skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Whew boy, this guy reminds me of Frank Grimes: mad that he can't control the world. I don't really think it matters, "computers" originally meant the women computed ballistics tables for the military in the early 40's... language changes, one person can't change that.
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Does having to pee in a bottle sound more like "having your humanity denied" or "having your money denied"? What about the actual example from the GP, having your stock options clawed back? Which one of those categories does that fit in? And then, as to my point, what about RMS's pattern of sexual harassment? Which category does that fall in?

Sure, he denied raises too. But that's not why people are upset with his reinstatement, and not anything more than one single example in the story being discussed. It feels deceptive to focus on that one detail and ignore everything else that makes RMS a bad person to work with.
I had issues with my right hand (which as a professional bassoon player is not great). I struggled with it for years, and it came and went. Then I started swimming. I did a front crawl course, loved it and started swimming 3-4 times every week, and after about 6 months my hand pain went away.

Plus I lost weight and had to buy new pants because they started filling off. And my shirts became too tight because I suddenly got some shoulders. Best problem I have ever had.
The rebuttal to this view is "provide a principled definition of intelligence". Doesn't seem like the article does this.

A hint appears partway through: "computers will not be able to match humans in their ability to reason abstractly about real-world situations". Does human intelligence distinguish itself by its "abstractness" and by its application to "the real world"? There's also "the systems do not form the kinds of semantic representations and inferences that humans are capable of". Seems like a promising direction for some definition of intelligence.

For my money, we will never consider any machine intelligent as long as we mass produce it. The only way we'll accept machines as intelligent is if, as the singularity theorists say, the machines build themselves. Then we aren't really mass producing them, we're just kicking off a process that we don't totally understand, a bit like gestation.
I wasn't looking at Kotlin libraries, but this one seems to be very close to what I was going for. Specifically about being able to compose queries in a bottom-up fashion like the UnionAll example with subqueries.

It's unfortunate that they chose to use .filter (.where would have been clearer) for DB executed conditions as well as post-fetch sequence filtering.
Of course there's a distribution behind the data. The parent commenter was saying not all machine learning techniques need to know that distribution, as a refute to their parent comment.
I would guess data center cost savings from off peak energy consumption.
I wouldn't go that far. There are some reasons that one could be useful. I dont personally have a use case cause I have other mitigations in place but i wouldn't consider a company like Verizon particularly trustworthy in general.

Even Comcast has been known to inject ads. The core tenant of these VPN services is trust, with it they dont survive, but for an ISP with a de-facto monopoly thats a non factor. There are also plenty of sites and services that use IP tracking. Google is really bad but others are doing it behind the scenes and not telling you. Reddit 100% does. Amazon too. To the point that if i proxy my connection and try and login to one of my google accounts i sometimes have to verify or go through recovery.

So in some cases its better than no vpn. And I wouldn't use any authenticated service over tor that i wish to keep. There are so many malicious relays and exit nodes.

TOR is easily tracked at the nation-state level. China can axe tor traffic, even with bridges and OBFS4 configured.

With a service like nord, you can get on and do your thing to bypass the great wall for the most part. And the the great firewall drops that connection you have a very large pool to choose from for your next.

So there are definitely some reasons I could understand some would use them based on their own assessments/needs.
Huh, I just poked around and saw that option on my Pixel 3a.

On the one hand, it might be interesting to try it. On the other hand, at least with the one BT device I regularly use, the current stack works flawlessly...
You can move over from being a software engineer to a data engineer pretty easily. Or you can be a data scientist who had some exposure to that kind of work and move over to data engineering quite easily too.
You're right. I would never want to hang out with someone who, because of a single difference in opinion about dolls, would conclude that I am "sick in the head" and therefore socially worthless.

And I'm not even touching your "female DNA" comment, though I'm sure if we dug our heels into that we'd find several more reasons you're no good to be around.
AI these days can be seen as nothing more than a bunch of code used to offload human manual labor to machines, and nothing more. Strong AI[0] is the real sought after gem we all want, but also the one that could cause problems (since it could 'run away' from the inventors and end up controlling humanity in some form).

I imagine if we really wanted to build our final invention[1] then we would have to be under some existential pressure to do so. In other words: we would build a 'run away' AI if it could potentially save humanity. Also worth reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_artificial_intellige...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Final_Invention
Hold on with the $10 words and political philosophy. Explain the "need" for hand sanitizer for an illness not transmitted on surfaces. And yet the "deep cleaning" "deep sanitizing" is still happening. It's still a guideline! The tiny silver lining of this event is its selection pressure on people buying rando gallon jugs of hand sanitizer at Costco because "germs bad."

