skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This research is awe inspiring in its brilliance. The fact that humans had this perverse reaction to it is absolutely fascinating to me. And it is in a service to a greater cause.

I am happy that this work was done. We need to do more!

edit: This comment is positive on purpose. The default pessimism in these comments is unwarranted. And the research has a lot of potential. Some foreseeable. Some not.

For e.g., A lot of comments are making remarks such as, "it just shows male blood is detrimental to pregnancy." However, this isn't what the research shows.

The research demonstrates that certain proteins are required to sustain the pregnancy. That's a fairly remarkable insight. Isolating these proteins, specifying them, and then attempting to measure the precise amounts of these should help to reduce miscarriages of intentional pregnancies in our species.

That's an amazing development. It's a useful model with significant applications.
You'll feel right at home in Nim, then, where "$" is the "convert to string" operator - "$x" means "a string formatted version of x" regardless of x's type.
If limits are continually being tested, is it a healthy relationship in the first place?
Synonyms for audacity… Balls-Studio?
Encrypted Speech Recognition Using Deep Polynomial Networks
In fact there are many counter examples. Thalidomide had no negative effects on non-human animals, but created notoriously deformed children in humans. Similary, I think it was paracetamol which when tested on some non-human animal is 100% lethal, and had they tested on those species then this common, essential medicine would never have progressed to the human trial stage. A classic case is the link between lung cancer and smoking. Millions of dollars of public money went to the big tobacco companies in the name of "cancer research". Dispite being able to induce lung cancer in dogs by restraining them and forcing the to chain smoke for hours on end, these were not the results they wanted. IIIRC, it took research with human volunteers before the scientific consensus that we have today came about because the "animal models" did not represent human physiology.
If we really want to use the term "Ponzi scheme" this way, shouldn't we declare:

- national debt is Ponzi scheme

- social security is Ponzi scheme

- everything involve complex finial instruments is Ponzi scheme

So basically claiming something is Ponzi scheme means almost nothing.
Yes, definitely. Travel blogs about Japan (travel blogs in general?) are usually pretty cringey for exactly that reason. It takes some time and experience to know what is unique about a culture, and what is simply the normal service/tourist mode of interaction.

I try not to judge, since I'm sure that I had the same experience the first time, and it's part of what makes it fun to travel there. But I'm also not really reacting to the sincerity of the authors' amazement, as much as their lack of self-awareness when writing things like "this is the best hotel in Japan", when their sample size is clearly pretty small.
I wonder if GPT-3 will get some pressure from this to become open source or at least lower their prices if they want to remain competitive.
Why would they? They just go to a competing supermarket chain instead.
Those offended by this, do you see this as worse than how most animals for eating are treated? Essentially, a short time of harsh torture vs years of less harsh torture. If you do, is one okay because it’s for cheap food and the other is only for science?

I tried to phrase this as non-offending as possible, so please treat this like a serious question.
> Right now just end up with a bunch of sterilized guy/girls and that's not useful for anyone.

People's worth and validity are not measured by their ability to produce offspring. This isn't even specifically a transgender issue.
> OSS should have opt-in error reporting only.

I'm curious what's different about OSS in this regard?

I thought this was an argument about the user's privacy, so what does it matter how the software was built?

Also a sidenote: this whole thread feels quite pedantic and counterproductive to me. Sentry is an error reporting tool that helps solve issues in software, the alternative is your software having many, many more bugs that never get fixed. It's not used for tracking or "spying".

