skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh yeah I could tinker forever, it's an amazing dataset that I think needs more attention from the ML community. Glad to see the working team at https://www.ecfr.gov/ finally making their search better, as Cornell Law has been the defacto go to forever (for me at least).

I think an amazing eCFR search experiment would be transformer vectors in a graph, using the hierarchy, citations, and references as edges to (sub)paragraph and section nodes - perhaps even using a modified HNSW somehow. The graph that exists there now isn't leveraged enough.

Per this dataset itself, I already output to Vespa formatted JSON (as noted in https://github.com/maxdotio/ecfr-prepare )...and the resulting vectors from the inference get appended to the original JSON doc as a field.

I have a Vespa schema hat I need to upload (that doesnt include the vector field yet but can be added using the Vespa vector search walkthroughs). It's been a busy day but I'll quickly try to find a place to put it for now :)

--EDIT-- Pushed the schema to the above repo, and some bash. You'll need Docker and to follow the Vespa MSMARCO instructions first at https://docs.vespa.ai/en/tutorials/text-search-semantic.html to get used to the engine.
Slack actually pops a dialog when you message @channel or @here.

Message says, e.g.:

Using @here pings everyone in the channel who's currently online.
It's a bit noisy! Are you sure you want to send this?

[Edit Message] [Send]

Of course it doesn't always help!
Can you not programmatically claim "Human Ownership", like as long as you don't have to be physically present I think you can still achieve what you are saying.

I guess what is really "human ownership", maybe i will have to read the article :)
Do you not see the irony that as a user of their free software you completely missed the point of their post that is basically saying, the people using my software are asking so much and giving so little that I'm burning out?
Yes, the legal structure is dumb. We as a nation traded quality for standardization and accessibility. Poor choice, in my opinion. I'd rather have fewer, riskier, smaller, beautiful buildings than the mass-produced, nondurable, ugly, no-risk construction we have today; and same with education.
I'll admit, the project started out as a strange search to find the latest Linux distro that would run reasonably on a 486. That's why the Slack 11 hard drive image is provided - it's the result of my search. However, hearing a floppy drive churn and realizing a boot loader is short made the conjunction in my head click: OMG my daughters need to understand this!

I also admit that Slack 11 is my own personal opinion given hardware constraints. Others have performed a similar search.
You can block specific users and you can temporarily limit all interactions if getting spammed.
There simply has to be limits to this though, because if there were not, the materials would eventually become (relatively) free.

Think of it this way, if the value of output grows too many magnitudes over the inputs, then essentially the input becomes free, which violates intuition, because those resources are scarce. If the resources are free to me, I will buy them all and raise the price.

Arguing otherwise to me is an indication that you think either the material in question is not actually scarce, or else you realize there is actually a limit to how much value the economy can derive from those resources, but fail to reach the logical conclusion that there is a limit to economic growth.
This is excellent, a future where you could use algorithms to generate works of art and profit massively by selling them would be even worse for artists than today's art/entertainment world.

Unfortunately it's not clear to me whether this is a ruling that a work created using an algorithm can't be copyrighted (which would be ideal) or if it's just about not listing the algorithm as the "author", which is so obvious it's incredible someone actually spent money trying to litigate it.
Controlling Resource Limits with Rctl(8) in FreeBSD
This person is more than OK. They're learning how to set boundaries and not let crappy people bother them.

Open Source will eat your soul if you let it. Low effort drive by issues, questions, or comments are crushing. On my humble project, something like 40% of people who open issues completely ignore the issue template, which means every. single. conversation. begins with asking for the bare minimum of details needed to even help them. Then you've got PRs with literally zero info, which you're expected to spend time reviewing / understanding.

Some people will even violate the Github boundary and email you directly to ask why their issue isn't being responded to, or why their PR isn't getting merged, or whatever. Honestly? Fuck these people.

OP is spot on.
I'm glad you find it approachable :) Definitely, WorkOS has more of an enterprise focus which is also important - we are more focused on early stage startups today.
> [T]he Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author. The crucial question is “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, REPORT TO THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS BY THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 5 (1966).

This is probably the right call, though it will become increasingly urgent in the future to evolve the rules to consider the nuances of new cases that will certainly arise.
Would something like headscale (https://github.com/juanfont/headscale) solve that concern?
Survivor in 2000, American Idol in 2002, The Bachelor in 2002, The Amazing Race in 2001. That always felt to me like when they found their "reality game show" formula that was then replicated off of those base archetypes into the entire rest of the genre. So mid-aughts does feel about right for when the explosion happened.

