skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your whole house of cards rest on the idea that I have to agree that James Bauder was never a leader of the movement. When James Bauder said he was a leader of the movement. When many news outlet identified him as a leader of the movement. When many protesters identified him as a leader of the movement. And Tamara Lich never denounced him or any of his formal requests to the Governor General.

Reality doesn't care about your feelings about James Bauder.
Basically what I'm trying to say is how can anyone who believes the brain is purely physical (not spiritual), believe that we just simply cannot achieve human-level intelligence by machine (no matter how complex the machine gets).

I thought most scientists agree that the brain is purely physical, when looking at the building blocks of life and evolution, but maybe i'm wrong.
In the target image, byte 0 is red, byte 1 is blue, byte 3 is red.

In the candidate stream, byte 0 is 4. The error is minimised if byte 2 is also 4. The values of the bytes don't matter, just the patterns of which bytes have the same value.
The point is not that banks don't suck - it's that a professional will not inject that sentiment into a post on another topic. And if a professional does mention it, they will do so in a way that doesn't sound like blanket griping, but will instead focus on specific facts about that bank that cause them to recommend against them. And finally - it would be a former bank, not a current one.
This does not sound like a problem with the school or the student. It sounds like the parents need their own help. Being a parent is hard. And does make you wonder, and make you question your mistakes. It is a really rough job. But trying to pass parenting obligations on to other people is not the answer. If you are struggling this much, seek out help for yourself.
Way ahead of you.
Do you see a possible future where people get over this? A few big companies start to introduce/run AGPL code and then the gates open?
That's what employees are for!
Ask HN: When do you give up on Silicon Valley?
I've been working at a FAANG company (call it FaceAppleMicroNetoogle) for several years. I make > $800,000 a year. I live in the bay area and spend a lot of what I make (after taxes and 401k) on housing and other basic needs for my wife and two kids.

I have a certain amount of ennui lately. My team at FaceAppleMicroNetoogle is maybe growing in a different direction than I am. With respect to software engineering practices in my particular vertical. I'm working on something that I don't think will matter. But it has to be done anyway to meet some goals. I can and will do that thing.

I feel a certain amount of job security at FaceAppleMicroNetoogle. I can probably continue to contribute there. At a high level for the foreseeable future. And I think it's unlikely that I'll be fired or laid off any time soon. I said the thing I'm working on won't make an impact. But that probably won't significantly count against me. I've told several levels of managers that it won't make an impact, for what that's worth. But it still has to happen and so I'll finish it. Once that's done, the next thing I work on might make an impact...but even if it does, I'm not sure that would move the needle for me as far as job satisfaction.

I've thought about leaving Silicon Valley. Going somewhere cheaper. But how can someone give up an earning opportunity like this? On the one hand I feel kind of prisoner to it. And on the other hand I feel incredibly ungrateful and entitled to be even considering giving up a paycheck that's 10x what a lot of people would be grateful for.

I think to some degree the crazy pay and the crazy costs are a treadmill. I guess my question is, if anyone else has gotten off that treadmill. And if so, how has it affected your life?
> You already know[0] the answer to the most of that question, so I don't know why you're asking that part again.

My point is that once you start editing (either by hand or through a tool) the version numbers in the second section, then that's no longer cached state derived entirely from the go.mod files of your dependencies which can be regenerated from scratch. It contains some human-authored decisions and regenerating that section without care will drop information on the floor.

Imagine you:

1. Add a dependency on foo, which depends on bar 1.1.

2. Decide to update the version of bar to 1.2.

3. Commit.

4. Weeks later, remove the dependency on foo and tweak some other dependencies. Tidy your go.mod file.

5. Change your mind and re-add the dependency on foo.

At this point, if you look at the diff of your go.mod file, you see that the indirect dependency on bar has changed from 1.2 to 1.1. Is that because:

A. You made a mistake and accidentally lost a deliberate upgrade to that version and you should revert that line.

B. It's a correct downgrade because your other dependency changes which have a shared dependency on bar no longer need 1.2 and it is correctly giving you the minimum version 1.1.

Maybe the answer here is that even when you ask the tool to remove unneeded transitive dependencies, it won't roll back to an earlier version of bar? So it will keep it at 1.2?

With other package management tools, this is obvious: Any hand-authored intent to pin versions—including for transitive dependencies—lives in one file, and all the state derived from that is in another.

> In my experience, most people either use Dependabot to keep up to date with their dependencies, or they update the dependencies using VS Code to view the go.mod file and click the "buttons"(/links/whatever) that the language server visually adds to the file to let you do the common tasks with a single click. They're both extremely simple to use and help you to update your direct and indirect dependencies.

This sounds like you more or less get the same results as you would in other package managers, but with extra steps.

