skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interesting. As far as I know Google doesn't have a Lambda@Edge version of Cloud Functions yet. But this sounds like its similar but then for mobile networks?
There's another dialog to modify, rename, and delete ranges.
Ditto. More broadly, I am bored by efforts to rehash the same introductory material from whatever your given technical topic is (math, programming, machine learning). There's already really good books out there on these things that have been written by masters and do a much better job than blogs like this (provided you read them properly).

To people out there writing educational blogs: do more research and find good, well written, timeless resources to point people to for the basics. Spend your energy writing something new that we haven't all already read.
That is a deeply biased sample. Easily more people pick up C++ for professional use in any given week that the total paid to code Rust.
Yeah, not the most SEO friendly name.

I'm 99% sure the comment is referring to Voidtool's "Everything": https://www.voidtools.com/

It and WinDirStat are some of the first things I install on any new instance of a computer. But I may check out this fork and Whiztree for other inspiration.
Some points I found interesting:

- Kristian Andersen offered to abuse his power as editor to stealthily edit a preprint. He is the main author of the most notable paper supporting a natural origin, and has been one of the major resources of the natural origins camp. Now his scientific integrity is seriously questioned.

- Peter Daszak appears much more focused on finding new sources of grant money than on doing good science: "What was needed, he exhorted his staff, was a “change in culture” as “part of [a] mentaility [sic] to get money,”

- The Wuhan Institute of Virology is more of a second zone lab than a top lab: "The WIV was also viewed as subpar, especially when compared with the Harbin Veterinary Research Institute. Harbin was China’s Harvard, said the former DARPA official. The WIV was more like a safety school"

- EcoHealth Alliance and Daszak were seen by DARPA as amateurs in virology, not at all the expert frontline organisation that's been suggested before: "EcoHealth Alliance was viewed as a “ragtag group” and a “middle guy,” a backseat collaborator willing to get on an Air China jet, eat terrible food, and stay in bad hotels" "EcoHealth Alliance had “bolted on” a serious scientist, Ralph Baric".
Ah I see what you meant now. I don't think the GP was referring to titles when they said "senior" - I'm pretty sure they meant experienced engineers.
Not doing gain of function research is like not doing disaster recovery drills or penetration tests at the tech companies.
Software patents should be abolished (2009)
> Where are all the AI/ML practitioners, i.e. people who don't make a living out of predicting The End of the World, and with actual subject-matter achievements, predicting the Singularity and the Robot Apocalypse?

The answer is in the question: they're spending most of their time doing AI research or ML work, whereas the internet celebrities who write most of what you read spend most of their time getting you to read what they write.
To be fair, the Golden Gate Bridge project is famous for its safety record and care given to the safety of its crews during construction. It was one of the first bridges ever built with safety nets during construction.

> If there’s one construction job that set the modern standards for work site safety precautions, it is the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. When construction on this bridge began in 1933, it was the first suspension bridge supported by a tower in the ocean and surrounded by harsh weather and water conditions.

> Before this project bridge construction workers, or “bridgemen,” had been considered reckless daredevils who worked without any safety precautions. They had to be fearless to climb the high steel and deal with the rugged weather and risky footing. The Golden Gate Bridge was built during the Great Depression – when 1 in 4 Americans was unemployed – and despite the risks, workers applied in droves.

> /../

> Even with these precautions, 11 men died during construction – including 10 who lost their lives when a section of scaffold fell through the safety net. However, there were 28 worker fatalities during the construction of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Strauss’ safety regulations can be reasonably credited with saving many lives and setting a new worksite safety standard. He proved to the world that safety gear saves lives.

https://www.fixfastusa.com/news-blog/golden-gate-bridge-chan...
One other rationale I've seen is to create self-disseminating vaccines: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1254-y
This is correct. The population is growing faster than new homes are being built, especially in hot economic regions that people are migrating to for the promise of a better job (CA, NYC, Seattle, Denver). It's always implied that this is a problem, but renting is fine. Home ownership is just a form of renting where you stop paying the mortgage at some point, and keep having to pay the property tax and HOA dues. Some people seem to think that passing a home down to their children is better than passing money down, but I don't see how that makes any sense.
- https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...

- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.74...

- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

- https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.7504...

- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00218...

- https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2017/12...

- https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5275

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925716/

- ...and plenty more
Thanks! And yeah, criticism is hard haha, maybe I was being too demanding :)

I think your position is totally valid and I appreciate you taking the time to respond with ways I could have made my case even just a bit more interesting to you.