The more pure reality shows like original Real World or COPS seem more like ancestors than anything and didn't spawn as much of an immediate copy cat proliferation. Real World if anything morphed to be more like those later incarnations.
Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
The preference of the developer doesn't feed into your decision to contact them? What if the repo readme says "this is provided as-is, I don't offer support"?
Economic growth? Of course there are limits, considering the audience here, anyone who’s studied CS at the most basic level should treat this as self-evident.

The only reason why we are having this discussion, literally a fifth into the 21th century, is the barrage of propaganda around economics, usually packaged around empty slogans like “zero sum”, “comparative advantage”, “free markets”, etc. (the list is endless).

The fact that anyone even asks this question seriously, reveals their deep delusion about how reality actually works.

(Just to be clear, general economic activity does not entail the same limitations as when you restrict that activity to growth)
Like humanity, AI can't be black and white. It has to have subtleties, idiosyncrasies, situational awareness, context, subtle cues, body language, etc

Baking in these is a hard problem, of course, but worth the challenge if it means we don't get another M$ sponsored Tay Bot[0] on our hands.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot)
> I'm wondering - did you search Amazon India for "brain cancer" in English?

Yes.

> What happens if you search the same term in Hindi?

No results specifically about brain cancer, but books about the brain and books about cancer. Some of them are selling quack cures for cancer, which while concerning is nothing like what OP described
I had a very similar experience with running open source projects. I was getting frustrated with people not contributing in any significant way. Functionally useless bug reports. Coding bootcamp students submitting PRs that did nothing but change some grammar in the README (and never actually changing it correctly). Feature requests for things I had explained in several other issues that I would never do. Requests for support in setting up other people's software.

But if people are contacting me about my project, they must be using it, right? Isn't that the point? Can't I just ignore the noise? What's the problem?

I eventually realized my motivations for developing open source software were rooted in vanity. Just making programs is something I do all the time, I find it very rewarding. But the part about open sourcing it, that was the vanity.

Before opening the project, nobody else was contributing anything to it, either. After opening it, all that changed was that my expectations for how people would react to it were not met. Expecting people to want to use my software in exactly the way I wanted was a hell of a lot of arrogance. Those people who were requesting features, they weren't "wrong", they just wanted different software. More like a service that did the things my software could enable, rather than building things with my software.

I don't write the software to get rich or escape a dead-end job. I used to have that fantasy, but nowadays life is pretty happy, and I also have realized the fantasy was always a myth, anyway. So in the end, the difference between writing software and writing open source software is nothing more than me wanting recognition for the thing I created; aka a vain search for glory.

I didn't like that view of myself, so I stopped opening my software.
> Practically, Go (and libmill) allow buffered channels so that you only block if the channel's buffer is full.

Go also allows rendezvous channel (channels with an empty buffer, so either side can only proceed when the other arrives: the actual message exchange is synchronous).
There were SGI workstations in the late 1990s-early 2000s with the equivalent of a full computer cluster inside; the IRIX operating system running on them managed to expose a single-system programming model where a single global address space and shared-memory support was provided by software, abstracting away the separate per-node RAM in the cluster.

Linux is still quite far from doing anything like that, though container support provides a required foundation for any such feature, and is already paving the way for intermediate steps such as process checkpointing and migration across hosts.
I think by "adding encryption", they mean using mTLS internally. Your application can request that the client authenticate the connection by presenting a certificate, your application then applies whatever validation it wants before allowing that session to do anything. If someone were to compromise Tailscale, they can open a TCP connection to your application, but your application will then reject the connection because it doesn't trust the certificate. That's "zero trust" as I understand it.

This is the direction I'd like to see networking go in general. Everything can have a public IP, but applications won't talk to anything that's unauthenticated. No more VPCs, VPNs, "kubectl port-forward", jumpboxes, etc. In practice, this is a colossal pain that nobody really knows how to do right. It requires rewriting all existing software, a secure way of issuing certificates (ideally not controlled by the cloud provider that runs your applications), and it can very easily fail open.