I don't know. I guess I just don't understand the system well enough.
Some scammers are making fraudulent charges, then calling victims as the bank to “fix” them. Skips over a bunch of red flags because the bank has every reason to be calling.
The PS5<>LG interaction is fucked. The TV will wake up all its devices when one of them does, and the PS5 will grab the input even if it wasn't the initiator.

You can disable this in config, but it's all-or-nothing: now the PS5 can't wake the TV at all.

Attempting to report the misbehavior to LG and Sony is like shouting into the void. They don't care, or it's the other entity's problem, or both.
I did not downvote you (on HN you can't downvote someone who answers your comment).

I think you proposed a reasonable option, but a bit imprecise. It's not clear if you advocate for a wealth-based tax, or some type of crossover tax, like a max between an income-based tax and a wealth-based tax. In any case, a lot of people (and especially a lot of startup oriented people, like readers of the HN forum) are against taxes on unrealized gains, which is what your proposal would end up to be.

As for the temporarily embarassed millionaire. I have a different reason to oppose taxing the wealthy. In my native country there's a saying that roughly translates "it's easy to prescribe 10 whiplashes to someone else's buttocks".

I personally find profoundly immoral to wish a category of people to suffer, when you know that you are not in that category. Now, you may say that the rich people don't "suffer" when they pay more taxes, but I don't know that. I believe in the benefit of doubt. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is rich, they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor, not to a lesser extent than me. I personally know lots, really lots of people who work much harder than me, and make more money than me. They have chosen to forgo or postpone gratification in life, and I chose not to. I can clamor for them to now forgo their reward, but I simply find that immoral.
> _Maybe_ if it’s something that we run 100% as something that can just be used and doesn’t require any software development on our part.

And that's what I'm counting on towards the end. I think that once a few companies take on the risk here and maybe use software they don't modify (or hire open source devs/evangelists/etc), it will make it a bunch easier for others to as well.
Just as an example, a BY Audi has it's TCM (transmission) module under the us passengers side floor carpeting. It is in 'a box", but the box is in no way sealed. The metal box that is the TCM as a whole is made of metal, and maybe attempted to be sealed a bite but isn't sealed.

B6 Audis have a design problem with their sunroof drains. When they clog up, unknown to you, the water will pool in passengers footwell area. It takes a while to notice this as a person, as there is 4-6" of foam padding between the metal floor of the car, and where you rest your feet
. The TCM lives between these layers, and eventually, in the lake that will form, submerging your TCM -- leaving you with yet another reason to hate your Audi.

This is early 2000's. Late 200* a8 models had I believe 30+ different "computers" living in the same over metal under foam situation.

An aside, if you ever wash the engine bay of a car with low pressure water, I'd suggest covering the blatant electronic bits with some plastic bags, and leave the car idling when you do so -- that way if/when it starts to sputter or just dies, you have a general idea of where it all went wrong.

They really are not as water tight as we all assume.
I crawled around my attic and basement and ran cat 6 to a few rooms. I never use it. I've been working from home for years, all on wifi. Never had an issue with it. Wires are just ugly dust collectors and things to trip over.
I have an AP in pretty much every room on 5 GHz with low transmit power. I like it a lot - good speeds, not a lot of interference from the other APs, and clients mostly roam nicely as only the nearest AP is strong enough.
OP, it's perfect don't change a thing
Billy Wilder: The Art of Screenwriting (1996)
Appreciate it!

One thing that got brought up on reddit was public domain -- what do you think about that? If you had to rank them (AGPL/LGPL/public domain) how would they be laid out in your mind?
That's definitely one way to do it, and now that you mention it I do know that there are definitely things that do it that way, but it might not be a good one. Windows that aren't visible don't need their output surface to be materialized, and introducing a compositing step after your 4k window renders adds an extra 11 gigabytes per second of memory bandwidth at 120fps, and probably a few precious milliseconds of latency. In the limit of inexpensive rendering — which alpha-blending a few thousand rects from a font atlas might approach — it doubles the battery drain needed to redraw the screen.
The problem (and the reason for the success) with Excel is that it optimized for ease of use. The five minute out of the box experience is wonderful. However once you start "coding" (and I'll argue that if you using a vlookup or "if" function, you are programming with Excel) it is horrible. Ignores all of the best practices we have learned over the past 60 years for programming (modular, documentation, testing, source control, profiling).

I'm obviously biased given that I teach Python and Data Science. But I think you should optimize towards writing readable code. (From my experience teaching Pandas to thousands of students and seeing it in the wild, most people are using it wrong as well).

(It just so happens that I spent most of the day deep-diving into Excel and how to most effectively cross over to a proper programming paradigm...)
You could have both kinds of schools, ones that hide grades from parents and ones that do not.
Check out the SWE chart here https://cssl.berkeley.edu/

There was another chart of snowfall in Mammoth this season that was striking, essentially the Sierra would have gotten no snow this winter if not for the huge snow event in December.