Have a wonderful day!
wonder how much the land itself costs in that 100k per meter estimation.
I’m not sure how realistic your example is. Prior to discovering handwashing, were scientists doing things they knew had the potential to get literally everyone morbidly sick, just to try figuring out how it worked?
Maintained Fork of Jsch
So I believe this is the latest and greatest rules on the subject:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526

Reading section 3.1, Secretary of State has the power to declassify only the information that originally was classified inside that office. In my example above with a CIA briefing, only the CIA itself or the DNI can declassify it (ignoring automatic declassification because of time).

And I’ll reiterate - I am sure there is a form 1234 one needs to fill in to actually declassify something.
Pandemics are sort of like a boiling-frog problem. People do not realize immediate risks to themselves. While a nuclear bomb doesn't cause immediate problems to someone in Montana, it is a visceral event just like Pearl Harbor attack that galvanized the entire nation.
I don’t think you understand how hard it is to protect your savings when all you have access to is 3rd world banks. I’d rather have 10k in eth then say Russian roubles or whatever shit local currency
Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Stripe, Pinterest, Airbnb, Lyft, Uber, Netflix, Coinbase, Snapchat, Roblox, Instacart, LinkedIn, ....
Ops, I pressed the wrong reply and replied to you in another thread —- sorry!
lmao wtf?
My doctor's office has a note in my file about this now.

Every time they call me, they just say, "Hi smeej, it's NAME at Dr. NAME's office. We have an update for you, so go ahead and hang up and call us back."

Works like a charm!
Can you point to a paper or website that contains this function, described in full? Yes, electromagnetism no doubt, but while we can postulate a function, we still don't have the function, and will somehow have to write it down for it to be a function.
Yes. And here, and Facebook, and at the bus stop, in the office breakroom, around the dinner table, etc.

And hopefully enough of the people in those conversations then write their representatives.
Things get done quickly when people care about getting them done quickly. As far as I can tell, it's as simple as that.
Kafka the hypochondriac
The guys at ID cloned the first level of Super Mario 3 overnight (on a PC)
What’s the incentive?

If it’s a hobby, then that’s fine. Those servers will be like hobby email servers today.

Why can’t they have good intentions? Eg a real business. Like Gmail, Outlook, etc before them. Only for modern day services. Why does anyone host anything on the internet? What is this, 1985? People will host and share things online for others.

Why would someone who hosts something have to be a nefarious covert LEO?

You’d find a server because self moderation is a lot of work. People already seek out specific people to follow and that’s more than enough moderation for them. The rise of algorithmic feeds being popular is because self moderation is already not something people want. Who wants to host the data of their feeds locally and have to query other individuals? People want always available servers not p2p. We see the behavior already.

“Why… When you can be left alone” is probably the attitude of someone not meant for social media.
I personally found the layoff of Dr. Linda Quick from a key CDC position in Beijing in July of 2019 to be pretty suspect:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-...

> Quick left amid a bitter U.S. trade dispute with China when she learned her federally funded post, officially known as resident adviser to the U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China, would be discontinued as of September, the sources said.

It's hard for me to forget the fake Time Magazine cover that the last president had hanging in his golf cabinet. One of the blurbs on it reads "Global Warming: A New Age of Extinction". It creeps me out to think this person who openly subscribes to a "racehorse" theory of eugenics was in charge of the US government during the leadup to the pandemic and during its immediate response.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/time-asks-donald-trump-...
I'm aware they'll fake court orders too, which is your defense if you piss off the court. Sadly this is only an issue that can be solved by the recipients doing more verification. If the courts offered more verification, you still need to teach the recipients to make use of it.
I think that the existence of leetcode interviews, where tech companies ignore your background as much as possible, is a condemnation of my 20+ years of building real-life systems. And a means of filtering out people over 40.
FWIW I lead with this whenever I find myself teaching lin.agl. and I agree it's the most important point of context for students entering the subject (and presumably embarking on undergrad math).
Definitely worth a watch. You too can locate your lost luggage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHPdxyJ_ooQ
Helical Engine
Insane as he comes off sounding to you, what do you make of his position on this subject?
Another interesting tidbit I'd never heard:

> And in September 2019, three months before the officially recognized start of the pandemic, the Wuhan Institute of Virology took down its database of some 22,000 virus samples and sequences, refusing to restore it despite international requests.
Okay but if I depend on A and A depends on C and has it pinned at 1.5, but I also depend on B and B has C pinned on 1.8, then I get 1.5? But what happens if C is on 1.8 because it doesn't work with 1.5 because an API it needs doesn't exist in 1.5?

Are we not talking about the transitively pinned dependencies in the "lock" section, or are we talking about logical constraints?

Logical constraints would make more sense, but if the constraints on C across various transitive deps are > 1.5 and > 1.8, and 1.9 or 1.10 exists, I probably want the last version of those.
While a good article, the evidence it presents has mostly already been known. What is very interesting, however, is that a publication as mainstream as Vanity Fair is publishing such an article. That, is new, as far as I know.
> Honestly, it never occurred to me to run a binary compiled for Windows 95 on Windows 11 (or 10, which is where I am now).