(I do mTLS for my personal projects, but my cloud provider can easily issue themselves a trusted cert and use that to poke around if they really wanted to. They own the machines that my CA runs on, so they are the root of trust. At some point, what you end up with is something that feels correct, but is in practice the same thing as just trusting Tailscale. The first 99% of security is making sure some rando on the Internet can't download your HR database and secret plans for world domination. The remaining 99% of security is making sure the NSA can't do that. Maybe you're OK with the NSA mucking about with your internal network, and in that case, you can save yourself a lot of trouble.)
That's a small step in the right direction. Reducing the protection period to something sane would be nice too, but that's probably hoping for too much.
How does this affect GitHub Copilot? They used to claim that their AI can create new IP and transfer it to the users.
> So not the government.

The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its board is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It's the government.

Politicians sometimes like to pretend it's not so they don't get blamed for unpopular choices.

> It doesn't set the interest rates on treasury bonds. They set a target and engage in the market to get the price to that level

That's what setting interest rates means.

> Definitely not!

Where do you think coins and federal reserve notes come from?
I'm going to spare a long explanation for you, but calling Ukrainians who refer to one another as "banderivets" and naming streets after Bandera "support for Nazis" is almost, if not entirely, equal to calling American Blacks who refer to one another as "nigga" "support for racism and slavery".
> how is it actually falling into it's surface? Is it just tunneling into contact?

Kinda sorta. As fsh responded elsewhere in the thread, the difference between the antiproton and an electron is that the antiproton can annihilate with one of the protons in the helium nucleus (since it's an exact antiparticle of the proton, whereas an electron is not). The probability of this annihilation happening per unit time depends, roughly speaking, on how much the antiproton's wave function overlaps with the wave function of the protons in the nucleus, which in turn depends on which orbital the antiproton is in. But the overlap will be nonzero in any orbital, which means that this configuration is kind of like a radioactive atom: the question is not whether it will decay--eventually it will--but how long it will take on average. The "half-life" of the antiproton configuration in this experiment was on the order of microseconds, which is quite long for an antiproton.
This gets a lot of press along with the Millennium Challenge 2002 thing where Lt. Gen. Van Riper pissed off a lot of people by breaking rules. But the counter-point is that it wasn't testing rule breaking, it was trying to test that these new network-centric concepts worked as intended.

It's like trying to fix edge and corner cases when you haven't even gotten it working at scale in prod.

Likewise, exercises are often designed to teach concepts or serve as an rough exam / test for personnel. Trick questions are great, but sometimes you have to see if they can do the fundamentals, and going off-script doesn't help.
That feature used to be in Coda. It’s hard for me to understand why it isn’t higher up the list or already implemented.
Yes, this makes perfect sense if we assume everything has a fixed value over time. If you trade one pig now in exchange for two later, obviously more work will need to be done to raise two compared to what was originally done to raise one. However once you introduce currency into the equation the nominal value is de-coupled from actual value of goods. I think that's what GGP is getting at: doesn't inflation provide exactly the escape hatch where you can nominally charge interest but still not have true economic growth?
Yes, there are many parallels with Duets we can look at Sarus as a productized version of it.

There are some differences though:
- we designed for the trusted curator model where Duet is mostly for federated learning tasks in mind
- the privacy policies are based on principles (such as: "DP-outputs with epsilon < 2 can be shared", "DP-synthetic data can be shared", or "weights of ML models can be shared"), then the gateway applies the principles to any query, whether it is a SQL query, an ML model or else. In Duet, it's all about manual validation of given queries.
If we put aside get-rich-quick options, if they are breaking even, for some value of breaking even, then why not?.. But you're right it doesn't seem to be sustainable long term with a wealth of free options available.
You can see how his shoulder isn't moving, only his head on that still body.
Yes this is annoying, I ignore all 5 and 1 star ratings
This is misleading. The copyright office simply needs the work to be registered under a human name, since a machine or AI cannot hold copyright. The process used to create it is irrelevant.
I think you are correct. While many articles discuss Russian soldiers or fighters, the only articles I could find that provided more detail did indicate that they were indeed mercenaries.
> My understanding is the broken window theory relates to destruction and rebuilding and not opportunity cost. I don't think building a new stadium is analogous to breaking a window.

Both versions exist independently. AFAIK the one intended to illustrate the fallacy of "Anything that increases GDP must be good!" is the older, by far.

