get introduced to smaller subreddits from larger subreddits. Cut off that traffic growth path and many of these communities have a much reduced reason to set up on Reddit Vs elsewhere.

The suggestions to move the focus from subreddits to users - it's something Reddit are subtly trying with redesigned profiles and more emphasis on people posting to profiles or following them, but to me it seems counter productive to what I like about Reddit. A subreddit can be kept on topic in a way a user cannot, and actually in many social circles there are pressures on people to make their views known on e.g. politics in twitter, where staying on whatever topic is actually discouraged
Heat pumps are not viable in a lot of cases, in an urban setting, it's probably the vast majority.
So for the many cases were the alternative for heating would be burning fossil fuels, using electricity, ideally produced via renewable energy/nuclear, could be a superior alternative.
Yeah, tech and AI is pretty unpopular and they'll probably have a hard time finding people who want to work there since the entire planet is now independently wealthy
You are confusing “it is complicated” with “I am over complicating it”.
> For these types of games, the algorithms can’t learn because they require an understanding of the concept of ladders, ropes and keys.

The underlying problem of AI is that we've taken something we don't really understand, and applied it. When something like that does not work - what can you really do?
Fascinating! Is this true? Do you have a link? Thanks!
For the record, a candidate for another name was "weld" as it joins pieces of data into a single binary. That's I think a good name, but I couldn't come up with a backronym.
In the West we probably eat "too much" meat.

But if you consider the way demand increases because of the scale of the world population and economic growth (i.e. people are getting richer and want to finally be able to afford and enjoy meat) the bottom line is that, when it comes to environmental issues, we also need to reduce the global human population sooner than later because this really is the root cause.
Actually this is a common misconception. BrE allows either -ise or -ize, whereas AmE only permits -ize. The -ize spelling in BrE is called "oxford spelling" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling
No its not.

Great that we taked about it :-)
The ship has hit the iceberg a while ago and we trifle about the variance of the dance we should all perform.

Isn't it?

I'm scared too.
what inefficiency and why is it dangerous?
What does this mean for Vanilla Coke?
76? I mean have you even looked at the lancet link I've given?

"Between Sept 7 and Nov 24, 2020, 21 977 adults were randomly assigned to the vaccine group (n=16 501) or the placebo group (n=5476)."
Noreply: Dumbest Thing Ever?
It's loosely based on Proust ASAP, but without the explicit quadratic-time construction of paths (in a sense, this is done 'dynamically' at runtime with the CoW strategy we've discussed). When you think about it, Vaporization is really just an extension to escape analysis. It's not a perfect system though, namely, It required immutable closures. But if you're coming from a functional programming language, that's a small sacrifice to make, given that mutability is generally frowned upon.

> I think I'll have at least one more question about how the "tying of references to the stack" works, but I need to think things through a bit more.

I tried to answer your sibling comment on appending a CoW xs. I hope that clears some things up so you can ask any questions you have!
I can see how it’s not obvious if you never learnt it, but especially in when working with the SI it’s incredibly useful and makes many hidden relationships quickly obvious.
"Imagine if a new species of killer ant evolved that has no natural predators, procreates quickly and eats up its habitat. For a short while it's going to be the greatest species in its ecosystem..."

That happened long before humans existed and we still have animals with no natural predators.

Also earth is not a patient. Earth doesn't care about you or about the ecosystems. Many years ago there was no life on earth and in the future life will be gone and the earth won't mind at all-
As the author admits, the headline is a clickbait question.

Indeed, the article highlights some issues with AI research, in particular those which can lead to ethical problems when AI methods are implemented in consumer products. These are by now well-known and important issues and people should find a way to resolve them.

Then, in its final paragraph, the article suddenly claims to have answered its title question in the affirmative! Am I alone in thinking that the issues, valid as they could be, do not obviously spell doom for the entire program?
Can u message me ur recipes?
Ask HN: Social Platform Stack of Choice
If you were building a social platform today would you go web first or app first?
> Equivalently, a tool for converting .a to .so

Well, an .a file is just an archive of object files. Turning several object files into a single binary is pretty much what a linker does. However, you can't really automate this because object files might have external dependencies and the linker needs to know what these dependencies are.
Just short of 3 gallon-jugs of milk stacked up. In common journalistic parlance, that's 3x10^-6 Olympic-size swimming pools.
Traffic circles are even more efficient elsewhere, French drivers don't indicate when using them so you need to be more cautious about joining one when there are already cars on it.
I think you are, perhaps intentionally, missing my point. If they had shot all of the scenes that they did shoot in China somewhere else, the movie ("the content") would be exactly the same, but you would have nothing to complain about. Which means your complaint isn't the content of the movie, it's how/where they filmed it. Disney isn't adding random warnings, they are adding content warnings- warnings about content. You do not find the content of the film objectional, you find where they filmed it objectional, and those are two different things.
That looks pretty good, actually.
https://hitchdev.com/strictyaml/why/implicit-typing-removed/
VW is far behind in EVs for now sadly

