skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We're really handicapped by a lack of definition, here.

Let's try this: what would it take, no matter how outlandish or unlikely, for you to be completely convinced that a particular chat bot demonstrates full sentience?

I think for me, it would never be able to fully demonstrate sentience to my satisfaction, because even people cannot. I have to take it on faith, philosophically speaking, that you are sentient, for example.

So, for me, if a chat bot feels and behaves like it's sentient, it is sentient for all real, practical intents and purposes, irrespective of its internal processes. Whether it "really" feels, like I do, is as irrelevant as whether you yourself "really" feel like I do. Without a good reason to believe you are not sentient, I must behave as if you are. Likewise, if a chat bot claims sentience and seems to hold a conversation and react the way I expect a sentient creature would, it would be unethical for me to ignore that because I didn't feel its code was sufficiently complicated, particularly if I cannot say for certain why anything is sentient.
It was light and day. It is what it is because of the man in charge. Billy G knew that even he didn't have the skills to manage the development of NT. Therefore he got a guy called Dave Cutler to head it up.

Dave was the man because he used to work for DEC on a project called Onyx and prism (A hardware/software combo to do essentially what NT does) was cancelled by DEC at the last minute.

MS wanted him that much that they brought his entire Development team to MS (not one person was left behind, at his demand. They where quite ...tribal...)

This is also part of the reason NT originally worked on DEC systems as well.

It's all in a rather fascinating book called Showstopper: The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT and the Next Generation at Microsoft

For a few bucks it really is a most excellent read that goes into some techy and really fascinating issues they encountered. One of the biggest was Memory was so little back then.
> Organizing your local software systems using separate processes, microservices that are combined using a REST architectural style, does help enforce module boundaries via the operating system but at significant costs. It is a very heavy-handed approach for achieving modularity.

One of the most effective and succinct criticisms I've seen of microservices: an architecture hack for modularity.

The irony is, it's rarely an effective hack. If you don't get your service boundaries right, modularity goes out the window, and you're stuck with a bunch of network calls that should be function calls.
How to Plan Work for an Infrastructure Team
I use rg, exa, bat, and zellij as my "rust replaced old stuff". Zellij isn't yet as polished as I'd like it, but it's way more intuitive than tmux.
Because there is a market for it.
A prank cursor resulted in an employee being fired before they started (2020)
Can we please have JMAP support in both? Thanks!
If you search for something and then move the map over an area, you’ll get a button to “search this area” which will only show results in that spot.

That’s how it should work, anyway.
Survival instinct- having enough of a world model to understand needs, self, threats, then others, in that order.
He really is the JS server-side sect leader. Plain wrong about so many things you lost count while he talks. Glad that the JS community, not that I am fan, left this dude behind.
Thank you for pointing out the word "sapience," it is a great distinction to the more general concept. Also did you mean to say "sapience" instead of "sentience" in the 3rd paragraph?
> Show me one such claim

In this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31723357, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31723746, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31724418

> The ability for JS to run both client/server means we can do things with it that are not possible with PHP or other server-only languages, and frameworks like React are pushing that boundary.

Sure it does, but this doesn't mean that PHP wasn't rendering on the server. The term still applies to what PHP was doing.

> Pointing out that JS has these unique opportunities is not even remotely the same as "forgetting" and "rediscovering" SSR.

Pointing out those unique opportunities is not a problem, and I agree with you on that. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the usage of SSR or the term SSR. Also, using the same language on server and client is older than modern JS frameworks, which definitely counts as something being "rediscovered". And yes, is definitely a cool thing, nobody is claiming the contrary.
Twenty years of my blog
Interesting, I didn't think any part of what I wrote would be seen as controversial.

> Someone can self-identify as a gender (among other things),

I do this everyday. It happens to match my biological sex, but it doesn't have to. This is probably what makes some people uncomfortable, but a biologically determined gender binary is hardly a universal human truth.

> alter their appearance to present as such,

We all alter our appearances to present in a way we find most useful, pleasing, or comforting. This doesn't seem controversial.

> and a kind and empathetic society will (should) then regard them as such.

I would hope that this part isn't controversial and would be something we all aspire to.

In contrast, I believe that the contexts you've provided (prisons, sports, locker rooms) have been demonstrated to be largely politically motivated controversies with very little real-world evidence for the claimed harms.