What's wrong with everyone??? Wake me up.
Products are shipped which claim to use "AI". This is self-contradictory with this definition, and no product can ever exist claiming AI with it. I'm fine with that, but then it seems that the term would be completely useless, when "science-fiction" already exist (and, even if it is not always, can be realistic)
Exactly ! Do we need to bring moral to business or just appreciate his hard work ? I saw him in a conference in france and what I can say is this guy is the most devoted guy I ever saw on open source, semantic correctness and teaching ...
I am curious what battery technology they will use. I have recently found out about Ambri's liquid metal battery (https://ambri.com) which got me excited about grid level batteries. If this technology pans out it could be the missing ingredient for making renewables feasible.
how many dimensions does my linear equation need before it is AI?
There are 3 ways we got connections:

1) We did have some intros thanks to being a YC company. That definitely helped.

2) For some funds for which we really wanted intros, we asked our investors.

3) We timed these 2 weeks of fundraising to happen 2 weeks after some important product release for us (0.2.0). And we did get some inbound from investors (them reaching out to us).

Also being at the crossroads of data infrastructure and open-source helped a lot, as both are important topics for investors right now.

We tried to keep the meetings with the funds that we liked most at the end. For instance, Accel was the 42nd investor we met with.
"Ok, we'll call it Quantum instead."
/s
We, the people doing the actual work, have a moral responsibility to resist our work being dishonestly marketed. And certainly a moral responsibility not to engage in it ourselves.
Just do the following:

* Implement a universal carbon tax. Make CO2-based mining unprofitable.

* Require KYC/AML checks and tax reporting from all exchanges, and prosecute/block those that don't.

Wholesale banning cryptocurrency is a fool's errand without a massive restriction on general-purpose computing and Internet usage. So, let's attack the problems they create instead, since we already have the tools and legal precedent for doing so.
I love Sublime.
I use it for ruby coding, and I think I will buy an upgrade to version 4, just to support this great editor. I don't know how long I have my license....
Must been 5 or 6 years now I guess.

I hope there will sometimes a feature to load the actual selection into irb (and irb should be inside Sublime).
That would be great! Dr. Racket is very cool for this, well for Racket. Repls for the win!
Well, personally, if it were about me, they wouldn't be able to say that I had refused to provide cost-of-living increases to people I employed because I don't understand that "slippery slope" is a fallacy, not a truism.

In general, they wouldn't be able to say that I had mistreated people serially over the course of years with no apology, made a long string of bigoted and degrading statements about a wide variety of marginalized groups, and generally made an asshole of myself in public with no apparent understanding of why it was bad and no apology for it.

I mean, what, did you think "how would you feel if they talked on Twitter about what you did at work" would result in similar stories for everyone?
Having grown up with 8 and 16 bit games systems and the term AI being used to describe the computer opponents (eg in beat em ups) I’ve long since learned not to take the term AI literally.

The problem is the term never had a technical definition. It was always just a hand waving marketing phrase for “clever algorithms”.
> You don't get to make the rules; the union and the NLRB do.

In other words, might makes right, go away with your stupid logic and common sense. I see.
Right, but the headline suggests the BlueTooth stack is being rewritten in Rust while the code seems to suggest that the stack is in C++ still. There isn’t much Rust code in the directory relative to all of the C++

4K lines of Rust is not a BlueTooth stack.
I don’t follow the leap. The grandparent’s point was about the quality and terrible lack of long term support of Broadcom chips. How does that translate to issues of the standard itself?

Nobody would complaining about Apple creating their own radio chips (which they seem to plan for 5G/6G). Apple creating their own standard protocols is an issue though.
Yeah. Me neither. A definite problem in these discussions, especially text only. You can't tell who is being earnest, who is being a contrarian, and who is being sarcastic.
if brush_time < 2.minutes
return "Brush longer"
else if brush_time > 5.minutes
return "Brush less"
end
> So what do you do with something that is still useful, possibly needed, but missing? You reinvent it.

Yup, see for example java.lang.Comparable which is basically just the standard library going "yeah the language screwed up, here's your operator overloading"
Click and Pick Your Favorite Brand and Qualify to Win a $250 Gift Card
x = m * y

is even more explicit than

x = m.vector_mult(y)

because the * operator is side-effect free by convention, while a method like vector_mult() might or might not be mutating (i.e., it could work like the *= assignment operator).
Hmm, so it might be out of reach for me. I have a PhD in pure math, and no experience as a software engineer. I've coded for research, but never for production.
Extremely common for mature companies to be backed by private equity and pension funds
We were all "locked into" shell scripts for service management not so long ago.

Either open source and software freedom affords us endless amounts of choice and capability to create, inspect, modify and use whatever software we like, or we're all forced to use systemd against our will. Which is it?

