skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I thought SIDS had been debunked as more ordinary suffocation aggravated by a few types of respiratory irritation or development issues combined with unsafe sleeping conditions. A dying child being so traumatic that reasons beyond the ordinary have been searched for quite hard without finding any real underlying condition beyond baby can’t breathe and is too small to wake and rearrange itself.
yes yes I know that increasing CSF flow is not that novel (anymore e.g. last couple of years). you can increase it with cerebral blood flow, and you can do this with sleep, respiration, visual stimuli, etc.

however, the ideas of 1) replacing csf from young to older mice and 2) the idea that there are factors in CSF that are being delivered to other areas of the brain and promoting cell proliferation: that's pretty novel.

all of the literature right now points to csf in terms of waste clearance and csf is painted as almost a river that picks up components and moves waste (e.g. amyloid beta) from the periarterial areas in the parenchyma and then out through the perivenous areas into the lymphatic system. and this means that the idea of delivery of promoting factors is really interesting.
> Bitcoin ... to be a commodity instead of a currency

According to current (May 2022) regulatory framework in the USA. In other countries it is currently a currency.
terms for something like AWS have all sorts of restrictions. Just thought there could be something in there against transferring instances.
And this at a time when so many children are raised in a single-parent home and lack any sort of positive male role-model.
>I'm not a regular Twitter user

followed by

>the other side has been mostly de-platformed by now.

This is probably my biggest peeve when it comes about discussions on Twitter. The media has made it seem that Twitter just routinely bans conservatives voices for "a difference of opinion" when that is not the case. Twitter's high profile bans are on Wikipedia, and they weren't banned for simply saying "abortion should be repealed".
I'm reminded of Robert X Cringely and his son who died in his lap from SIDS

https://web.archive.org/web/20160311081124/https://www.pbs.o...
What are one or two of the recent neuroscience findings that you feel point most strongly towards what you are saying?
I have 3 dockerfiles that I reuse for every project, adjusting only little things:

They are all multi-stage dockerfiles to benefit heavily from caching layers and avoid running needlessly intensive steps.

[1] - Elixir: https://gist.github.com/linkdd/0a8d6e2019586d07c6587e42946a7...

This one suppose there is a Phoenix webapp, but most of the time I don't, so I remove the asset related steps.

[2] - Python/Django: https://gist.github.com/linkdd/4aac2c2efc4a51af6ca4b05f395de...

This one uses poetry and poethepoet (link in gist's readme) and other common libs that I use in every django project.

[3] - NodeJS backend: https://gist.github.com/linkdd/2a19e51f6158e53e89ff525544ac3...

This one uses yarn, I adjust the config files I add to the first stage depending on the project (quasar, vue3, typescript, ...)

---

They all use the same principle:

- copy the config files into an empty layer (context)
- copy the source code into an empty layer (src)
- copy the test suite into an empty layer (tests)
- copy the context layer files into a base image stage, install the production dependencies
- copy the previous stage, and install the dev dependencies
- copy the context layer, the dev dependencies, and the source code into a base image stage, run the CI steps (linting, etc...)
- copy the context layer, the dev dependencies, the source code and test suite into a base image, run the test suite
- eventually build the source code if the language needs it
- build a final artifact from the built code (or the source code), the context layer and the production dependencies

If the Docker build passes completely, then the whole CI pipeline has been validated and the final docker image is guaranteed to be valid (according to your CI at least).

This works very well, and when i don't touch the yarn.lock, or poetry.lock or mix.lock for weeks, it speeds up drastically the builds on my machine and on the CI/CD pipeline.

Also, it allows me to migrate from one CI/CD solution to another (Jenkins, Gitlab CI, Github Actions, ...) without any hassle, as long as I can run docker build.
Polyend tracker,
any MPC
any Elektron groove box,
The Roland MC-X0X series,
Native Instruments Maschine +,
Synthstorm Deluge,
etc.

yep... There's quiet a few :)
In this case it's our responsibility not to undermine those sanctions.