I don't know, the ID.3 looks competitive to me, it starts at £30K in the UK which is similar to most of the competition.
> radiation

I don't doubt much of what you're saying, but is there any evidence to support that modern life exposes you to any more harmful radiation than life in the past did?
Heat pumps have >100% efficiency. It's better to use AC to heat your house as long as outside temperature is not too cold.
The engine is probably designed for fixed RPM, because that way it can be tuned specifically to that RPM. High RPM (past a certain reasonable level) makes all the mechanical engineering harder, so you'd choose a level that's high enough for the power you need, but no higher. There's a tradeoff because to increase power you can either increase the RPM or increase the physical size of the engine, so you do whichever is easier based on the constraints of how it's being used.
You're probably right. I just wasn't sure that production and consumption of GMO soy would be so neatly linked like that, because so much of that soy is going to livestock.
> is that the technical challenges lie in finding ways to organise and construct language and image datasets in a way that is as ‘neutral’ as possible

I think part of the problem is that 'neutral' models dont exist. And framing it that way already loses half the battle. There is no such thing as a neutral perspective.

It's like when you learn a language, people always say they want to lose their accent as if it's a process of reduction to some perfect median. When in truth the way to 'lose your accent' is to pick a model speaker you like and mimic theirs.

Of course I do agree we should probably replace the current biased ones with better ones, but the 'neutral' goal irks me. When it is picking one bias for another.
Short answer: yes, as long as I'm unaware I'm an upload.

I was mostly trying to make the point how much of our existence is rooted in our senses. Even though we can meditate/daydream/dream/etc, most of it processes experiences already had.

I have no idea how a brain without any I/O would contemplate its existence, but I don't think our current psychological models apply.
crossing the Nullarbor is not a mean feat either
Hello NonEUCitizen,

You can charge a flat rate of VAT but not per location based upon the EU rules.
If you reach out on the contact form, would be great to discuss your use-case.
> Maybe that's the point? Eat less (if you want to eat at all) and eat grass-fed. Do cattle even choose to eat soy when they have green grass available?

Eating less meat was the point from the start as the main/only way to decrease soy footprint, so if you're not suggesting to replace soy feed with grass then this whole discussion was in the end more or less pointless.
Early LISP history is a bit blurry, and ancient implementations are
full of surprises! Of course, the FUNARG problem was solved in theory
in the LISP 1.5 manual, but, as you noted, at the cost of linear symbol
lookup. This is probably the reason why this solution never made it into
the actual implementation. Lexical scoping in combination with shallow
binding did not even appear on the horizon before the LTU papers were
published. Program performance was important on machines operating in
the 200k instructions per second range and lexical scoping appeared to
be expensive (it is, compared to dynamic scoping).

TCE was also a non-issue before the LTU papers, because it was (1) not
necessary, you could just use a tag body, and (2) impossible to get right
with dynamic scoping. Either you unbind after tail-calling and get no TCE,
or you unbind before tail-calling and get a FUNARG problem.

If you want to experiment with LISP 1.5, there are 709 emulators out
there, complete with original LISP tapes.
E.g.: http://www.cozx.com/dpitts/ibm7090.html

Be prepared for some weirdness, though! Programs are entered as

CONS (FOO BAR)

meaning (CONS (QUOTE FOO) (QUOTE BAR)), there are no comments, and
in-situ lambda functions do not work. For instance,

(LAMBDA (X) X) (FOO)

will evaluate, but

DEFINE (( (TEST (LAMBDA (Q) ((LAMBDA (X) X) Q))) ))
TEST (FOO)

will not. It is fun to explore, though.
Thank you for giving a constructive answer because quite frankly after reading the article my reply was going to be much more acid against the author, which in my mind has some kind of agenda.

I'm always thinking that Google research is going to stagnate and yet they continue to show impressive results. So, yes, I would love to see something more original than yet another NN, but on the other hand... amazing.
Does this have screen sharing? Helping people with computer issues with just audio sounds like a nightmare. It is possible to share your screen or share a tab over WebRTC connection nowadays, e.g. Google Meet does it.

If it could integrate with a pair programming thing that let the helper edit the user's code on their machine in real time, that would be even better.
Just use the old reddit extension for Firefox.
What you says is true. It's a little unfair to criticize his description of economics for what he says in a short article, but I'm not criticizing so much what he says here but his point that there are four essential truths of Macro that justify the current framework.

>"And the exception to the rule that increasing the money supply is dealt with by the very next sentence from the one you've singled out as a gotcha."