Systemd doesn't have a stranglehold over anything - that misinterprets the power dynamic. It's got large adoption, because it's actually useful.
They’re chartered by Congress and operate under US statute. They are a GSE for all intents and purposes (although I agree they attempt to keep monetary policy at arms length from politicians for obvious reasons), and they’re on the record that they won’t deploy a digital currency without specific legislation permitting it [1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/business/jerome-powell-sa...
They form a huge portion of the vehicle’s cost today, but battery prices have been dropping 21% a year. Assuming the pack in the car lasts 10 years, by then a new pack would cost just 10% of the one put in the car. At that point is it even worth reconditioning, adapting and reusing over recycling?
It annoyed me at first but I don't think it matters.

The technical people involved have since moved on to using AGI as the term for "actual AI" for years now.
OpenBSD: These are reasons I decided it was worth learning to use it, and change parts of my tech stack in the process, to favor things that come with it in the base. It took a lot of time (still does, as I still have much to learn), so it is debatable. But it makes me think I at least eliminated very many of the attack vectors (not all, and not hardware).

Only 2 remote holes in the default install, since I think ~ 1996. Amazing. Then when you install more software from the ports/packages system you can consider their security implications. But don't expect peripherals to always work perfectly without work, or some, at all, and choose hardware that will do what you need compatibly with the system. And do expect to read documentation and learn something about the culture.

It is interesting how different systems and languages have different priorities. Here is my current understanding:

openbsd: security, correctness, portability.

freebsd: stability, performance (speed).

gnu/linux (example: debian): stability of userspace, features & compatibility, developer convenience, speed.

netbsd: portability, enjoyment, inclusivity?

All of those: Freedom/openness (usually).

MS/Apple: legal duty to shareholders, customer convenience and attachment.

Etc. Others will have other views of course, especially in the details.
marx espoused ridiculous and dangerous things

i recommend reading him
The Ad for the "x-ray stove polish" lists "cannot explode" as a feature which makes me wonder about their competitions polish
On your mom's face.

I completely expect this to be flagged but I just couldn't resist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A very useful article for the non-noob learner of TLA+!

> This is the launching point into refinement, or using an entire specification as the checked property of another spec.

We use the term "refinement" for those more special cases where `A` and `B` are both canonical formulas (`Init ∧ □[Next]_vars ∧ Fairness`), or, at least, both contain an initial state predicate and at least one box-action clause, but when learning, it's important to understand that there is nothing special about refinement in TLA+ from a mathematical point-of-view. Every formula in TLA+ describes a class of behaviours. The key general point to learn is that TLA+ does not distinguish between specifications and properties; they're just classes of behaviours that we can call a "system property" or a "system specification" based on how we psychologically think of it. The TLA+ formula `A ⇒ B` means that `A`'s behaviours are contained in `B`'s, and can be read as "specification A implements specification B" or "specification A satisfies property B" or "property B is an abstraction of property A" or "specification B is a generalisation of property A." All of these are just words used to describe the abstraction/refinement relation that's the very core of TLA+. So this is refinement, and `□[A]_vars` is an entire TLA+ specification, as is `□P` (it is true that TLC cannot check the specification `□(x ∈ 1..3)` but it can check the equivalent formula `x ∈ 1..3 ∧ □[x' ∈ 1..3]_x` but that doesn't make the simpler formulation any less of a valid and complete TLA+ specification of a system).
Hardware doesn’t make a device multi-purpose, the advertising does!

(See more in my response to your sibling comment)
“AI” always feels like a slur to me honestly. Who am I to call other intelligence artificial?
> For my money, we will never consider any machine intelligent as long as we mass produce it.

We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent.

It's an open question of how long we will consider anything after that point.
> If we were able to build an AI of high general intelligence, yet entirely within the human range, we could deploy billions of them as almost entirely separate entities. There would be no single superintelligence, and yet the rate of human technological progress would reach an unimaginable speed.

What would stop someone from asking any subset of the AIs to build a smarter one? What would stop a nation-state from doing it?
> Emigrate from the US and you'll still be expected to pay US taxes on foreign income.

That's because you still have U.S. citizenship. You can give that up and not be taxed, as I understand it.

Also, it looks like there are provisions to give you exclusions on your foreign income,if you have any.[1] That seems sane to me, if you live their the whole year and that location is your tax base, then you can exclude all the income from their in your U.S. taxes. But living elsewhere won't protect you from U.S. taxes if you still have the benefit of U.S. citizenship and make a lot of money from the U.S.

California considering a wealth exit tax seems a bit different on first glance, but I could see it making sense if it's somewhat similar in use. If you make your money from California and continue to after moving from there to elsewhere, that money being eligible to be taxed by California because otherwise it's extracting the benefit of California's laws and markets without paying into the system that provides them.