While I'm not an expert in Afghanistan politics, I follow the Russian war and don't think we should support them by providing bitcoins
Site got hugged to death.

Archived version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220512210526/https://www.alex-...
Sometimes I think that this arises out of factors usually considered external to the system. As in, a complex system is so embedded in its environment that it can't be said to start or stop at all, which implies that starting a complex system is an oxymoron of sorts, and that is the reason that creating one from scratch can't normally be done.

In turn, this implies that a working (or, to my way of thinking, running) complex system can be created from scratch, but only if you deliberately create the simpler system it bootstraps from. This makes "creating a complex system" look more like biological reproduction.

With that in mind you start to see echoes of this constraint all over the technology ecosystem, like new programming languages piggybacking off of another toolchain until they can self-host.
I love love love DuckDB. When I can use DuckDB + pyarrow and not import pandas, it makes my day.
> The fact that they've been minting billions of tether without collateral

You mean like the USD?
> That only works because HN is, mostly, politics-free.

That not accidental, but the result of firm-handed and aggressive moderation. My account is rate-limited because of getting into political arguments on Hacker News.
I mean background scanning only has to be a read operation, shouldn't that make it simpler?

Also things these days often have multiple antennas.

Also for 2.4ghz I believe Bluetooth shares the same channels. I've noticed that my BT headphones reach longer in no-wifi/few wifi locations.
Appeals Court Revives Texas Law Targeting Social Media Companies
Fourth option is that the deal doesn't go through. Deals fail to go through all the time. If you just sit around and the deal doesn't go through you're fucked. The CEO's job is to manage the company as though the deal won't go through, until it actually closes.
I’m not sure how that distinction makes a difference.

Within the western world, that has always been the primary basis of one’s wealth until fairly recently.
> think how many major websites came and went during those last short 20 years.

Notably in the context of this conversation, Digg.
Something I really appreciate about Zig is its "colorblind async/await" [0].

To my eyes, it's the best of both worlds. It doesn't require a GC like Go's "contiguous stacks" approach [1] or Loom's approach [2]. It also doesn't require coloring like Javascript/Rust's async/await approach, which can sometimes seem like a viral leaky abstraction, causing incidental complexity in the presence of certain patterns.

The main catch is around recursion, but that's not so bad, as Zig as a whole seems to steer users away from recursion anyway, with another interesting feature that detects it at compile time.

I think new languages should be going this direction: focus on making things easier for the user, avoid causing incidental complexity, and keep abstractions zero-cost.

Just my two cents!

[0] https://kristoff.it/blog/zig-colorblind-async-await/

[1] https://medium.com/a-journey-with-go/go-how-does-the-gorouti...

[2] https://youtu.be/NV46KFV1m-4
> People buy it because they expect the price to go up.

Some* people buy it because they expect the price to go up.

Other people are switching to bitcoin because it is better money than their local currency.

> everything it does can be done better by other things

Like what? Trustless transfer of money governed by a protocol that is highly decentralized and secure.
No, I just think the current model of property taxation is immoral; the government shouldn’t be inducing gentrification and the destruction of communities.

The model you’re proposing (LVT) is more sinister, in that the taxation rates would be set with the intention of directly coercing behavior and socially engineering other people’s lives according to your preferences.

Of course, I think you’d very quickly find that, thanks to corruption and regulatory capture, it would not be your preferences being prioritized, and you’d have simply handed a huge hammer to exploitative developers.
That Tim Urban piece is great. It's also an interesting time capsule in terms of which AI problems were and were not considered hard in 2015 (when the post was written). From the post:

> Build a computer that can multiply two ten-digit numbers in a split second—incredibly easy. Build one that can look at a dog and answer whether it’s a dog or a cat—spectacularly difficult. Make AI that can beat any human in chess? Done. Make one that can read a paragraph from a six-year-old’s picture book and not just recognize the words but understand the meaning of them? Google is currently spending billions of dollars trying to do it. Hard things—like calculus, financial market strategy, and language translation—are mind-numbingly easy for a computer, while easy things—like vision, motion, movement, and perception—are insanely hard for it.

