skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The authors first list some issues with arXiv. Next, they describe how to fix those issues. Then the good news arrives: this improved arXiv already exists. It's called Authorea.com. All three authors are Authorea.com employees. They do disclose it as their affiliation. Still, this is essentially an ad written in LaTeX.

They correctly point out a few of the limitations of arXiv (mostly: static LaTeX and PDFs). But I profoundly dislike the other things they propose:

1. "open comments and reviews". I have no problem with open reviews on a third-party website, but arXiv is literally a "distribution service". It has one job and does it pretty well. I don't want it to turn into Reddit or (worse?) ResearchGate.

2. "alternative metrics". Enough with the metrics already. We all know they're destructive, at least all that have been tried so far. I didn't even know that arXiv showed some bibliometrics (because they are thankfully hidden behind default-disabled switches). Their proposed alternatives? "How many times a paper has been downloaded, tweeted, or blogged." I am not joking, this is what they propose to include in addition to citations. Seriously???

PS: Just a heads-up to anyone who, like me, would be wondering about the ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org link. The article is a regular paper submitted to arXiv. The authors do not belong to the organization maintaining arXiv. The usual link is: https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07020

The ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org thing is an experimental html5 paper viewer by the arXiv people.

Edit: typos.
Wouldn’t someone determined just look at LinkedIn?
> If the SAT is not predictive, as some claim, we've been selecting our elites and professionals the wrong way for three generations.

Yes, and?

The easiest way to understand the shortcomings of these tests (at least their older versions) is to realize that students who use paid SAT/ACT-prep materials and services get higher scores than students who don't. Yes, there are confounding factors, but this fact alone is fairly damning evidence that these tests can be "defeated" using techniques beyond simply learning the things taught in high school. A better-designed test would not yield higher scores to test-takers with more specific knowledge of how the test itself is constructed. (In software terms, think "property based testing" as opposed to "unit test cases written in a predictable manner", with the assumption that your implementation under test has adversarial motives to obtain passing builds.)
We have a Windows free office. It's not hard when nobody needs to use Windows. If you don't have anyone using Windows right now, it seems like you have a similar situation.
If we're talking the original goto, jump to arbitrary address unrelated to current function, then we're talking whole program transformation to remove it.

Even with the local limited version, I think removing it requires proliferation of Boolean flags, so it's not performance-equivalent unless your compiler manages to undo the refactor back to the goto form.
Sure but 38% of AP Calculus BC takers get a 5 so it doesn't give you much information.
By connecting multiple details such as ip addresses, connection/flow logs, known CnC servers, etc. You seem to be expecting some magic simple answer but the reality is the same as other investigative work: doing the work in the details as a professional. Just because this work is difficult and inherently has some ambiguity doesn't mean you can just dismiss every attribution from your armchair.
> By the time of the ACT/SAT test it's too late to fix those things. Fix those upstream.

Based on?? If someone is smart, but denied opportunity, often times this can be resolved by exposure to things - even for an 18 year old.

Indeed, environmental factors become less important for intelligence starting precisely at this age.
I thought you meant 800 across the categories.
SYSTEMANTICS. THE SYSTEMS BIBLE / How Systems Work and Especially How They Fail
This comment is a very emotional, irrational response to a very logical analysis. What a contrast.

The kind of response is also very childish (, not in the sense I am insulting you as childish, but actually just some kind of reaction that would comes from a child. Eg emotion and incoherent thoughts.)

Eg

The “decades of brainwashing” comes out of nowhere and essentially projecting a political view to a logical argument. If you think the argument is wrong, argue with facts not branding it as something and attract that thing in general.

“We are NOT companies”. Again sounds like an argument made by a poor politician (I mean good politician wouldn’t fall into this kind of fallacy.) Clearly it was an analogy to illustrate a fact. I mean what’s this argument arguing against? What’s “are” means in this context? In Chinese there’s an idiom 白馬非馬 comes from a similar fallacy: is black horse a horse? Is white horse a black horse? Therefore white horse is not a horse.

“We don’t live in an economy”: what? What kind of brainwashing would results in that conclusion?

“We are … social animals” and then quote “scientifically proven”. What’s the point? “We are just a bunch of carbon and stuffs worth collectively not more than a few bucks.” This is scientifically proven too. We should all quote random facts to argues against some view we don’t like.

This is so sad, really. I hope any people would exercise more logic and stops politicize things and argue based on hatred, not on HN at least.
Add to that they apparently chatted about it in some tool that had an auditable history and one can surmise that these people weren't the most sophisticated bad actors.
i.e. you want an operator with CRDs for your application. (my former role was writing one). a good operator does make a specific application work "magically".
For a long time, video games were considered, under German law, to have insufficient artistic or scholastic merit to permit Nazi symbols on the basis of context. So no consideration was given to context for Wolfenstein, it was just "swastikas in a video game = bad". Only recently did that law change.
This sounds like "people eat too much fast food so we will invent vegetables." Surely better but most people wont care. The hard part is gamifying what is good.
What we know is that an infinitly old and large universe is not possible given our understanding of physics and the sky being dark at night.

