skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the food analogy is a very good one: I know how wheat is grown, harvested, turned into flour, and how to create a bread from that. I also know the same about several vegetables and even eggs and chicken. I know that I have a weak spot when it comes to dairy. I know enough about slaughtering cows and pigs that I would not attempt it myself. And I know enough about health and the risk of various parasites, etc. to understand what I need to read up about when it comes to dealing with meat safely.

I also understand very well that I would have a very hard time feeding me and my family alone. But I knew where to start.

If we apply this metaphor to binutils, how many developers even know what ELF or DWARF stand for and how they would have to use them? How many know what an assembler and linker do and how one would approach to get one if needed?
Not when defending a law suit
> If there is a part of the population that is radicalized and hate rhetoric is used that will destabilize any society.

I'm going to point at this as an example of a very traditional, very political example unproductive thinking. One of the lessons people refuse to see in politics is that the people who vote for things they don't like might, potentially, be upset about something. There is a lack of reflection on how rational people might have ended up here.

I know nothing about Hungary. But I am quite confident that a happy, well organised society labouring under the grip of sound economic policies tends not to radicalise very easily. People get radicalised when it becomes obvious that politics as usual is not going to work out well for them. There are cases where the cause is lost and there is an intransigent radical group. Usually there is a long lead up to that of a group who is systemically not having their needs met.

It is totally correct that hate leads to win-lose deals. That seems like a very reasonable option to people if the alternative loving approach is a win-lose deal but with the winners and losers reversed.
That's absolutely true on a political level. I'm not so sure that it would apply to breaches of judicial assurances. British judges are cranky, have a strong sense of the dignity of their office and role, and would personally face no consequences for poking the US authorities in the eye with a stick.
If it can be proven to significantly reduce fatalities, governments will grant extensive liability protections.
Exactly, if a university can't admit its mistakes it shouldn't exist. Such an attitude is antithetical to learning.
I wonder if there exists a Sci-Hub equivalent for ISO standard PDFs somewhere.
StackOverflow became such a hostile place...
I posted a question on serverfault and got such awful awful treatment. I wish so at least I could take back the questions and answers I posted over the years. It really shouldn't belong to such a bad organization. I really feel bad about this.
I wouldn't be very surprised to find that many others share the same feelings.
CXXGraph Library
This ties into an interesting article I read today.

Goes deep on the idea:
“some moral laws might limit pleasure and enjoyment in the short term but in the long term minimize suffering and maximize human fulfillment.”

Like a meta analysis on the societal level. Not an exact science, but an interesting concept in light of the depressing second order effects we see in how our current society operates sexually.

https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin
Hey there Spencer,

This was a really nice looking app and hit the spot for my ADHD brain!

Nice with no recurring payment! Consider me a customer.

-chezuma
I haven't, but I'm unclear why it's relevant given that you don't seem to really be disagreeing!

The NSF denies 80% of grant applications because there is a radical oversupply of people who want to be scientists and the NSF has a finite budget. That by itself doesn't create accountability any more than the fact that lots of people want to be movie stars creates accountability for actors. That's not how accountability works.

Accountability means people being held to account for illegitimate acts. If it existed it would look like this: we (the government) gave you money to deliver some genuine research, yet you delivered a paper that simply modelled your own beliefs, cited a retracted paper and cited another paper that actually disagrees with the claimed statement, used a input dataset too tiny to achieve statistical significance, looks suspiciously P-hacked, you then misrepresented your own findings to the press and by extension the government and then to top it all off it doesn't replicate. We will therefore prosecute you for research fraud and failure to meet the terms of your contract.

What actually happens is this: nothing. Journals will happily publish papers with the problems I just listed, universities praise them, the 'scientists' who do this stuff proceed to get lots of citations and the government proceeds to award even more grant money because who are they to argue with citations.

As you admit, fraud is everywhere in science, supposedly due to "high expectations for results". But so what? Lots of people, non scientists included, have high expectations for results placed upon them. The right mechanisms and incentives to stop fraud are not simply having low expectations of scientists, that's absurd and wouldn't be seriously proposed as a solution in any other area of society. It'd be like saying the answer to fraudulent CEOs fiddling the books is to simply stop expecting them to turn a profit, or like the solution to shoplifting is to just stop expecting shoplifters to pay for things.

Expectations on scientists are already rock bottom: large chunks of the research literature doesn't even seem to replicate, other large chunks are not even replicable by design, and nobody seems to care. You can't get much lower expectations than "We don't even care if your claims replicate" and yet this ridiculous suggestion that the solution to fraud is to give fraudsters even more money keeps cropping up on HN and elsewhere. The solution to fraud is tighter contracts to ensure the rules are clear, and systematic prosecutions of people who break them.
It's a small price to pay for improved safety with respect to memory and concurrency, which is why Rust is being allowed into the kernel. I think we'll see a gradual shift where some corners of the kernel are Rust only and others stay C; with occasional efforts to replace one with the other where that makes sense and where there are enough people to do the work and get it reviewed. Ultimately that's what will drive this: people and their contributions.