The children's picture book problem is solved; those billions of dollars were well-spent after all. (See, e.g., DeepMind's recent Flamingo model [1].) We can do whatever we want in vision, more or less [2]. Motion and movement might be the least developed area, but it's still made major progress; we have robotic parkour [3] and physical Rubik's cube solvers [4], and we can tell a robot to follow simple domestic instructions [5]. And Perceiver (again from DeepMind [6]) took a big chunk out of the perception problem.

Getting a computer to carry on a conversation [7], let alone draw art on par with human professionals [8], weren't even mentioned as examples, so laughably out of reach they seemed in the heathen dark ages of... 2015.

And as for recognizing a cat or a dog — that's a problem so trivial today that it isn't even worth using as the very first example in an introductory AI course. [9]

If someone re-wrote this post today, I wonder what sorts of things would go into the "hard for a computer" bucket? And how many of those would be left standing in 2029?

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.14198

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.10934

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk

[4] https://openai.com/blog/solving-rubiks-cube/

[5] https://say-can.github.io/

[6] https://www.deepmind.com/open-source/perceiver-io

[7] https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08239v2

[8] https://openai.com/dall-e-2/

[9] https://www.fast.ai/
That makes me so angry.

I'm not sure when the study was done, but that article was first (c) 2000. I have never had a doctor or nurse mention running a fan, and neither my wife or I have come across that when researching care of our children... but a 72% decrease in fatality is pretty damn close to an outright cure. How is this not broadcast loudly to every parent of a newborn?
Your comment summarizes what I worry might be a more widespread opinion than I expected. If you think that human extinction is a fair price to pay for creating a supercomputer, then our value systems are so incompatible that I really don't know what to say.

I guess I wouldn't have been so angry about any of this before I had children, but now I'm very much in favor of prolonged human existence.
I have a Pixel 3 here. It doesn't have a 3.5mm jack either, and it's a pity.
Honestly I don't really know what all was checked. We brought her into the vet when she wasn't eating and behaving lethargically, they said her kidneys were failing and we'd have to bring her in regularly for saline bags or learn to administer them ourselves.
Pretty neat language. One of the few that lets you treat allocation failures are regular errors (and makes writing/adding your own allocators really straight-forward).

Although I think HN is probably aware of this lang by now...
You need an atomic_swap(), which at no point allows a situation to be observed whereby a pilot is not in a pilot's seat.
Spaces are warty and ugly right now but I'm enjoying them.
That tower isn't even the worst example, though. Philly is flooded with this kind of crap now: https://billypenn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DSC_0484-10...

Really low quality builds, random stupid rectangles, you can hear everything your neighbor does, yadda yadda yadda. The market is so ridiculous, they can build it as cheap as possible and somebody will snatch it up no matter what.

A lot of them are quite big and use wooden frames, even though they're not really supposed to, because of a loophole with fire-retardant treated wood. There will likely be some major disasters in the next decade.
Is it also scummy if they leave immediately after getting that payout?
It's the opposite of cruel, it's merciful to most likely first time parents who make an inadvertent (fatal) mistake.

And why would that be incorrect?
> Methodologically, how do we create agents that aren't just good at several tasks, but make up their own tasks

It's a good question, it has been asked a few times, and there are some answers[1][2] already, with the most general being to endow the agent with intrinsic motivation defined as an information-theoretic objective to maximize some definition of surprise. Then the agent in question will develop a general curious exploration policy, if trained long enough.

> Further, how do we create agents that can learn without ever seriously failing?