1: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
I think the more important lesson from the DAO hack was the fork itself, and that by organizing it, Vitalik and friends saved their own wallets (after hilariously asking exchanges to stop trading). If the people holding the reigns can get what they want by applying the right amount of influence, it's not any better than what we already have, and is probably not a great vehicle for realizing the utility of self-executing financial or legal agreements.
Did they ever solve the corrosion issues with those?
The level of gripe and sourness in this article is amazing.

He's basically raising the "evil that is crypto" to levels that would make you believe that a large number people's lives are being actively ruined by Bitcoin.

I wonder how someone can get so angry with something that abstract ... I wouldn't be surprised if his agenda wasn't motivated by something less than noble.
Describing "having a webcam to ensure nobody tampers with the ballots" as "union busting" is extremely disingenuous, bordering on lying. And by "bordering" I mean I'm feeling very charitable today.
> more reliable

This is... quite the assertion. Terraform has historically been _far_ more reliable than CloudFormation, and perfectly capable of getting itself into unrecoverable states. Furthermore, the behaviour has _never_ been predictable - CF only even grew the ability to preview changes relatively recently.

(Disclaimer: I worked on Terraform at HashiCorp, and on other provisioning tools since).
> nearly as many crazy surges in value.

This is hard to explain, like explaining air to animals or water to fish. Deflationary currencies aren't surging in value. Fiat currencies are dropping in value.

Your frame of reference is a $ is a fixed unit of measurement, like a cm or gram. This is wrong. $ value is not fixed, and intentionally designed to decrease in value at fixed rate (but in practice does not decrease in value uniformly across all parts of the economy).

What you see as surges in value of Bitcoin are more impacted by decreases in value of $s than anything else. Yes there are changes in demand to hold BTC vs. $, but that is dwarfed by expectations of future changes in the global supply of credit derived $$$s.

Credit based inflationary fiat currencies have a lot of really bad properties. But it's very hard to see those effects, because it surrounds us (like air or water for a fish) and is often confused as the measuring stick of value.

If you are still skeptical, maybe another example: Do you think gold is really 100x more valuable now than it was in 1971? Or do you think a change in ratio of $ : gold available is what causes the 'crazy surge in value'.
My understanding is that the article mainly concerns the education of (pure) mathematicians and not engineers, say. Maybe that explains the discrepancy between your experience and the article’s claims.
I don't understand why people can't see it's all one big pyramid scheme. The early 'adopters' pay small amounts of money for a big percentage of the total amount of 'coins', and the late 'adopters' pay large amounts of money for a small percentage of the total amount of 'coins'. And once people have it, they have every incentive to get as many people to buy it as well, because only then they profit.

A blanket ban is a good idea. This cancer deserves no place in the economy.
Depends. If the pop up is something along the lines of "we only have functional cookies", that's okay anyway. If they try to force advertising cookies I'll look for an alternative site (i.e. for coding help) or skip the article. Same if the popup is designed in way that skipping is more work than the content is worth.

Of course, sometimes you direly need some info and can't skip it, but these situations are extremely rare.
Right but an NFT is just a link to a URL so there is no guarantee that it points to what it did originally or points to anything at all. All it guarantees is the provenance of the token, not the art itself.
> The primary purpose of banks is to lend

This is really not the case anymore in the 21st century, especially with interest rates where they are now.
> 2) They use any or all of standard techniques like deep learning, NLP, knowledge representation, reinforcement learning, etc.

But why that? There isn't a principled reason for singling those out. It's just a matter of convention that we call those AI.

Pretend you never heard of AI before and you came across these algorithms. No amount of analysis or poking around would lead you to think "oh, man, this is artificial intelligence!". No, you'd see a bunch of statistical techniques that do X, Y, and Z, none of which would jump out at you as "wow, this is AI". All that computers give us is the ability to run tedious computations over larger data sets that would be impractical for human beings to perform.

"AI" is what we read into these things. There really is no such thing as such.
Exactly. As long as people need land and die when shot, there will be militaries.
Indeed, that is what I'm saying. Even though I'm a real person, when you read this comment, you do not gain any interiority into my real person.

You read my comment in your mind's voice, entirely with your own biases. And the fact that you choose to read & respond to my comment over any other means that the "conversation" we are having is with the disembodied voice (my voice) in your head with another disembodied voice (your voice) in your head.

I don't know you, and you don't know me; the exchange takes place on your side, within your ego, and only informed by your perspectives and biases. (Likewise, for me!)
I agree, but that's equivalent to my original claim.

Being bad at extrapolation is a consequence of assuming all training data can describe your phenomena distribution and being wrong.
Thank goodness for creative people who think of new and ingenious ways to use tools differently than originally intended. It's the heart of innovation.
>Stop Calling Everything AI, AI Pioneer Says