If other large code bases where Rust was introduced, e.g. Fuchsia, Firefox, etc. are an indication, we should expect some positive outcomes over time.
And Tesla has its own insurance program already https://www.tesla.com/insurance
That's actually a great point. Ditto for GDocs. I've been pleasantly surprised at how good autocomplete suggestions have been in docs lately.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the vitriol around Copilot stems from five factors that distinguishes it from Google:

(1) The length of the suggestions alongside some of Copilot's marketing demonstrated that perhaps non-trivial replacement of engineers with AI might not be as far-fetched or far away as most people thought. Google's autocomplete has yet to make me feel replaceable.

(2) The content of the training data had a clearer intrinsic commercial value, making perceived license violations feel more 'real'.

(3) GitHub (historically) didn't have the same reputation as Google for training AI models on data uploaded to its free services. People likely (mis)placed some trust in GitHub when they uploaded code, and this backlash is part of the adjustment process.

(4) The indication that Copilot will eventually be a paid commercial service, effectively building a commercial service off the backs of millions of open source developers. While this is perfectly legal and common across all industries, it doesn't feel good.

(5) Copilot spitting out raw training data really doesn't help its image.
> When you offer a service to the general public, you are in a sense attempting to provide a "plug-in" service to society as a whole, and so the terms of that service should be negotiated with society as a whole, including such things as civil rights.

Does this apply to all businesses that offer services? Keep in mind here that the first amendment, in addition to protecting our right to speech, protects our right to association. That is, our right to associate with the people, and only the people, we want to is a civil right that our constitution protects just as much as speech.

If I open a store and let people purchase things, I'm offering a service to the general public. But I'm certainly not "part of the state". One of the primary concerns about the state is that it (usually) has a monopoly on the things that it does, so that if it provides a service, it's the only provider of that service.

But "speech" isn't a service that one can monopolize. Preventing speech can be done via force, but "facilitating speech" isn't monopolizable. If someone won't let you do it, you can do it yourself or find it somewhere else.

> Yes. Nobody can be compelled to offer a service.

But you are compelling me to offer a service! I want to offer the service to paint anything except X. And you say no no! You are additionally compelled to offer the service to paint X. This by the way, gets far more complicated if, for example, my service is...baking cakes. If I offer a universal cake baking service, when can I refuse to bake a cake? Can I refuse all wedding cakes? Can I refuse all cakes above a certain size? Can I refuse all cakes in red? Can I only bake chocolate cakes? Can I refuse to bake cakes for people who have previously given me bad reviews?

> No it does not; it merely prevents them from getting married in the way that they like, which is a different way than the societal norm.

So let's make this concrete. Let's say I ban painting my name. I don't want people to paint it in my house. People can paint anything else, but not my name.

With the marriage example, we generally assume that people are attracted to a particular gender, and aren't really able to change that. Are you suggesting that, similarly, there are people who cannot find happiness without painting my name on my wall?

I mean if that's the case, why is it moral for me to ban them as long as I ban everyone else too? These particular people can't be happy either way.

With marriage, the issue is that you're essentially preventing some group from being able to openly mutually associate in the way that they want to. We can quibble on exactly how much of a freedom to associate or a human right that is, but it sure sounds like a lot more of one than your ability to write my name on my wall.

There's another argument by the way, which is that marriage is a service provided to two individuals, and that providing only heterosexual marriages discriminates based on attributes of those individuals, in exactly the same way as only marrying white people would be discriminatory. This same argument doesn't work for the example of banning speech.
You seem to have a good setup, but if you are looking for a solution to share easily between people, have a look at Metabase.

It works pretty well, if your data lives in a DB hosted somewhere and you only want to plot data that can be derived from SQL queries (potentially from tables produced by nightly batch process), and want to allow different people to look at the data via dashboard.

I used to do all plotting in Pandas etc locally and share them if required. But with Metabase it is easier to share plots, which are also always fresh.

RAWGraphs seems to have a different target audience. Judging by the sponsors, it seems to aim at people who keep their data in Excel and then need a nice plot for a publication or something. So it might be useful as a prototyping tool for scientists who barely code and keep the data they collect in Excel spreadsheets.
Marginalia of Web Design (1996)
I thought that was Twitter
has anyone attempted to create a separate standard yet?
This is exactly what I took from it. He uses the terms "mindfulness" and "Buddhism" interchangeably, but they're not. Buddhism has ways to deal with meditations that "go bad", but mindfulness takes the Buddhism out of the practice.