Another good question. One of the good enough answers here is that you should design a sequence of value functions[3] for your agent, in such a way, as to enforce some invariants over its future, possibly open-ended, lifetime. For this specific concern you should ensure that your agent develops some approximation of fear, leading to aversion of catastrophic failure regions in its state space. It's pretty self-evident that we develop such a fear in the young age ourselves, and where we don't, evolution gives us a hand and makes us preemptively fear heights, or snakes, even before we ever see one.

The other answer being, of course, to prove[4] a mathematical theorem around some hard definition of safe exploration in reinforcement learning.

1. https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/interest.html

2. https://www.deepmind.com/publications/is-curiosity-all-you-n...

3. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2016.0009...

4. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03357
This (the crash, not the revocations) might be the worst, most embarrassing outcome for the FAA. Had the stunt gone completely right they could have just put the hammer down on the pilots and said "it could have gone wrong and people could have got hurt!". But we got to see what happened when things went wrong. We saw, even in failure, no one got hurt, and it doesn't seem like anyone was close to getting hurt. Is this luck or were the pilots right the entire time, planning for failure and ensuring no one would be harmed even if they failed? Still doesn't excuse them for going forward despite the exemption being rejected, but a successful failure raises doubt as to the FAA's ability to evaluate risk, which only compounds the current Trent Palmer situation.
> (notice the lack of references).

I do so note. I also note a lack of references in your explanation.

Look, I am not picking sides here. I have no skin in this game, merely a very mild passing interest.

You're presenting your own (AFAICS) hypotheses as facts, and so are they.

The Wikipedia page merely suggests to me that innumeracy was a common problem across the Empire, and that people got it wrong a lot, in inconsistent ways. No?
>I don’t know much about this subject so I can’t really weigh in on how much the post makes sense but [...]

Then how can you say the criticism seems substantive? He brings nothing to the table to show that his criticism is valid, it's basically "I don't like, therefore wrong". The proper way criticize their paper would be conduct your own experiments using their parameters and methodologies and show that the results you obtain do not match theoretical results or results of other observations through other means.

>On that point, scientists don’t need you to chastise people for questioning their authority online. I think a lot of them would be offended at the idea that you think that is what they want.

We question their authority on this specific subject they seem to be criticizing. If you make a claim without having at least the background to support said claim, what value does it have? It's the same as a person without background in microbiology or virology claiming vaccines don't work when they don't even begin to understand the science behind it and the mountain of evidence that says otherwise.
What do spaces have to do with NFTs?
Things changed in the 2000's I think. That's the first time I remember getting rounded up for walking around with my friends too late at night.
Cmd-Shift-V and forget about things.
> I see no evidence in the paper that it can learn arbitrary tasks on the fly.

Neither can we do that. It takes years to become and expert in any field, we are not learning on the fly like Neo. That's when there is extensive training available, for research - it takes thousands of experts to crack one small step ahead. No one can do it alone, it would be too much to expect it from a lonely zero shot language model.

On the other hand the transformer architecture seems to be capable of solving all the AI tasks, it can learn "on the fly" as soon as you provide the training data or a simulator. This particular paper trains over 600 tasks at once, in the same model.
> I agree that BTC has little inherent value

The bitcoin network is extremely valuable. Trustless money is important in a world where all other currencies are created, controlled, and manipulated by governments. We know humans are prone to make poor choices, commit crimes, etc. Especially governments. Why do we allow them to create money when and how they want?
>50% would be my guess
> She's not trying to turn this into a career. She's just curious to understand and potentially interested in picking up a new hobby.

In that case I was completely out of line. I think things like Codea or Codecademy would be fantastic.
YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfDIAZCwHQE
This is amazing! Thank you so much
It arguably isn’t fully colorblind: https://gavinhoward.com/2022/04/i-believe-zig-has-function-c...
> You’re not entitled to mine just because you really want to take it from me.

