skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your question was whether bond holders who sold bonds to the Fed would have been able to sell those bonds had the Fed not bought them as part of its 4 trillion bond purchasing program. And the answer is that, considering the average daily trading volume in the US bond market, which is a little under 1 trillion, whatever liquidity the 4 trillion Fed program provided, it couldn't possibly have made a big difference.

Now you're making a different claim which is that the Fed inflated asset prices by pumping up the bond market. Yes, bond purchases by the Fed will tend to make bond prices increase, but your math is nonsense. Buying 9% of the supply of something doesn't mean the price will go up by 9%. This is not how prices work. Whether the Fed pumped up the bond market is an empirical question, which should be answered by looking at bond prices and seeing if they went up during 2020. So where's the data showing that bond prices were pumped up?
There is the tooling hypothesis, i.e. that the ability to build tools also brought the need to communicate how to build the tools.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5774752/

https://www.wired.com/2013/09/tools-and-language/

The structure of steps in a process necessitated structured grammar and thought. US philosopher Daniel Dennett is a proponent of language-as-debugging. Our rational faculty was an emergent property of evaluating statements. Errors provoke laughter as a debugging response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor#Detection_of...

Notable comedian George Carlin demonstrated a real genius for debugging language. His piece about the progression from "shell-shock" to PTSD is a good example.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246642/characters/nm0137506
> Nobody is really being hurt when a new tool makes it easier to copy little bits of code from the internet.

Quite the opposite. We all get a tiny bit better with good information like this. This is what the internet should be for, evolving, learning from past mistakes, information availability.

If the discussion was “I clicked this button and got someone’s entire chat platform” that would be different. Words and sentences aren’t copy written, books are, so when exactly are a collection of words a book?

There is nuance, and the linked page has none. But that’s fine, that guy is free to pull his content off GitHub. This seems like a useful feature for other people who want to make things first and foremost.
> I hope they're not /too/ tied to z3

If you mean having a hard dependency on z3 at compile time or something similar - no, it's not. :)
> Even with an MIT license it is a copyright violation to copy the code without attribution.

That was my take originally, but apparently this is not as cut and dry as you may think:

https://www.technollama.co.uk/is-githubs-copilot-potentially...
The people who currently live in neighborhoods full of $5M single-family houses may value “exclusivity”, but I have met plenty of young people with ordinary jobs sleeping in bunk beds, 4 adults to a 2-bedroom house and still paying most of their paychecks to rent, who would much prefer to be living in separate 1–2 bedroom flats instead, with more little shops in their neighborhood and better transit.
All the people in this thread angry that GitHub is using MIT software in a way permitted by its license... depressing.

The MIT license doesn't require attribution for small snippets, only for full copies or substantial portions.
Somewhat frighteningly, all money you have in the bank belongs entirely to the bank and not to you. The most they owe you is a promise to pay, but by making a deposit you give them ownership of the money.

So, if money you deposit isn't yours, certainly money you didn't deposit isn't yours.
Then what is it? To trust the software? Because then the arguments just gone full circle.
robots.txt is a convention for those who want to be good 'web citizens' rather than legally binding. It does absolutely nothing to stop someone who ignores your wishes. For example, there are tons of bots that ignore robots.txt entirely or even go straight for the thing (i.e. 'hey, thanks for telling us where to look!') you're telling them to avoid in robots.txt. While copyright is a mechanism that can be used if you can make the case, and have the means, it will only work for entities that have something to lose and are within a jurisdiction where it matters.
This raises an issue of trolling. What prevents developers to generate "inappropriate" code to feed it to this algorithm the same way they did with the Microsoft Chat bot for example? That will surely reflect on the quality of code generated by this AI system and therefore the stability and security of applications built.
I'd be interested to have an expert in this space comment on these lab grown meat startups. I'm all for it, but the pessimist in me thinks this all sounds too good to be true.
See this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287
Grats. I abandoned a while ago as well. If anyone is looking for a rec for self-hosting: Gitea is cake. Sits nicely behind Caddy as all my other services do. Alternatives such as Gitlab I found wanted to 'own' too much of my system.
As far as I know Roundcube doesn't support external address books. When I tested it I somehow didn't like the UX.
... and fast fashion is probably worse than both if what I read is correct.

FTR: Years go by between everytime I travel by plane so I don't feel I have anything to defend, I just think it is good to keep the big picture in mind.
really hope they make this available with a simple authorization (& if needed, billing) for non-family share folks.

I'm one of many families that share a tld much more widely than any 'family sharing' group could accommodate, up to and including acquaintances from the internet.
Your license means nothing if you can't defend it.
If you paid for the service they wouldn't dare using your code regardless of the license.
How is the Arctic Vault different from any other offsite backup?