I feel that blowing your stack about a tool like this weakens your argument against true privacy invasions. It trains people to stop listening because we whine about things that are not actually a problem.
I'm not sure any of that is relevant, especially immigration. All it means is that supply is roughly in line with demand. Nothing more, nothing less. When supply is in line with demand, the cost of housing approaches the cost of construction.
Sometimes I wonder if Chinese scientists are going to make scientific advances that Western scientists won't, due to weaker ethical constraints enabling them to perform experiments that Western scientists can't, or lesser regulations enabling them to get the same experiments done faster and cheaper.
Why would that reasoning apply only to certain animals and not others? If it's okay to be cruel to rats for the service of the greater good, then why not dogs, apes or dolphins? Why not humans? Where and how do you draw the line?
That infrastructure spend is too low. Steel and Concrete and buried utilities have a life. Many of the towns are up for significant capital investment beyond 10% maintenance. The spend is on 50s, 60s and 70s capex. It's getting old.

Surely, on the risk side the estimated repair and replacement costs for bridges alone could drive a truck through this?
Some commenters in the GitHub thread have pointed out that this license requires audacity to ban people 13 or under from using the app for privacy/consent reasons. This means that it’s not usable for education now, and also that audacity is in violation of the gpl. However, as the copyright owners, does that matter? How does that work?
Printnightmare critical vulnerability in Windows systems
Yet another short-sighted techno-optimist that can't be bothered to look beyond his own lifespan. Biological systems grow exponentially until they reach the brink of starvation. More efficient farming methods mean more carrying capacity, which is to be rapidly filled up by exponentially more mouths to feed. Until all of Earth is covered with solar collectors on top of fermentation vats, turning every sip of available energy into soylent to feed the trillions of people that the new technology enabled. Mercifully(!) it all crashes down and low efficiency life with its glorious diversity may return.

Hunger is never solved by technology, it's merely pushed into the relatively near future. Decades, centuries at best. Hunger solving futurists should deeply ponder this chart: https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#world-pop...

* 10,000 BCE: 4M

* 0 AD: 190M

* 1700 AD: 600M

* 1800 AD: 1B

* 1928 AD: 2B

* 1975 AD: 4B

* 2011 AD: 7B

Doubling every 50 years until 20,000x carrying capacity reached, rough estimates.

* 2050 AD: 10B

* 2100 AD: 20B

...

* 2400 AD: 1T

...

* 2750 AD: 200T

If the technology in the article pans out, as of early 2000s, we are about as close to a mindbendingly dystopian 200T population as we are to Magna Charta. Please stop.
Yes, the stack of papers at my desk with random scribbles are a far cry from a verified proof written in lean. There is lots behind a proof that you don't necessarily see reflected in a piece of code/proof. So I agree, something formal is like a final step.
> Why are rat rights a thing at all?

Because it's unethical to cause unnecessary suffering. If rats experience suffering, then we should not cause them suffering as much as reasonably possible. We wouldn't want advanced aliens to treat us like we treat rats in experiments, just because we're smarter than rats.
The Phoenix Checklist for Framing a Problem and Its Solution
Perhaps, the system should report two numbers: the % usage of the CPU overall resources and the % usage of the throttled resources.

There is no constraint that one has to use only one number. Perhaps, in 2021, CPUs are complex enough to deserve more than one number to give a useful representation of utilization, as it works with all sorts of factories/plants.
Also, who would love to see in the metrics reported CPU usage per core?
Is Bad Writing Necessary?
TuneFork natch.
They're saying it can go over 1(00%) per core.
Ponzi scheme is being used as another term for a system that needs exponential growth to keep working.
For an absurd definition of the word ethics, maybe. It's thinly veiled corporate ass covering pretending at ethics, at best.

Anyway, It's not quite good enough at coding to prompt an intelligence explosion, and the resources to run it are rarified enough to prevent most worst scenario abuses. However, if it becomes more efficient, accessible, and capable, all those weird AI threats are likely to be a lot more relevant. Moores law alone means the next couple decades will be exciting.
The Trabant bodywork was made of Duroplast[0], a thermosetting resin plastic reinforced with cotton waste from the Soviet Union.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duroplast
> Thalidomide had no negative effects on non-human animals, but created notoriously deformed children in humans

That's not actually true; it causes birth defects in animals as well. Only limited animal testing was performed before it was approved for use in humans; more extensive animal testing, which did demonstrate birth defects, was performed only after it had been withdrawn due to causing human birth defects.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12677202/
The greater good is the slipperiest slope in the history of slippery slopes. Plus, this only "applies" if you are a utilitarian. The same rationale was used by the Nazi Scientists and the Japanese Unit 751 during WWII to justify psychopathically sadistic human experiements on POWs.