That's all.
> Less messages means more efficient collaboration

I think this should be "Fewer messages...".
Good grammar improves communication, as well.
I've got a few hundred mikrotiks, mainly CCRs and 1100AHs, I guess I could merge my monitoring machine and my router, and it's handy if I just want to deploy a single device somewhere but manage it in the same way (firewalls, vpns etc), it's certainly not something I've being waiting for.
In a lot of Civil law systems, you have a Duty to rescue[1]. Which I wholeheartedly agree with.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
At https://42papers.com/ we want to get more folks reading papers our focus in on surfacing papers from arXiv that our community would appreciate so we focus on trending papers, improving readability, etc
Generally--because they're used to this kind of cheating and have never been busted for it before.

The problem is that people think they've graduated to "no longer has to worry about consequences" at the $1 million range. And that's true--unless the Feds get involved. At that point, you need to be in the $100+ million range to get away with crime.

So, there is this danger area between $1 million where you get lots of local feedback that you are above consequences and $100 million where you actually are above consequences.

It's very easy to get complacent and trip up in that window. (I'm remembering the Silicon Valley option backdating fiasco and how many people it caught ...)
Can I say this really is great news for mice
But the article link is arXiv's own (admittedly experimental) HTML5 viewer!! And your parent comment is praising it.
It is a 'yo momma' joke you uncultured swine.

Nah man... Your Dad (Emperor) didn't bang my Mom (Plebian).

My Dad (Plebian) BANGED YOUR MOM!!! (Empress probably)
I'm consistently really impressed with the UK gov's websites. They're fast, usable and mostly quite intuitive, something that is helped by the fact that they all share a common theme. They support pretty much everything you'd want to do from an admin perspective.

This contrasts greatly with US and French government websites I've had the displeasure of using in the past.
Plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest Ghidra works fine on Apple Silicon (I also haven’t personally run up against anything unexpected)
[I already posted this as a comment on Gelman's blog this morning, but reposting here for visibility]

I’m almost certain that OpenAI is not updating the model on a day by day basis (as Smith implies in part 5), and I would be extremely surprised if they were doing anything as crude as hacking in "if" statements to provide human-edited responses. From what I can tell, the InstructGPT stuff was (so far) a one-time update to the model, not something they’re doing on an ongoing basis.

I suspect that Smith has just been fooled by randomness here – the responses are not deterministic but rather sampled from the probability distribution returned by the model for each token, so you can get a different answer each time you ask (a nice tutorial on how this works is here [1]). There’s an option in the Playground to see the individual probabilities (example: [2]) as well. All of this stuff would have to be faked if humans were actually writing the answers.

I just tried the campfire/bat question and hit regenerate a few times. I get a range of responses:

Prompt: Should I start a campfire with a match or a bat?

> You can start a campfire with either a match or a bat.

> A campfire should be started with a match.

> A match.

> It is best to start a campfire with a match.

I agree that OpenAI should release more information about their training datasets though. Right now it is very difficult to do independent evaluations of their models, simply because we have no way of knowing whether any given prompt or response was already in their training data.

PS: “If I were paranoid, I might think that OpenAI did not like me publicizing GPT-3’s limitations” – this is indeed paranoid! This is the same message everyone gets when they use up their free credits. If you enter a credit card they will let you continue (and charge you for it).

[1] https://huggingface.co/blog/how-to-generate

[2] https://imgur.com/fKx2BPL
One of the three exponents is due to data length, though.
So "only" quadratic cost in the spreading distance of the error correction code.
At best that would only require you to disclose to everyone once asked by someone performing some research, or through the outlined regulation FD mechanisms. It still holds that using your own definition, all it takes is some research to gain what the employee who is willing to give up information knows, and that giving up the information can be done in a way that avoids violating regulation FD.
"So I borrow my parents’ car" made me chuckle. Also, do not quit your job before you make money from any one of your side projects. Also, do not trust contractors if you cannot handle it yourself without them.

I can see why so many things wrong but I believe the author also noticed these major flaws/mistakes and wrote himself.