I suppose one issue is that you (presumably) can't request deletion from it (which may even be a GDPR violation).

Edit: I looked up the relevant GDPR stuff, apparently there's an exemption for when "erasing your data would prejudice scientific or historical research, or archiving that is in the public interest.", which it arguably includes the Arctic Vault.
Copilot spitting out fast inverse square root, verbatim: https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287
I guess it goes back to closed source / trade secrets territory. If you have something you really don't want stolen, it is safer to never expose it and never trust that the law will fairly protect you.

The irony is that copilot won't suggest its own source code, just everyone else's. It is open source without the benefits.
Yeah, that's not gonna fly, sorry. I've wished the contract world worked that way, but my understanding has been it doesn't, and you're gonna need a lawyer's interpretation matching yours to back up your claim, not your own interpretation of a link to Wikipedia.
This is the best option in my opinion. You can also "optimize" by doing the forced merge only for branches that have 2+ commits. That way, if most of your branches have a single commit you won't have many useless merges. The branches with multiple commits will still be visually grouped.
How independent are those commits? If I'm developing a feature that has distinct but dependent changes, then the rebased/squash pattern doesn't work as well. Submitting in a single PR means that those distinct changes all get squashed away. Submitting in a series of PRs keeps the history, but means that the have commits on main have different ids, and so I need to keep using `git rebase -i` to remove the corresponding commit from my dev branch whenever one gets merged in.
This works great if you control the servers or have a uniform fleet. I used to work at a security vendor which sold ebpf based software that ran as a daemonset on customer kubernetes clusters. Compiling ebpf bytecode on the customer's hosts wasn't an option.

Iirc the real challenge was with writing kprobe ebpf functions that access native structs. I don't think we ever found a good solution for that because you need kernel headers for each machine which we didn't have.

Of course if I'm missing something obvious, do tell!

(I'm the same person who left this comment on Brendan's site as well. Not a random copy paster)
Amazon plans to build Scout delivery robot tech in Finland
> As a human, I am allowed to read copyrighted code and learn from it.

Of course not. Reading some copyrighted code can have you entirely excluded from some jobs - you can't become a wine contributor if it can be shown you ever read Windows source code and most likely conversely.
Likewise, you can't ever write GPL VST 2 audio plug-ins if you ever had access to the official Steinberg VST2 SDK. Etc etc...

Did people forget why black box reverse engineering of software ever came to be ?
Dev: "Anyone can use my code for any purpose including commercial purposes."

$BigCorp: "I want to use to use Dev's code for commercial purposes as he has explicitly granted me the right to do so."

Dev: "Wait, no not like that."

As much as I am a proponent of permissive licenses (my favorite is the wtfpl), you have to pick your license wisely especially if you're going to be picky about usage (Be it by $BigCorp, government agencies, or other companies that you might not be fond of).

If you really want "full control" over your code you have to make it proprietary.
>What happens when it verbatim outputs a significant amount of code that was originally MIT, or BSD, or GPL licensed without the appropriate attribution

You would sue.

And then Github would argue that their algorithms did not spit out verbatim the code by copying but rather it generated code that looked exactly like the other code based on learning from millions of codebases. ¨

And then there would be lots of lawyers.

And then a judge would have to decide.
> Hi. I know you’re excited about copilot.

> ...

> It’s truly disappointing to watch people cheer at having their work and time exploited by a company worth billions.

Huh? Over the last few days that I've watched this "copilot" story unfold on various news aggregator sites, I've first seen people point out copyright and other issues with it, then the fast inverse square root tweet happened, and then more articles and tweets like this one and the discussion that we are currently having. But I somehow don't really recall anyone besides the Microsoft marketing department being overly excited about it. Did I miss something?
New [July 2, 2021] Audacity Data Collection Policy
He added this update:

> This articles was "flagged" by Hacker News about 90 minutes after I posted it there

I regularly get HN posts in my RSS feed that end up being flagged when I click through to them, but this url has only been submitted once from what I can tell. Plus, even if it had, adding "flagged" to the title of a post is far from censorship.

I'm not sure why he thinks HN is removing his posts.
Yes, you're right. I misremembered the problem and thought a greedy algorithm would work in that case.

It still seems to me that bowl-stacking is solved by sorting alone, though, which is of course much simpler.
Your iPhone is far more complex than an ENIAC; the only difference is that its transistors are much smaller. To make an iPhone using ENIAC-sized transistors you'd probably fill a building, or city block, or even more.