How do you know you aren't regularly running one (or more) of those? Or at least some stuff last updated sometime between W2K and W7?
Also it's fencepost security. Doing the exact same thing because "more is better" without a concrete reason why the additional copies would change the outcome. If the outer sandbox is the same as the inner one, why wouldn't the malware break through immediately? If it's different in some way, why not apply those additional mitigations to the inner one?
I’ll let my employer know they’re not a serious business.

-written from my wifi connected laptop at Netflix
Npm lockfile will refer to same package because you can't republish npm with the same tag (there is also content hash in lockfile).

Referring to version tag in git from go's mod can't guarantee that because you can overwrite tag in git.

Am I wrong?
Also, it's funny the editors of The Register didn't catch the omission of Serenity since The Register is definitely aware of Serenity.

Edit: More than just the editors missing it -- it's the same author!

https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/31/serenityos/
From big box national stores?
If we're in a simulation, the computational resources of an object aren't constrained by the physical scale of the object. It's possible that achieving human scale cognition requires brains the size of Jupiter (we don't know because we don't have a full computational accounting of human level cognition).

But in a simulation that could be routed around by having a physical computer the size of Jupiter operate a human scale body in the simulation. You could share and cache compute resources across 6 billion humans within a single human compute core the size of Jupiter (or maybe ~100 Jupiters). Since most computation is probably redundant, you could probably simulate many orders of magnitude more humans with a single human compute core.

To observers within the simulation it would look like human cognition is achievable in 3 lbs of tissue. But this would simply be an illusion created by the simulation environment. There'd be no way of knowing for sure until we fully reverse engineer a single human brain down to the level of base compute operations.
> If a robot can do that, too (what you call "convincing as AGI") then we must assume it is also conscious, because if we don't, we'd have a logical inconsistency on our hands. If I am allowed to safely assume you are sentient, then I must also be allowed to safely assume a robot is sentient if it can convince me, because in both cases I have no method of falsifying the claim to sentience.

Let's, for the sake of your argument accept that even though I disagree, is that AGI? AGI on the one hand seems to mean convincing even though the people who made it know otherwise or essentially alive and sentient in a way that is fundamentally computational, that is, utterly alien to us, even the people who made it. There is no reason to think that that computer intelligence should it even be possible to exist, would be even be intelligible to us as sentient in a human or even animal sense.
A real enterprise WiFi rollout might provision 1 access point for 1-4 people to keep access speeds high, depending on cube or office layout. WiFi shouldn't be expected to penetrate walls well. If you take normal WiFi hardware and try to go with normal household usage patterns it doesn't work great.
Definitely some interesting ideas!

So if we crafted a human Westworld-style on an atomic level then sure, if it lives and walks around we'd consider it conscious. If we perfectly embedded a human brain inside a robot body and it walks around and talks to us, we'd consider it conscious.

If we hooked an android robot up to a supercomputer brain wirelessly and it walks around we might think it's conscious, but it's sort of unclear since it's "brain" is somewhere else. We could even have the brain "switch" instantly to other robot bodies, making it even less clear what entity we think is conscious.

But if we disconnected the walking Android from the supercomputer brain, do we think the computer itself is conscious? All we'd see is a blinking box. If we started taking the computer apart, when would we consider it dead? I think there's a lot more to the whole concept of a perfectly convincing robot than whether it simply feels alive.
Is there really a shortage or are salaries just not high enough to attract candidates?
> An exponential looks the same whereever you are on it, so arguably we are in the singularity now, and have been for quite some time...

By that view we've been in the singularity since the first cell self-reproduced on primordial Earth.

Of course maybe that's true. As you say an exponential looks the same no matter where you are on it.
Cow: A moving and uncomfortable cow's-eye-view of farming
AGI is only inevitable if you subscribe to materialism. Basically it comes down to whether we are purely material beings or whether there are non-material aspects to our mind. There are more than a couple non religious arguments for dualism, many are relatively recent, as dualism is enjoying a bit of a comeback in philosophical circles. The Chinese room and the red room a.k.a.Mary's room are simple enough thought experiments that can help you grok why dualism might be true.

That being said, the most recent philpeople survey has 52% accepting materialism compared to 32% accepting dualism with the rest undecided, so academic philosophy does generally lean toward AGI. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all
I've always thought that, while AGI is possible in principle, it may not be possible in practice while also being meaningfully different from existing biological life forms. When I see how we train neural networks or iterate through possible configurations of different algorithms, I think to myself, "Imagine how much cell division is happening on the planet right now." And I think that's the scale of computation that we have to match if we hope to make a dent in this problem. Sure, we could harness cell biology and start to build organic computers, but then what are we doing that's really novel in the manner that we imagine ourselves creating sentience in sci-fi books? At the very least, we can't be iterating in the way that we're doing currently, where we manually build the test bed for each algorithm in the form of individually manufactured computer chips. We'll need to scale up our operations exponentially with something that self-replicates. And why go to all the trouble making that from scratch when cellular life forms are already doing it?
Glad you like it! It's my first ever post to HN. I've been reading it daily since forever. Had to create an account to post.