Mindfulness is not Buddhism.
In every car on the road, it is possible for the driver to take their hands completely off the wheel. The only variable between cars is how long until there are consequences. In most cars, the consequences would be somewhere between immediate and imminent.

In the case of any vehicle with adaptive cruise control and lane centring features, this could be anywhere from many seconds to many minutes.

In the case of a Tesla with Autopilot engaged, no hands on the steering wheel for 30 seconds will—if there haven't been any consequences prior—result in the car turning on the hazards, slow down and then stop.
>Now, there are many logical inconsistencies here, uncovered by the following questions: - What if I replicate the simulation by playing exactly the same session on a second board? There is only one session but now it has two hosts!? Which one does it exist "in"? - How can I claim that I ended a simulated world, when I can't be sure that nobody else is simulating it somewhere else too? - How can I claim to have done a new unique simulation if somebody else might have already done exactly the same in the past?

I dont know why you think that's a gotcha. If I copy the solar system down to the last atom including you and put the copy in another part of the universe, do you suddenly not exist because there's an exact copy of you running elsewhere?
Orban was actively supported by the EU center-right wing parties. Do not assume morality, no one was angry they were in fact joking about it. Actions are reserved for countries with left wing governments. Funniest moment, if it wasn't so tragic for hungary:

https://youtu.be/1hl83Jpd_OI
Large companies will have the ability to lobby for no liability
Taken directly from the copilot product page:

>Tests without the toil. Tests are the backbone of any robust software engineering project. Import a unit test package, and let GitHub Copilot suggest tests that match your implementation code.

Accompanied by a picture of copilot filling out the implementation of a unit test, based on the test's name.

The implication seems very clearly that it is more than a google search. According to the ads, it understands your code well enough to write the unit tests for it!
Ah, I interpreted "corrupt backups aswell" as encrypting them aswell.
Yes, essentially.
This sounds good against external threat actors. How about an inside job? As in several individuals that know how to fast disable all security and have it fast load it in another truck. Then what?
You might want to reevaluate the reasons why you think this is self-evident and where they come from.

It's true that these problems are unavoidable in the current status quo of society but that's almost tautological. The question is why that is, what factors contribute to this and whether we can and should overcome them.

EDIT: To be clear, this does not mean that sex work wouldn't/shouldn't ultimately be abolished, but saying essentially "well, you try to sell sex as a service, so of course you'll be abused and violated" borders on victim blaming and doesn't address the problem anymore than a doctor saying "if it hurts when you touch there, just stop touching there".
You should read Scott Alexander's "Unsong"
I was thinking of this oldie earlier and revisited it. It's still very good advice 25 years later! Plus ça change...
EU botched acquiring vaccine compares to most developed countries by months, in no small part due to the retarded mindset that pharma companies shouldn't profit off of this and trying to renegotiate prices forever (overriding some countries who tried to acquire it individually and would have gotten it faster).

Measures were not dictated by EU, each country decided it's own policy.
Dept of Treasury/FinCEN is involved in enforcing anti-money laundering. The SEC is not (rounding off only slightly).
Incentivise amount of data for open questions. Not "inovativeness" or size of effect.

A system with the wrong incentives will produce bad outcomes.
Keep dreaming. Who's going to advocate for that on your behalf? A politician? An private or public institution complicit n this behaviour?
> 2a. If a $2m ransomware attack hits your organization every 5 years, and it would cost you $1m/year in talent & resources to harden against this, you SHOULD let it happen because it's cheaper. Just patch the vulnerability each time it happens and try to stretch the next ransomeware attack to more than 5 years away.

No, that's just brain cancer banks board directors can opt for.

You simply skipped over customers data bying lost. Oh, insurance give you the money, court settlements will be payed, it's cheap ! For you.

And by not having that "talent & resources" you streach your own business beyound sanity. Like that "new telecoms" breed that do not own any cables or antennas. Just marketing, H&R and finances. And lacking any competence (becouse no infra, what they could possibly do ? :> ) call center. And then they outsorce their finance. And they go down or sell themselves when zefir blows...

Your thinking style promotes egg shell type of business. But it's cheap !
Just how like turning a telescope does not affect the reality of the night sky, you thinking about the world differently does not affect the reality, simulated or not.
This works really nicely with our data munging tool. Just copy your data from Easy Data Transform (after any filtering, joining, cleaning etc) and paste it in. Choose the axes. Graph.
It should be noted that in the introduction to Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, Daniel does say:

> people who do strong and intensive practice can hurt them-
selves and freak out. Just as serious athletes can hurt their bodies when they take a misstep
or push themselves beyond their limits, just so serious mental athletes can strain their minds,
brains, and nervous systems, and strained brains can sometimes function in very strange ways.