I've been learning slowly about the effects of a global energy shortage, especially when it comes to creating fertilizers. I agree that it's a concern but at the moment I don't know how much.
I'd argue that this is quite tunnel visioned since here are large Python codebases that are busy printing money for these huge SaaS companies while I'm writing this comment.

Whether we like it or not Javascript and Python have won the game with all of their warts and no amount of WASM is going to change the fact in the foreseeable future.
Do yourself a favour and lay down the science fiction for a while.
Has anyone else been rate limited for all of stackoverflow.com after seeing the filters? I assume that's not part of the joke
Obligatory Black Adder: https://youtu.be/h--HR7PWfp0
> Kurzweil is explicitly counting on it for his personal immortality.

Is he still? At 74 years old that's verging on irrational.
That article is dated 2008. Since 2016, they stopped all wheat production in Saudi Arabia.

From the same 2008 article: https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL08699206

[..] The kingdom aims to rely entirely on imports by 2016.

"The reason is water resources," said one official, who did not want to be identified.[..]

https://www.world-grain.com/articles/15070-saudi-arabias-whe... - 2021 article

There is a lot of chatter about abundance and technology..but the harsh truth that everyone ..esp those whose voices get amplified ..is avoiding is that we simply don’t have enough sustainable and renewable resources to feed 8 billion.

When the expected depopulation curve occurs in 2050ish, hopefully we wouldn’t have depleted all our natural resources because in the next 100 years, there will be far fewer humans and not enough resources to sustain them.

We have far surpassed carrying capacity. The world can bear about 1-3 billion max. Instead of trying to breed ourselves to extinction and stripping the world of natural resources by running faster to stay in the same place, we should focus on life extension and preservation of human genetic material for future propogation and perpetuation of the human species. It’s the smart thing to do.
What's New in Axum 0.5
2'nd reply: That's a good idea, maybe I'll blog about it someday.

Although it's not exactly what you're looking for, "The E-Myth Revisited" might help you understand some of the thinking that's needed for dealing with underperformers: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Revisited-Small-Businesses-About...

The book is targeted to someone running a small business that needs to hire in order to grow. Think of a restaurant, RV rental business, flower shop. The mantra is to write down how you do everything, and then train everyone. If "how you do your job" changes, then you need to update the process and re-train everyone.

This is what I meant by "clearly explain your expectations" and "Don't be afraid to 'explain common sense.'" You're giving the underperformer a chance to improve, working on your "interpersonal conflict" issues, and building a set of objectives expectations that can be used to measure performance.

(In my case, the underperformer quit the day after I explained all of my expectations; and the replacement that was hired was AWESOME.)
> It says, see, it’s absurd to think a person in a room with a stack of symbols could emulate intelligence.

That's not at all what it says. It says:

1. Assume a computer program can pass a turing test

2. Convert the computer program into a list of steps that a human in a room can follow

3. Put a human in the room. Pass him a slip of paper with Chinese writing. Have him follow the steps to generate a response.

4. Now consider, once you've done this, does the human in the room following those steps understand Chinese?

Searle's answer is obviously not, from which he deduces that the computer program doesn't understand Chinese either.
No, you're misunderstanding the Chinese room argument completely. It's not about scale, it's about the concept of "understanding" something. Here's another version that might make sense to programmers. I know Python, and I can read/write/compile Python code in my head. My computer's REPL can also read/compile Python code by following a detailed set of pre-programmed instructions to convert it to machine code. Nevertheless the computer does not "understand" Python, it cannot write Python code in response to any problem, nor does it "understand" Python the way a person does. It is not a programmer, and a programmer "understands" the language and can produce new creative meaningful output, and doesn't merely follow instructions.
Wheat doesn’t strike me as hugely inelastic. There are lots of alternatives. Sure, bread makers might pay double for wheat, but won’t a consumer just switch to potato bread or go for rice or mashed potatoes instead ? Ultimately the end consumer feeds the consumption engine, and they’re price sensitive especially when there are tons of alternatives.
I've coded Java, C#, and now Go and have spent years doing each. My experience differs from yours. Clearly our experiences differ and that's okay. I occasionally support Go and occasionally bash Go but really I don't have the passion to dislike any language as much as you seem to. Be well.
Not to side step into a full on political discussion. The conflict has been going on since 2014. If it did turn out the Ukraine was developing biological weapons to target Russians, it would definitely bolster Putins justification for invading. I'm not sure you though this through.

Same way the US used Iraqi mobile labs to justify its invasion and the seeking of regime change in Iraq, with arguably more deadly to civilian tactics like "Shock and Awe".
or https://apex.oracle.com/en/ ;)
Poetry and Digital Personhood
In other systems, you do that by creating a direct dependency. Even though your code doesn't directly import the module, you author an explicit dependency because you care about the version of the module that your app ends up using.