I did the shuttle in a rush TBH. I have no idea if that's with the main tank and boosters or not!

No way, I had the Airfix kit of the shuttle+747 combo when I was a kid. poof mind blown.

I haven't really had time to recheck all the values. If there are any chemists here who can help with the weight of a caffeine molecule (in kg) then I'd appreciate it!!

Someone posted on HN a few days ago about always including your units in the variable names. Good advice.
Quote: "Really, you’re genuinely worried about a robot apocalypse? You know Age of Ultron is just a stupid Marvel movie, right? Yeah, I know. "

Actually this is not Age of Ultron, this is exactly how this TV series - Person of Interest - is laid out. [ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1839578 ]
It's a distinction without a difference. The level of negligence required to have it leak from a lab rises to the level of culpability.

If you knowingly drive a car with no brakes and kill someone, how is it less bad than driving a functional car and killing someone on purpose?

They knew the Wuhan labs had massive safety issues, from years prior to the pandemic. They knew GoF research was risky, and did it anyway. They knew covering it up was criminal behavior, yet did it anyway.
They don't necessarily promote their self-hosting software method of Unifi management, and they outright removed support for Unifi Protect unless you buy hardware.

Want your surveillance video to be cloud-hosted or on your own pre-existing RAID? Pound sand!
Not wow. This is routine. The NIH has a policy to let researchers delete data from the sequence archive for various reasons. The reason they deleted it is very suspect, but the actual act is unremarkable and doesn’t implicate the NIH.
I’m afraid all those arguments boil down to “we don’t know how to do it yet, therefore it can’t be done”, which is absurd.

I also you’re positing a consensus against AGI that doesn’t exist, there is no such consensus. You can’t just lump people who think modern AI research is a long way from achieving AGI or isn’t on a path to achieving it, together with people who think AGI is impossible in principle.

I happen to think we may well be hundreds of years away from achieving AGI. It’s an incredibly hard problem. In fact current computer technology paradigms may be ineffective in implementing it. Nevertheless I don’t think there’s any magic pixie dust in human brains that we can’t ever replicate and that makes AGI inherently unattainable. Eventually I don’t see any reason why we can’t figure it out. All the arguments to the contrary I’ve seen so far are based on assumptions about the problem that I see no reason to accept.
Yes this is called Games with a Purpose. It is Luis Von Ahn thesis. Luis created:

recaptcha, to help digitilize books by harnessing millions of captchas.

The ESP game to help tag images for search purposes.

Both sold to Google

And later founded Duolingo, to democratize language learning.

His Ted talk is a good starting point.

https://youtu.be/-Ht4qiDRZE8
Ask HN: What's a simple easy way to chat online with someone professionally?
I made a new acquaintance online who I want to chat with. Right now we are talking on Twitter because there seems to be no other way to chat?

Here are the other options and why I am not using them:

- Email: Don't want to give out my email to someone I just met since it has my fullname and is permanent.

- Whatsapp, Telegram: Requires a phone number.

- Discord: Dear God, no.

- Slack: Read above.

- LinkedIn: Mountains of spam.

All I want is a simple clean (substack like clean) chat interface with mobile apps where I can create an account really fast with a username and is professional looking so I can talk to people regarding slightly more serious topics instead of memes.

Is there any such service?
This article starts with one huge assumption, that AGI (whatever that means exactly) implies consciousness. We don't know that.
It's essentially been free for ages due to the state's highly profitable lottery[1]. High school GPA doesn't play any part in this "scholarship" either. It's kind of sad how many people I knew who didn't take advantage of this opportunity when it was available to them.

[1]: https://hed.state.nm.us/financial-aid/scholarships/legislati...
The video shows some similar-but-better products, they are just unreasonably expensive.
Appreciate it. These articles are mostly about liquid vaping, not dry herb vaping, yeah?
Yeah, an AI could easily keep us around, in the same way that I keep my gut bacteria around, even though I could easily eradicate them with antibiotics.
Like you say, we couldn’t even do GoF when HIV and pandemic influenza became a thing. Why take seriously the feeble efforts of humans to recreate evolution in a lab when the real thing has demonstrated it’s terrifying effectiveness many many times?
Do you mean the Oodle compression mentioned in the link?
Because I don't see any such unaligned bitstream unpacking mentioned in the link or in https://fortnitereplaydecompressor.readthedocs.io/en/latest/...