Sentient beings do not want to be brutally experimented on. This self-selecting industry of sociopaths belongs in the 19th century.
this isn't particularly crazy technology that no one will be able to manufacture. Once you field it everyone else will copy it. From a benefit perspective you benefit from fielding it, but also controlling the patent in other countries where you can license/sell it to orgs you approve.

Enemy countries will always violate your patents and make their own, so might as well extract maximum benefit while you can.
Every remote could have its own list of "revs that were on branch". Gitlab, or whatever is your server of choice, would then automatically record this on merges. Most code review tools already has this information stored in their databases outside of git.

It would need to be transferred on the side and not in the commits themselves to not rewrite commits in case of merges from other remote. Similar to tags, but instead of only pointing to single commit it could be a list, let's call them labels. Git log would then add option like --labeled-by=origin/merged-on-master
It's repulsive and horrible to the rats. We wouldn't want it done to us.
Its not just anti-road. Its non-dense development. The more spread out services the more resources it takes to maintain them.

The fact of the matter is that we've been accumulating "debt" to build suburbs by ignoring the costs of C02 emmisions and letting the gov subsidise construction w/o plans for upkeep

You should watch (Growth Ponzi Scheme)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0] from not just bikes
Run it under a different user and firewall that user off from network access.
Stop Using JWT for Sessions (2016)
The idea that if I feel like it I can just go walk up to a court and claim to be a dead person and they just have to accept it if I get someone to vouch for me is silly.

Sure it's easy, I'll give you that. The identity thieves would have a heyday cleaning out estates and running up credit until someone made it difficult again to assume someone else's identity.
So is it a good shave or a bad shave?
In "Thinkertoys," Michael Michalko describes "The Phoenix Checklist" as a rich set of questions developed by the CIA designed to help agents look at a challenge from many different angles. Michael Machalko introduces the "Phoenix Checklist" in Chapter 14 (entitled "Phoenix") of his book Thinkertoys. It's a book well worth reading for renewing your creative juices; it offers a rich set of techniques to pick and choose from for creative problem framing and solving.

This post includes the checklists for "Framing the Problem" and "Defining the Plan/Solution" along with additional thoughts for how entrepreneurs can apply it to challenges they may be facing in their startup.
Would you support experiments on live humans?
not really. They mostly showed that male blood interferes with normal female pregnancy. They could have done this through less invasive, more precise means, like transfusion, which would have allowed them to select precisely what part of male blood they would add back in.
> Why are rat rights a thing at all?

Because when one is disproportionately powerful, it's one's responsibility to maintain high standards of ethics. It's the burden of being powerful. This almost fetish way of thinking about knowledge is wrong. Just because one can do something that will benefits does not mean it should be done, let's try to have a larger circle of empathy.

This research does not provide any life saving or (afaik) improving knowledge, what gives us the right to mess with another living being just because of curiosity?

Edit: wrong word used
I don't agree with his phrasing, but I am sure that some trans people would like to have children.
Soviet Venus Images (2004)
That doesn't seem like a good reason as long as there are children who
need adoption and foster care.
> Does it weaken copyright? Like I mentioned, it seems like it's probably allowed under existing law.

Yes it does. It is legally allowed, but in the past it was much more difficult to code launder, or copy things, in the way that an AI would do it.

Something becoming easier to do, has an effect, even if it was legal in the past.

> what is a better way of promoting progress

More technologies like this, that allow better sharing of code and information. It reduces the barrier to entry to creating content, thus causing more of it to be made.