I disagree with that. There is evidence that the mainstream view is wrong on this, but it's never recognized, not even discussed because it's one of the "truths of macroeconomics" (and because the rest of the building would start to wobble if recognized).

There is a good way to see it. If you know the mainstream model of macroeconomics, you can make predictions, are the predictions about the last decades right or wrong? What the model (the framework that the author is defending) says about what would happen with big increases of bank reserves in the system?

Because the predictions were wrong, instead of changing the theory, they speculate that the world has change while they were not looking. It seems to me that would not be allowed in other sciences.
tl;dr it says “dare mighty things” and has JPL’s coordinates on Earth.

It’s sort of a tradition. Curiosity has Morse code on its wheels.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/rover-leaves-tracks-in-morse-c...
Corporations Are Already AI
"Artificial Intelligence already rules the world. It has for hundreds of years. The greatest trick AI ever pulled was convincing you that it didn’t already exist.

Of course it does.

My country was colonized by AI, 400 years ago. Today, AI is thriving while Americans die. Corporations won’t invent AI in the distant future. Corporations are AI right now, and have been for years."
> But why do you need to define i

Wait, isn't this Hacker news? I want to be given a definition and analyze it deeply.

For instance, looking at the wikipedia page it seems that the closest that De Brune got to Cape York Tip (the northernmost point of Australia) was about one thousand kilometers. If this "counts" as a complete tour, he might as well had walked consistently 1000km inland for a much shorter tour (but maybe harder, due to the desert?).
> Is Google's AI research about to implode?

No. (For reference see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...)

Seriously though - even if the points in the article were true, none of them imply any kind of implosion or significant disruption in Google's research.

> Maybe one day we will see the transition from Hinton (ways of representing complex data in a neural network) to Gebru (accountable representation of those data sets) in the same way as we see the transition from Newton to Einstein.

This is so loaded and gives Gebru so much undeserved credit that it undermines that author's credibility.
My family and I did the same a few years ago. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
Arab residents also counted and vaccinated. The BBC had to apologize twice for that calumny.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarificat...
Were you around for "Saddam's WMDs" and the ramp up to the war in Iraq?

US based binary thinkers tried to make people believe antiwar protestors were traitors/propagandists too.
Gridcoin.
> Is that enough?

It must have been enough since his sperm count increased 4x, no?

Either the filter worked or microplastics don't effect sperm count much.
He is probably coning on a subtile not relevant level.

I googled his SCD and yes its the same schema f with his book and everything else he does.

It is not new at all.

His website uses the same technics to promote 'his' revolutionary things while never ever having done anthing new anything relevant at all.

And i read his 4-hour workweek. I payed for that book. His charisma triggerd me to get it.

This still doesn't mean he ever achieved anything you haven't read in any other blog or whatever.

He is selling himself very well. I personally would not be proud of myself though if i had his 'career'.
Residential sized heat pumps can do '400-500%' efficiency (i.e. 4-5kWh of heat for every kWh of electricity), so electrical heating at 100% efficiency is indeed inefficient. If the calculations are really valuable it could still be worth it though.

Also, what would you do in the summer?
America’s ICBMs are ageing. Does it still need them?
Whats a good alternative? The ceramic ones?
I don't think the comment you replied to is arguing in favor of Australia's attempts to get Google/FB to pay the media companies
There are probably multiple factors:

- Norway is a rich country with high standard of living, people are used to drive "big" cars

– Northern climate and terrain with lot of mountains probably plays a role, capable AWDs are popular

- Low population density, plenty of space for cars, excluding small city centers

- Electric is cheap in Norway due to hydro

– Electric cars are "cheap" in Norway due to low tax & high GDP
The assumption behind all of your examples is that the new version is a better replacement for the old version. However, social media sites and search engines typically do not do their own journalism. They provide an effective mechanism for distributing information, but that mechanism adds no value until there is some information worth distributing.

So, how much of the reward from people who ultimately receive and benefit from that information should be due to those who did the work to generate it, and how much should be due to those providing distribution services?

Historically, being the middleman in these situations has been very lucrative. Most book publishers still take huge cuts while authors receive only a tiny fraction of the cover price from each sale. It's a similar story for traditional record labels, film production companies, academic journals and so on.

The Internet has been a great equaliser when it comes to distribution of good quality content, allowing creators to reach their audiences more directly than ever before. The Internet has also shown how much easier it is for potentially interested consumers of new content to find it when it's available in well-known places, which shows that big marketplaces for content do still have value. The question here is really about balance, and whether middleman organisations should still be able to keep as much of the pie as they used to.
Hear hear.

These clickbaity article titles are tiresome.

Thanks for saying it like it is.
A.I. that writes like Stephen King and J.K. Rowling