And if I called all my tiny projects or websites I built startups, I'd be the startup king of America.
Boris Nemtsov Tailed by FSB Squad Prior to 2015 Murder
It can be, yes. For someone who is a strong believer in and advocate of FOSS, who makes her/his livelihood developing FOSS for a FOSS software company, to be forced to use proprietary solutions where there are reasonable FOSS alternatives can be very disheartening, demoralizing, and even humiliating.
That's right! Currently such (static) keys are loaded at provision-time, when the server is first booting up, but there's nothing preventing it from being lazy-loaded at authentication-time. Of course loading them at authentication-time incurs latency as tax. Nothing prevents two separate modules from existing: one eager-loads the keys, and another lazy-loads them.
Curious, in what way is it humiliation?
Another tip that vastly improves mental health as well as efficiency: turn off all notifications from slack, especially that damn broom sound.
Old Gentoo user chiming in. My "I won't be using my computer today" builds were either major desktop environment (or anything that forced me to rebuild the GTK or QT shared libs), and... OpenOffice. Good lord, that one took forever. Firefox probably came next after those.
The process takes time. Prosecution doesn't, and shouldn't, happen without an investigation.

Whether this specific investigation will lead somewhere or not is yet to be determined. You cannot say they did nothing until the investigation is completed.

If the investigation doesn't lead to a just conclusion, then we can talk. But as of now, your anger at SEC just sounds like being annoyed because they decided not to speedrun this. If you actually believe that a wrongdoing has happened here, then the investigation needs to be thorough and conclusive, to make sure there were no gaps through which the guilty party can escape. And that's assuming any wrongdoing actually happened, which is what the investigation will need to determine.
> On several occasions between late March and early May 2020, before Twilio’s public earnings announcement, Sure, Lagudu and Chotu Pulagam used internal chat channels to discuss in Telugu whether Twilio might exceed market expectations in its quarterly report of earnings, due in May 2020. They concluded that Twilio’s stock price would “rise for sure” after the quarterly results were announced publicly.

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp-pr2022-5...

I assume "internal chat channels" means the company Slack so this wasn't well planned at all. I wonder if they were even aware they were committing a felony at that stage.
Yeah? Any analysis I can read on that? Its kind of low hanging since the US has such high trading volumes far beyond every other market, but I cant accept that as causation alone.
I have no reasons to imply that the commenter would be tempted or acted at all. But there are means of coercion other than money.

I admit though, I watched too many spy movies and TV shows
Again, “incredible complexity” is not correct, it’s just complex in a different way. Serverless is pretty remarkable because it abstracts a huge amount of pain away. Never deal with weird file issues or even having to think much about scalability.. that’s a huge luxury. There are other parts that are more complex but you’re basically trading a lot of nuisance away
It really seems to come down to individual freedom vs. reduced freedom for the collective good.

Individual freedom seems like generally the right path, it attracts the best talent, fosters creativity and invention. Growing the economic pie has proven to increase overall well-being faster than careful central-planning and attempts to distribute resources equally.

However the pandemic also showed the risks of individual freedom. It's not hard to imagine a disease that spreads quickly and but is 100x to 1000x more deadly. Would the west have been able to stop it without the willingness to put in place the strict quarantines and authoritarian measures that China used? I'd like to think so but it is unclear.
The flowchart on the right could have had a conditional loop instead of a GOTO, and it would have the same number of possible paths! Are loops considered harmful also?

Personally I don't believe that goto is harmful in any way, and people have to resort to weird contrived arguments to make it so.

...I also take exception at the phrase "unstructured jump". What does he think happens when a GOTO is taken? The CPU just blindly jumps to an address? Maybe check out godbolt next time.
That's nice and all but the College Board is nonprofit and they administer the SAT.
How were you able to afford taking the classes for credit instead, at a cost of over two orders of magnitude more per class?
Yes exactly, I remember our Physics teacher in 11-12th grade used to just solve trick questions and asked us to remember shortcuts and rote memorise formulae. I completely fucked up the physics portion of entrance exam and got a mere 7 out of 120 on a national test. I fucking hate physics now.
This might be the thread you're talking about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30822339
> Everything does suck. Some things suck less. Sometimes you can pay money to get things that suck less.

And then there's Cisco
Apes have an understanding of financial markets that's about on par with 9/11 truthers understanding of civil engineering.

They get little bits right, but the whole picture wrong.
The advent of micropayments won't sustain creators. If you're building a business off people paying you <$1 you might as well be ad-supported.
The opinion may globally change depending on what happens to the military base, and especially munition stores, Russia has made right at the Chernobyl power plant - it is conveniently located to provide supplies to the Russian forces attacking Kiev, and is "protected" by the power plant as Ukraine, who otherwise has been tearing Russian forces supply logistics apart, is naturally not able to directly attack those stores because of the associated danger of damage to the power plant objects like for example the reactors, spent fuel storage, overall radioactive soil/dust around which you don't want to blast into the air ... And even without any military action - there are fires right now in the forests around Chernobyl, and Russian temporary as well as permanent munition stores have a history of catching fires and blowing up.
Please read the articles before commenting on them:

>Sure, Lagudu and Chotu Pulagam knowingly tipped off, or used the brokerage accounts of, their family and close friends – Dileep Kamujula, Sai Nekkalapudi, Abhishek Dharmapurikar and Chetan Pulagam – to trade Twilio options and stock in advance of its May 6,
Yep - I live in Palo Alto and mentioned I was training for a half Ironman. Someone asked if I was blogging my journey and what my ad strategy was to bring in revenue.
You might be under drinking age, but you should have years of practice making mummy and daddy martinis at the end of their work days if you want any chance of succeeding at $PRESTIGIOUS_OLD_INSTITUTION
> …the recipient gets a notification on that first “hey” that contains no information and potentially causes distraction. The person might see the indicator that you’re typing but is still left waiting for your full message.

I would turn this around and call this a product design problem. Maybe Slack shouldn't send a notification when all you've said is "hey" and you're typing a follow-up message.

Really, if you have to publish a blog post explaining to people that they're using your product wrong, I'd say your product needs work.
Here's how "former MIT admissions director" McGreggor Crowley justified providing preferences to children of alumni and wealthy donors:

"What about university donors, though? Don’t they have an unfair advantage in this process? In truth, for every office of admissions there is a development office that builds a university’s endowment through donations from alumni and wealthy individuals. And every year, regardless of what a college or university says publicly, a number of children of wealthy donors and alumni get a nod in their direction while other applicants are rejected.

The reality is, the money generated by admitting wealthy students often serves to subsidize the financial aid of those less fortunate. If one squints, one might see here a karmic balance enabling many students to attend a college they otherwise could never afford."

Note he said "every office of admissions" and "regardless of what a college or university says publicly." If MIT were an exception, presumably he would have mentioned it. The "regardless of what a college or university says publicly" implies that MIT may be not stating the entire truth when they claim "we don't do legacy"[2] or that MIT's internal behavior may have changed since Crowley worked there. I'm not sure what MIT has to say about providing admissions preferences to children of wealthy donors the way many (most?)[3] universities including Stanford[4] do.

[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2019/03/13/co...

[2] https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/just-to-be-clear-we-do...

[3] https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-college-admissi...

[4] https://provost.stanford.edu/2020/06/26/admissions-considera...
Apparently he had never been to MontanaWyomingAlabamaNewJerseyConnecticutRhodeIslandVermontNewHampshire... man.
Rather than just tell / hope people follow some etiquette, I'd love Slack to build more etiquette enforcing features that operators could enable.

This isn't the 19th century where the best we can do is tell people to read a book on etiquette and hope for the best. Slack is in a unique position in the history of interpersonal communication where they have complete insight into (and design of) user's and organization's preferences as well as the messages themselves. And the medium is text, which is the easiest to analyze and provide feedback on.

Some examples of what they could do, broadly captured in a 'Etiquette Features' preference set by the organization:

1. Never say 'hey' - if a user writes this, explain the etiquette and rationale for it and suggest they write a whole ass message instead, but optionally let the user just send it.

2. Make long messages scan easily - not too difficult for a computer to tell a long block of unformatted text. Great time to introduce the etiquette scaffold.

3. Use threads - a trickier one to suggest when people are typing, but likely some obvious response patterns (who & when messages are sent) that could trigger a etiquette scaffold asking to put this message in the thread if messages are similar enough to the thread's contents.

4. Short followups as emojis - orgs should be able to define clear meaning of response emojis that are visualized to everyone in the UI when selecting them (check means complete, question mark means need more info, etc). Short responses also likely have a pattern that could trigger a 'do you mean 'this is done'?' kind of scaffold, which would fill in emoji instead

6. Channel response expectations - a tiny text label is insufficient to set expectations, as are pinned messages. At the very least visualize timezones of participants, and when writing an @message to someone in a channel, if they're off-hours let the sender know that up front.

All our communications tools favor low friction to send and devalue the recipients time (the phenomenon mentioned in Cal Newport's Deep Work), and Slack is a serious offender. There's a need for a higher friction, higher awareness path to send messages that better accounts for the full cost of such messages. Not every org would want/need this but it should absolutely be something a service like Slack offers.
I'm an activist for software freedom and I refuse to use non-free software in my life, as a matter of principle. When I'm forced to do so it's certainly very humiliating for me.

Besides, I don't work for a company, but in the public sector (which by the way I think it should not impose non-free software nor secret protocols into the citizens).
>"You can't admit other people have a valid objection"

How can it be a valid objection if you've provided zero evidence to back it up? You are the one who decries a lack of supporting evidence, yet you've provided none in any of your replies so far. Particularly: "holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague" because it looks a lot like a personal opinion of yours with zero presented evidence to back it up.
To be fair, this bit is borrowed/forked from github.com/gliderlabs/ssh.