> If you were to tell me that such rights should be curtailed

You have it reversed. Rights do not need to be curtailed, to enable these tools. Instead I am advocated for the production of these tools to be done for the purpose of curtailing these rights. The causation is reversed.

The rights should be "curtailed" through the process of tools that allow people to easily get around the law, and to make the law unenforceable. Changing laws is much harder than making the law irrelevant.

We don't need to change any laws, if we just make it impossible for laws to be enforced.

It is kind of like how bittorrent undermined copyright laws. No laws needed to be changed, for piracy to become rampant and unpunishable. (And don't even try to challenge me on this point, that piracy is effectively unenforceable these days. If you do, I'll just go watch the lastest episode of some marvel show, for free, right now, lul)
If you read the article, the controversy is because other scientists are arguing there is nothing learned here that is applicable elsewhere. In essence, it’s torture without any purpose or benefit to society.

Cruelty in animal farming is bad, but it does serve to feed human populations.
Thanks for the article/interview. I am intrigued to find Peter Scholze’s own words calling this a “human experience”.

https://xenaproject.wordpress.com/2021/06/05/half-a-year-of-...

This is actually a great article that helps to show that humans are still very much involved in convincing each other, using machines to aid to that effect.

Regarding downvotes, you can’t even downvote someone you’ve replied to or they’ve replied to you on Hacker News.
In case you're interested, this is the post I was thinking about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27032828

The application itself is called "Sudowrite". I guess there are probably a bunch of them at this point.
I don't agree that the network effect in CDNs is so huge. Instead of consolidating, I think the CDN market is slowly fracturing. 10 years ago, there was only one workable CDN for most: Akamai (founded 1998). Now there is Cloudfront (launched 2008), Cloudflare (founded 2009), Fastly (founded 2011) and a long tail of others. It takes some years for a new CDN to sign big corporate contracts but the trend seems to be toward more CDNs and a number have been founded recently.

It is easier than ever for them to get started because they can begin by piggybacking on one of the existing CDNs. Eventually they will build their own network of POPs (local caches). I also don't think you need as many POPs now to build a saleable CDN as in the past - there is some fraction of the market for which as low as 5 POPs might be ok.
> And it is in a service to a greater cause.

Which is?

The argument presented by scientists in the article is that they don’t believe it offers anything useful.
There's an ongoing and growing debate regarding the ethics of uterus transplantation ("UTx") and specifically male UTx, and it's hard not to read this study in that light - that the eventual goal of this research is its application to human beings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6821981/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15532739.2019.1...

Uterine transplant offers the same promise of a solution for males or trans individuals wishing to gestate a child as it does for genetic females with UFI. Nevertheless, the Montreal Criteria require that the recipient be a genetic female. This warrants both justification and discussion. To date, only female recipients have been used in animal and human trials of uterine transplant. There are many interesting yet daunting theoretical medical issues concerning uterine transplant with a nongenetic female recipient, including the creation of adequate uterine vascularization de novo, the necessity for appropriate hormone replacement to sustain implantation and pregnancy, and the placement of the uterus in a nongynecoid pelvis.

Personally I think society needs to draw a line, somewhere. It's becoming harder to define where that line should be, but this ghoulish commodification of our bodies with its prerequisite torture of countless helpless animals is just not something I can accept as moral. How many tens of thousands of rats and chimps will we need to torture and kill for the patented FDA-approved $5 million male UTx procedure with expected multi-billion annual revenue? In the future will the rich post instagram celebrations of their purchase of a transplanted "surrogate" uterus from a female in need of the money?

The transhumanist dream of designer human bodies may eventually be inevitable, but if this is the cost we have to pay to pursue that dream with today's primitive technology, that cost is too high.
Transplanting a uterus to a genetic male was done many years ago, to a human, voluntarily, and of course it didn't work. This was prior to modern gender reassignment surgery.