Neurons, on the other hand, are pretty much the same size in all animals. So brain size, neuron count, and neuron interconnectivity, all correlate with mental complexity.
My expectation is that it wouldn't, because in a tilted checkerboard image (or any other periodic image) there are many pairs of rows that are more similar than neighbors.
Here's the brutal and ugly truth: why isn't our personal data treated as private property? It's because those who write the laws governing its status either lack the requisite understanding or else practice a form of, to put it mildly, motivated reasoning.
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS can mean the core five lines of some key algorithm buried deep in a 1000 line wrapper library with a bunch of language wrappers.
Oh, now I see the problem. I am hiring, not looking to be hired. I hurriedly typed the original post on my phone and didn't realize it's unclear.
Your comment really clarified some vague ideas I've been thinking about lately. I found it inspiring. Thanks for writing it!
> I hope at some point someone builds more gRPC-specific API recommendations that includes streaming and ways to do a better bulk data transfers. (ex: stream-with-filters)

I'm currently working on migrating a system from the Google Adwords API(being depricated in some months) and porting everything to their new Google ads API(a massive step up) and to be honest everything described here is incredibly familiar. Overall that's exactly how it works.
Very slightly related, I've spent more time in the forest since ~covid, and even squirrels I found seriously fascinating (they move over branches like superheros in movies) .. i'm kinda "regressing" into animalism.
I disagree.

Developers who are entrenched enjoy the fact it is hard to get a permit. Then, the specialty becomes navigating the system (which the surviving developers are de facto good at). It is hard for the best developers from other cities, who may be amazing at cheap/efficient/quality construction to challenge the incumbents in SF.

It is like saying that government contractors who build websites want the bid system to be simpler. In some ways they do, since on paper they would save a lot of money if they could get rid of their dozen employees who specialize in navigating it. At the same time, most government website contractors probably are not the best web developers - jsut the best at navigating the system.
> He wasn't even at Apple for the entire decade preceding that bailout. People probably 'forgot' because it's not true at all!

Because he ran the company into the ground before and the board fired him

Also people are right when they claim that Jobs rise to fame wouldn't have happened without the DOJ going after Microsoft because the powers that be were disturbed by Gates 160B wealth back in 1999.

If the DOJ didn't go after Microsoft we now wouldn't have a 1400$ phone which you can't recharge while listening to music...Thank you Bill Clinton's DOJ!

United States of Microsoft would have been a really cool place to live considering they are the only company which engineered wealth redistribution as a service. By not pursuing individual user piracy they found a way to have Fortune 500 companies subsidize the kids and the geeks of this world who know where to find cracked Windows and Office.

EDIT: I will delete this comment when it reaches -5 score. Don't want to be shadowbanned, but the cult hivemind in here around people like Musk and Jobs is insufferable
The other one I'm aware of is BlueNalu: https://www.bluenalu.com/
After about the second one, you will want to just copy and paste your first ine and mod it -- not describe it all again from the beginning.

The density of text simply cannot be equalled by speech. Try showing someone one of Edward Tufte's marvellous tables and see what they can glean from it, versus how long it would take you to explain the same information verbally.

There's no jumping the shark on text. It has always won on information density, succinctness, and reusability.
Can't you host code on GitHub that is not "free" for commercial use? If GitHub scraped these projects then it's a problem.

Otherwise, Into honestly trying to have a conversation on this to understand the objections because I haven't made up my mind but struggle to see the problem. So pease consider the following:

if the code was not encumbered by restrictions I don't see an obvious problem with this. Using code or data or anything like that in the public commons for a meta analysis doesn't strike me as wrong, even if the people doing it make money off of that analysis.

If I scraped GitHub code and then wrote a book about common coding patterns & practices I don't think that would be wrong.

I used the Brown corpus and multiple other written word corpuses (corpi?) Along with WordNet and other sources to write my thesis in Computational Linguistics Word Sense Disambiguation, later applying it to my job, which earns me money. Is this wrong?

Public datasets have been used extensively for ML already. I don't see this as much different.
> While on many routes a car is worse than a small to mid sized airliner if there are less than 3 people in the car.

I never said cars. Cars are terrible. I would not complained if passenger-only cars were banned everywhere.

> Similar for your suggestion that we should take ships over the ocean, because cruise ships are much more polluting per passenger mile than modern airliners.

There are alternatives like wind power + giant batteries. The fact that weight doesn't matter for ships so much (container ships are more efficient than rail, scaling up is equivalent to shrinking the viscosity of water) opens a lot of doors.
It's dependent on jurisdiction. Black box reverse engineering is only required in certain countries. If I remember correctly, most of Europe doesn't require it.
For me, BPF is the most exciting development in the kernel world for ages.