> To rewrite the operating system rapidly while it is running doesn’t always go so well in the
short term or occasionally in the long term. Thus, while I will include nearly endless exhorta-
tions to find the depths of power and clarity that you are capable of, I will also add numerous
warnings about how to keep from frying yourself.

> By “frying yourself”, I mean explicitly severe mood instability and psychotic episodes, as
well as other odd biological and energetic disturbances, with some practitioners occasionally
ending up in inpatient psychiatric facilities for various periods of time.
I watched the video linked, that software should not even be rated 'beginner driver' and nearly caused several accidents in the (short) video. What bothers me most is that there were several pedestrians clearly visible that it missed completely on the UI, it does a lot better with other vehicles. It also does not seem to correctly identify people on shared mobility devices (a couple of those electric scooters appear).

This crap should not be in control of a vehicle.
I'm not disagreeing with you and if I had to learn more in depth I'd choose React. I'm just saying that big (non-tech) businesses favour Angular in my experience, same as these companies traditionally favoured Oracle/SQLServer over Postgres.

Thanks for the link
> This is the take away for me

Well, perhaps you haven't read the article; the OP is saying that meditation is dangerous, and that meditation teachers don't warn you of the dangers. Isn't that the opposite of your "take away"?
> the whole doesn't necessarily have the properties of its constituent parts.

This is because the "constituent parts" - members of the organization - are often just terrible human beings that hide behind the concept of an institution to shield themselves from the cognitive dissonance caused by their own unethical actions.

If an institution does something unethical it can always be traced to its employees.

As an example, all the researchers involved in promoting this fake health product ought to be fired and academically blackballed. It really is that simple. That's how we can deal with institutional rot.
"Polak, Węgier, dwa bratanki, i do szabli, i do szklanki."

(Pole and Hungarian — two brothers, good for saber and for glass.)

Some countries in the EU have better relations than others. Czechs and Slovaks, the three Baltic nations, and Poland and Hungary. Things must get really bad before they will stop having each other's back on the international scene.

This is a historical and diplomatic fact that must be taken into account when conflicts arise.
Then he should hand in his license.
What we both said is compatible and consistent. The derived work is restricted by the GPL's provisions. Those restrictions just don't require you to distribute the source on demand unless and until you distribute derivative works to other users.
Yes and no.

They don't pay if you try to generilize before you have a problem.

If you have a frequent use case that follows the same patterns, then you probably can benefit from an abstraction layer.

But trying to build an abstraction layer before even having a use case then yes, it usually doesn't pay off.
Hi Jeremy. Can you describe your knowledge of program synthesis? How long have you been studying the subject? Can you point to some interesting program synthesis work you have read lately?
attic
https://rclone.org/
> Civilizations worth nuking will always have a way to understand each other

Again, we cannot talk to dolphins. Closest we’ve got is teaching monkeys sign language - and to be fair, that’s pretty good, but we’re also very similar to them. My reason for the dolphin analogy is that they’re an intelligent species here on earth that have incredibly different physiology and behavioural patterns to us. We can’t assume that any other ‘intelligent’ species in the universe we find will be similar enough to us where we can figure out rudimentary sign language with them, we have to assume the worst, in this case trying to communicate with an entirely foreign species.

Also the phrase ‘’the dolphin, so far, accept American hegemony - there’s no purpose to nuking them’’ is the funniest thing I’ve read in a while, lol.
20 odd years ago I was travelling from SF to LA on I5 on the Wed evening before Thanksgiving .... there was a semi on fire 100 miles south of us and everything stopped for hours ....

Next to us was one of these trucks fore and aft of it was a big range-rovery thing (not a hummer but close to that class) both were beige/green with big HF antenna on the back .... as everyone got out of their cars to stretch and pee on the side of the road the guys in those vehicles got obviously antsy .....
The other way around: It shows that I always exists, independent of the number of observing copies (even if it is 0). Basically: There are only weak pointers and no strong pointer, yet it never gets deallocated or was ever allocated to begin with.
What do you want the EU to do? Kick Hungary out?

EU offers a lot to the Hungarian people in terms of travel, freedom of business, employment etc. In 10 years Orban likely will be gone. In the long run the liberal values of Europe will prevail.
Hmm I guess I don't understand the point of the whole thing, but if they pitch "one million experiences per second" (whatever that means), they should better show some videos on the start page that have more than a few dozen dynamics objects in them.
Related:
https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin
> What if I replicate the simulation by playing exactly the same session on a second board?

...then you have two simulations...? How is this a "logical inconsistency?"

Your post is confusing to me—I couldn't detect any actual objections or issues with the simulation hypothesis in it.