This way, there's a clear separation between human-authored intentional dependencies and the automatically-derived solved versions and transitive dependencies based on that.

If you see a diff in your package manifest, you know a human did that. If you see a diff in the lockfile, you know that was derived from your manifest and the manifests you depend on. The only human input is when they choose to regenerate the lockfile and which packages they request to be unlocked and upgraded. That's still important data because regenerating the lockfile at different points in time will produce different results, but it's a different kind of data and I think it's helpful to keep it separated.
Is Redis fully ACID? We always used it as a caching engine.
"If I were a lawyer"

Then you do your "due diligence" etc. I think we should all understand at a fairly basic level how wifi and wired works and what to do.

Fire up the VPN!
Have you been following the legislation in Florida?
What are you afraid it's going to do?
The singularity makes climate change look like a picnic.
I honestly cannot understand the motivation of allowing arbitrary function execution in an NSPredicate at all. That seems like an unbounded complexity risk, especially when serialized. They've just defined a fun little scripting language in this random corner of Foundation. Testing it appropriately seems nightmarish, and the wrong inputs would just crash the app.

A system that only allows a small set of permitted functions, or implements hard-coded functions like the first version (min, max, avg) just seems far more ... reasonable.

It's the job of an API framework provider to be defensive against these kinds of vectors especially when they may not deprecate this for like, 10+ years. How this made it through Apple's API review is beyond me.

If I saw someone try and pull something like this at the office I would immediately make sure the design was rejected.
The link to the project is too small and almost invisible. You must make the URL in the title, the button with the day and perhaps the whole card clickable.

Also, do you have a technical description about how you made the project? Technical post usually get more traction here.
Go farther. Would the results have ever been validated if the source of truth was not a universal format easily interpretable by millions?
They put their projects on their resumes. I used to work with a lot of EPAM developers, they were all excellent.

They also write internal tools as learning projects.
Your use of "orange" is a clear sign that you're extremely biased and it's worthless to continue this back and forth.
How to stop shrinkage in engineering teams
> Popehat notes that this kind of reporting often oversells the likely sentence

This isn't reporting and it doesn't even purport to characterize the likely sentence except by saying “Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties.”
There is no 'singularity'.

The concept is a bit absurd, because what is being created does not map to the human mind - we are automatons - the internet is far more connected, which is the advantage.

'Siri' will be 'the apparent 'singularity' before anything else. She will pass the Turing test and all the rest, and notably She/It isn't even considered an 'AI' or an 'instance' of something in our minds.

The distributed capabilities of the internet will provide so much 'power' that the notion of an automiton-like machine will seem ridiculous.

A 'robot' is useless: it's some moving appendages and a tiny brain.

A 'connected something' has access to 'every bit of information that exists and has ever existed' including 'every service in existence'.

The 'Singularity' is made up of of every bit of code that you write.

'The Network is the Computer' - Sun Microsystems.
How do you argue that wheat demand is inelastic? Demand for food as a whole is inelastic, but wheat is just one of many, many food sources. Wheat is a cheap food. The second is stops becoming cheap people will shift to other cheap foods like rice or potatoes. I see a more modest increase in demand for alternatives that pulls all prices up, but it’s hard to see how prices skyrocket.
> The first step is understanding.

This is a slogan with no logical value.

> Until you understand how it happens, statements about whether or not you can prevent it do not make much sense to me.

Except we do understand. It seems to me that you are lacking is basic scientific knowledge. Virus mutates naturally and become more virulent due to evolution.

> For example: imagine you have not yet discovered that the unwashed hands of doctors are transmitting disease in a hospital. You might make a statement very similar to yours about how "even if we can figure out how people get sick, it's not like we can stop it".

We can control our hands, we can't control viruses in nature.
It depends what you think intelligence is and what brains do. I think brains are physical structures that take inputs, store state, process information and transmit signals which produce intelligent outputs.

I think intelligence involves a system which among other things creates models of reality and behaviour, and uses those models to predict outcomes, produce hypotheses and generate behaviour.

When you talk about computation of a model of intelligence, that implies that it’s not real intelligence because it’s a model. But I think intelligence is all about models. That’s how we conceptualise and think about the world and solve problems. We generate and cogitate about models. A belief is a model. A theory is a model. A strategy is a model.

I’ve seen the argument that computers can’t produce intelligence, any more than weather prediction computer systems can produce wetness. A weather model isn’t weather, true, but my thought that it might rain tomorrow isn’t wet either.

If intelligence is actually just information processing, then a computer intelligence really is doing exactly what our brains are doing. It’s misdirection to characterise it as modelling it.