Brendan Gregg, the author of the posted blog entry, works with BPF on observability at Netflix and delivered a keynote at UbuntuMasters 2019. The video is on his blog is a great intro. [0]

I've been watching BPF for a couple of years now, and it seems slow on the uptake, but I hope Gregg is right that people will eventually start writing new drivers, firewalls, observability and security tools, loaded from userspace, but all running safely in a kernel vm, maybe even written in new async-first programming languages.

[0] https://brendangregg.com/blog/2019-12-02/bpf-a-new-type-of-s...
Not only was the cancer he had easily treatable had he done what he needed to do when it was first discovered...

He also bought his way onto the top of a transplant list by buying a home in Tennessee... despite also knowing by this point that his cancer would be terminal and proper treatment would be too late.

It doesn't take much to see how Jobs was truly an astounding piece of shit.
You also get to write a nice detailed commit message for the merge commit explaining the purpose of the branch being merged, which may not be apparent from the individual commits. Without the merge commit I’m not sure where this would go.
What's wrong with the Arctic Code Vault [1]? Is the only problem that they didn't seek your consent? How is it different to deploying a new availability zone and having your public repos accessible on another server? Your code is preserved verbatim, and it's not possible for GitHub to provide their service without the right to make verbatim copies of your code, which presumably you agreed to as part of their ToS.

[1] https://archiveprogram.github.com/arctic-vault/
The product is already dead. It's not just Microsoft that would be violating the license but any company using the application and Microsoft can't shield them.
They’re on the forums. There was a big one just last week with triangle-shaped objects over Shanghai.

Drones have introduced a new era of fake UAPs, and just a general increased skepticism of what’s staged or “legit.”
> These studies, along with tens of thousands of claims against the Air Force for property damage—horses and turkeys had supposedly died or gone insane—led the F.A.A. to ban civil overland supersonic flight, in 1973.

There was also a political part involved. The Concorde was a British-French creation, not a Boeing. Had there been a Boeing supersonic passenger plane first there would probably have been different FAA rules. Especially because military supersonic flight happens every day over US land, was never banned, and causes the same boom.
Just when I thought tweetstorms couldn't get any worse, here's one where every tweet is a quote-tweet of the author. I don't even understand how I'm supposed to read this.

> Copyright has concluded that reading by robots doesn’t count. Infringement is for humans only; when computers do it, it’s fair use.

Surely there's a limit to this. If I use a machine to produce something that just happens to exactly match a copyrighted work, now it's not infringement because of the method I used to produce it? That seems nonsensical, but maybe there's precedent for this too? (I have no idea what I'm talking about.)
I lived in Japan for three years and would always prefer a (classy) hotel. As would most Japanese.
This is true. And I didn't even read your nickname because I don't give a shit about a shmuck who is trying to tell me what I care about :)
I think you may be expecting a little too much from people. While this site and its comment section is a little more mature than say, reddit (full of memes and jokes for the most part), it's also not at a level of something like a professional conference full of PhD's where your comments will be received at the same level as they are given.

From your comments you seem like a very learned individual, possibly with much education, who comments about many different subjects and has much knowledge accumulated in each. Some people may find this off-putting, perhaps even being a bit jealous, because of the breadth of your interests and knowledge.

You have a very extensive vocabulary and your writing style is very organized. You use section dividers: — ⁂ — which, while appreciated to keep things easy to read, might come off as pretentious and trying to show off.

Some comments may come off as racist or biased, while all you're trying to do is engage in discussion and present a different viewpoint.

There is so much to learn in the world, that there is no need to dumb things down for others, no need to fall in line with what the thought-du-jour is on a subject, and no need to be ashamed for wanting to better ourselves in both knowledge and understanding. I feel this way, and I hope you do too.

I personally believe that another community is needed to get to the level of discussion you're after. I would go to that site. But I hope you don't become discouraged and stop posting here. Because even if people don't engage with your comments, or perhaps down-vote you because they feel threatened or put off by what I mentioned above, there are those (like myself) that read things and learn from them. We may not comment much, but we're out there.
wasn't it 'SmartClass' by any chance? I also had a lot of fun killing it during high school
> In 1878, a student called Ferdinand de Saussure proposed that PIE had only one vowel sound "e", and that all other vowel sounds in PIE languages came that single sound.

That's not in perfect agreement with wiki:

> The beginnings of the [laryngeal] theory were proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure in 1879, in an article chiefly demonstrating that a and o were separate phonemes in PIE.

And:
> In the course of his analysis, Saussure proposed that what had then been reconstructed as long vowels ā and ō, alternating with ǝ, was an ordinary type of PIE ablaut. That is, it was an alternation between e grade and zero grade like in "regular" ablaut (further explanations below), but followed by a previously unidentified element. This element accounted for both the changed vowel colour and the lengthening (short e becoming long ā or ō).