No one is entitled to anything that is your property. However, you still don’t own the land. Just a right to exclusiveish(barring other rights others hold to the land like easements) use of it as long as you pay your property taxes.

Wanting to keep a monopoly on the use of the land without paying the taxes is you feeling entitled to taking land from society.
This is not an outlier. `mlr` is quite slow, literally off-the-charts slow for our purposes when we benchmarked vs xsv and zsv (see https://github.com/liquidaty/zsv. disclaimer: I'm one of its authors)
Opinionated Guides
Yep, I need to add the rest. I figured I’d start with these.

Thank you for this list! It’s a bit easier to read than scanning the RFCs.

I'll probably just see if I can read the list from dig's source code.
I'm thinking that my devices could have an offline list of known WiFi mac-addresses from when it's checked GPS before and return those for very accurate results without scanning anything.
(Former AI researcher / founder here)

It always surprises me at the ease at which people jump on a) imminent AGI and b) human extinction in the face of AGI. Would love for someone to correct me / add information here to the contrary. Generalist here just refers to a "multi-faceted agent" vs "General" like AGI.

For a) - I see 2 main blockers,

1) A way to build second/third order reasoning systems that rely on intuitions that haven't already been fed into the training sets. The sheer amount of inputs a human baby sees and processes and knows how to apply at the right time is an unsolved problem. We don't have any ways to do this.

2) Deterministic reasoning towards outcomes. Most statistical models rely on "predicting" outputs, but I've seen very little work where the "end state" is coded into a model. Eg: a chatbot knowing that the right answer is "ordering a part from amazon" and guiding users towards it, and knowing how well its progressing to generate relevant outputs.

For (b) -- I doubt human extinction happens in any way that we can predict or guard against.

In my mind, it happens when autonomous systems optimizing reward functions to "stay alive" (by ordering fuel, making payments, investments etc) fail because of problems described above in (a) -- the inability to have deterministic rules baked into them to avoid global fail states in order to achieve local success states. (Eg, autonomous power plant increases output to solve for energy needs -> autonomous dam messes up something structural -> cascade effect into large swathes of arable land and homes destroyed).

Edit: These rules can't possibly all be encoded by humans - they have to be learned through evaluation of the world. And we have not only no way to parse this data at a global scale, but also develop systems that can stick to a guardrail.
Wow I'd completely misunderstood what was being initially UV cured, I thought it was a "skin" of material to form the shape much as a balloons final shape is influenced by the thickness of the rubber and was inflated. Talk about the bad effects of skim reading!
> Crypto doesn't have that quality even hypothetically

And does paper fiat have intrinsic value?

Bitcoin is trustless money. It's mindblowingly amazing that we now have trustless money. We've never ever had that before. That is the value.
Tried it, didn't work, I also dug out the old pmset command but it seems to have been neutered.

I'm glad I stopped using Apple stuff 10 years ago, their macs are gradually devolving into iDevices.
> I hope people debunk the hell out of this.

They did! I was way off: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31358958

Furthermore I think casual coding would be a fantastic way to spend some extra time.

> I will add that at age 72, if she just uses it as a time filler and "never accomplishes anything," it's her time to fill as she sees fit. Why should anyone care if she studies and studies and never produces a single thing?

You are completely right of course. I made up out of whole cloth the idea that she might be trying to do this professionally.
Wasn't it originally manufactured in Europe to boot? Seem to remember a major price rise coming when they had moved production to Asia. There were many people selling their used European models for more than they had paid because it was still cheaper than the new RRP.

I guess TE took advantage of demand for an established product and use it to subsidise their other lines and new development, which I can't see them selling much volume on for the most part (maybe Pocket Operators?).
The smart thing to do would be to convert it to α. (Or type that in the first place?)
on top of this, there is approved hate speech, you just have to use different words/dogwhistles like justice or privilege to activate it
Late stage bitcoin is:

It's trustless, sound money and therefore better than my bullshit fiat.