Given the context that this experiment supposedly achieved something humans have wanted enough to risk their lives for, for quite some time, it seems like an astonishing accomplishment.

I, personally, would not trade these rats lives for a uterus, but I don't feel like I can decide for the rest of humanity.

There also must be an awful lot of research that's gone into fertility treatments in the past, was that justified, when it wasn't about the "unnatural" goal here?
And by “fair share” you mean even proportionally more of their income than yours. Because aside from some people living purely off of cap gains, the doctors/lawyers/engineers/small business owners already pay more absolute values and more percentage values than the lower and middle class.
Is there any evidence that karma is real and/or isn’t made up concept to cope with naturally unjust world? Or is world not unjust? (Not joking. I don’t mutilate animals, neither do things that someone could call really unethical, but ethics itself always felt so synthetic to me. Nature is not ethical, it is very unceremonious for no “good” reason.)
No, I've just never heard rebasing a branch described as "setting up a fast-forward merge." It implies doing something very different to me from a straightforward rebase, though with this elaboration I can see how you could describe it that way.
> It's like that Russian experiment that decapitated a dog, connected it so that blood was recirculating through its brain, and then let it wake up.

A side point, but that Russian dog experimentation is so creepy. I remember watching a video of it on youtube I think, and even while knowing it was all genuine footage, was in absolute stunned disbelief at what I was watching - thinking that it had to be fake.
This is also a form of evolution, just one that prevents the corporate income tax from being eliminated in favor of something more efficient and fair.
Digital Violence: How the NSO Group Enables State Terror
FedEx agrees, that's why it ended its relationship with Amazon.
I think if more people knew about the realities of animal testing and experimentation, they would be slightly less barbaric.
Somebody linked this on Reddit: https://github.com/binaergewitter/audiocity

> Audacity fork without any non-free software or telemetry, as all GPL software should.
Interestingly, spoken Catalan and spoken Portuguese also use -u as ending, while -o is written.
When you need to report errors from offline product, you create a dump file, zip it, and ask user to send it if he wants the problem investigated
File creation can be done automatically as a segfault handler for example
Should the mentally disabled have rights? Let the scientists study their stuff! /s
> I wasn’t aware that Audacity had been acquired by The Muse Group recently.

Am I the only one who thinks this the bigger scandal? An open source project sold to a company?
>Sentient beings do not want to be brutally experimented on

This is obviously false, because transplanting a uterus to a genetic male was done on a human, voluntarily, long before this experiment.
Sentry is a crash/error reporting system, not sinister in itself.
in my case, for "When the lockdown is over, I will"

Result

When the lockdown is over, I will drive into the suburbs. I have not seen my family for over two months. It is the first time we have been together for more than a month. The opportunity is more than a welcome change from the isolation of quarantine.

In the first days of lockdown, many of us were taken aback when we realised that the familiar streets we walk every day and that we have seen from a distance for the last two months, now cannot be reached. It is odd, looking out of the windows of my apartment that used to be the starting point of my morning walks, to see the back of a view I take on a daily basis.

I am no longer the first in line as I used to be at the market, waiting for my turn to pay for what I want and exchange pleasantries with my colleagues. Now, I am the last in line, standing in an almost deserted supermarket for a few seconds before I realise I am no longer needed.

At some point, we will be able to open our doors again. But for the time being, the call to social distancing is still the most effective way to curb the spread of coronavirus. Now, the calls for people to be more open are more of a necessity than a choice.
Change itself is speeding up. We are going to zoom through the hive era and jump straight into AI era, where 99%, if not more, of the heavy lifting will be done by the machines. The centaur era is rather close ahead. Beyond that, the hope is there will be some room left for humans, but I won't take a long term bet.
Add bikeability. Anything to help getting people out of their car. There's something perverse about people using vehicles weighing 20x their own weight to move around such distances, where a vehicle weighing 1/5 their weight will do. Not to mention the ease of parking a bike.