The reductio-ad-absurdum version is that the glazier putting his sons or apprentices up to going out and smashing windows must be a net benefit for society...
> Pick a population growth rate

0%. Many developed economies are already below replacement. No reason to expect population growth to continue forever.
@dang needs to bust out his prior submission script here. libmill and libdill has been posted a lot on Hacker News.
Yeah... that was there when they launched it if I recall correctly. Oh well
With this and the now $15.49/mo fee increase, I'm getting ready to churn. One foot out the door.
The trouble with option three is that the only was to stay at this salary level is to stay in the world of big tech companies, and 90% of my unhappiness is because I'm at a huge company.

I'd love it if I could find a 20-person startup that could match my current salary, but that's just not very likely.
> I can spend a fair amount of money on this.

A charter flight would be your best bet. NYC to Paris will run you about $60-70k, that can accomodate about a dozen passengers so the cost goes down dramatically if you can find some people to share the flight (and the cost). Take a train to your final destination. If you bring friends or family with you, they can help with the luggage at this point. Bring as many pets or suitcases as you like - just inform the airline in advance. It'll be a very memorable experience too!

Many airlines allow small-medium pets on board, but unfortunately at 23kg (= 50 lbs) your dog is likely too big for that.
Economics was literally invented by man. It is a social science although economists will deny this even under pain of torture.
I cannot imagine chipmakers blocking roads and burning cars though.
None of your proposals truncate a Unicode string to the first 63 characters. Go and Rust are at least honest about this. Ruby lies about what you're indexing and makes you pay O(n) to do it. (And no, that's not the way you're "supposed to" truncate to a codepoint offset in Go, but it's also true that there's no function to do it in the standard library - in part because that's rarely what you really want to do and it would get abused to do such.)

> When you're handed a string you can generally assume it's been parsed and validated under that character set

But it might not have been. It's a weakass guarantee, the same Go gives you, except in Go it's UTF-8-or-garbage, vs. Ruby's could-be-anything-and-could-still-be-garbage.
> Air isn’t made by human industry nor is it for sale

None of this matters. The core of my point is that the price of storing THING is not always tied to the cost of using THING.

Air is free but bottling the whole atmosphere would be frighteningly expensive. There are many places in the world with the ability to produce more energy than they consume but still have blackouts. In 2020, the price of crude oil was negative.

Air, electricity, crude oil, and many others are not free to store. Air is currently essential yet free because one asshole cannot store it all.
It seems clear to me that modern "AI" Devices and algorithms are not "Persons". The copyright office would surely have accepted it if he had put down "Creativity Machine" as the /medium/, but the author is a legal person or persons (incl. pseudononymous persons, such as corporations [1]) . What would it mean to assign the copyright to "Creativity Machine"? It can't make any decisions or enter into binding legal contracts. Law is by and for persons, and there's been no movement to grant Personhood to the very limited constructs we're calling "AI" right now. I will be first in line to argue for Personhood for actual artificial intelligence, but this ain't it.

[1] This is my personal pet peeve - "Corporate Personhood", like explored in "Citizens United", means that corporations are pseudononyms for a group of people, and if it would be legal an individual to do, it's legal for a corporation unless the law specifically prohibits it.
Invalid SSL on WPengine—can someone who saw it briefly summarize?
> I guess modern CPU sockets have fixed that.

Kinda. All that's stopping you from inserting a Ryzen CPU wrong way around is a 0.3mm copper pin that exists in one corner, but not the other. So there's still that worry of, "should I force it because it needs a bit of force, or should I not force it because I'll break it?" I think Core CPUs are the same way.
> an entity must do business in any given foreign country

Here's some examples: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/23/us-states-use-anti-boyco...
> Free trials work, I guess!

They reduce the sand in the gears, for sure.

Same with educational material, especially if it useful beyond the service providing it. (See Digital Ocean's playbook, including their purchase of CSS Tricks.)

> It's not that we needed the $25, but if I had to talk to finance and get authorization first, we would never have gone with it.

This is it, this is the truth!

Every single developer tooling company should have this tatooed on their collective forehead. Or something like that :) .
I want this to be wrong so badly, but I grudgingly admit it to be true.

I want the native app from a boutique software shop to somehow be better than the open-source alternatives.
> I am having trouble thinking of the dental equivalent to Orb though

Intra-oral 3D scanners are a thing. Some dentists use them to prepare dental prosthetics, like crowns. Using one to scan the whole mouth would be an uncomfortably intimate experience, though.