A similar situation exists for the medical claims. I believe you're alluding to medical interventions for gender reassignment for young trans people. There have been studies[1] showing that the interventions significantly lower suicidal ideation:

> "Among transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression, access to this treatment is associated with lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation." [1]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073269/
https://archive.ph/iIYGU
Big hit in store for Canadian tech sector as wave of layoffs looms
Because when you try to increase taxes on income and capital for the rich, the very rich always manage to loophole their way out of it and the middle class gets screwed over. Guess who votes?
Jessica Alba now on yahoo board with 5 other new members
Unfortunately, some countries actually prohibit publishing employee salaries.
Hmmm... let me try and answer this, as someone who likes Thunderbird quite a bit (and is cool with people not liking it, but just wants to provide their own perspective).

For traditional business email, you are pretty much stuck with two options - Outlook or Thunderbird. You can try and use webmail of various types - and there are some decent webmail clients out there - but it's just not quite the same as using a good Desktop client.

For the newest Outlook versus the newest Thunderbird, Outlook wins feature wise - it does a lot of things and all of it is pretty well integrated. But if you don't need all the bells and whistles, Thunderbird, in my opinion, is oftentimes better than Outlook.

For example, I find that Thunderbird has a better search than Outlook, and better conversation capabilities (threading and open message in conversation) than Outlook. It's tagging system and archiving system are better than Outlook's. It's add-on system is easier to use then Outlook's (partly because most everything is free). It also allows much more manipulation of the UI than Outlook does as far as I'm aware. All of these things add up, and Thunderbird becomes a much more efficient email client than Outlook for me, which is important if I need to deal with 100 or so emails a day.

On top of these things, in my opinion, Thunderbird is really good and not causing issues down the line. Part of my job is to manage workplace computers (probably no where near as many as some folk here on this site, but not a really small amount either), the amount of trouble Thunderbird gives me compared to the amount of trouble Outlook gives me... well, it makes me want to make everyone use Thunderbird. There are only two things I really have to worry about with thunderbird (they relate to the calendar and mass moving large amounts of emails), but with Outlook... well... I've had to repair people's email enough that I never want to do it again. It sucks. I hate repairing .pst files.

Mmm... I personally have never tried Evolution or davmail, so I can't speak to them, unfortunately. I will have to try them later probably. As for Exchange OAuth, yeah, I can see you having some troubles with it in Thunderbird. I was having Microsoft 365's IMAP implementation give us trouble (ended up dropping it). On the other hand, it was also giving older versions of Outlook trouble... so I'm not sure I can put the blame solely on Thunderbird for this one. I do hope you find something that does what you want it to though.
I would still buy it, as long as you didn't intentionally obfuscate the Windows version for Linux players.

Targeting Linux is hard, and expecting game devs to update their game perpetually to the latest library is unreasonable (much like it is on MacOS). The real Linux advantage is Wine though, which serves as an even better runtime for playing games than their native versions, oftentimes.

A couple anecdotes here: I really like the indie game Ziggurat 2, which shipped with a native Linux version, but it didn't follow XDG standards and made a random folder in my home directory. It also had input lag issues, and switching to the Windows version through Wine solved all of these issues. Same case for Rimworld, too: has a great native version with some modding quirks, but works perfectly well under Wine.

The only thing that really pisses me off is when developers intentionally snub Linux users for seemingly no reason. The developer behind Diabotical, a Quake-like shooter, had a game that ran perfectly well on Linux without his knowledge, anti-cheat and all. The guy threw a fit for some reason when finding out about this, and went as far as adding syscalls into his game that crashed Wine. The game is still unplayable on Linux to this day, despite working perfectly fine (and supposedly with perfect EAC support).
And how do poor people get to work? Most poor people cannot generate cash flow without a car, no? Cities de-prioritized non-car commuters decades ago.

Shall the US re-prioritize non-car commuters?
That still doesn't explain it - you don't have to buy something because there's a market for it.
A major problem with these table formats that will surface soon enough is that they use serial numerical ordering for versions.

It's like inventing SVN for data. Soon enough git will have to be invented as well.
> If they enforced the rules consistently then by that logic I could get any subreddit closed down by asking for things that are against the rules.

Some subs do get brigaded by users intentionally posting content that violates reddit TOS. The same happens on Discord. Some are trolls, others are intentionally malicious so they can report things. If you have an inactive mod team in either community, yeah your sub will go poof.
> I think that burnout can't be fixed with exercise, more free time, vacations, etc...

> 2) then start doing things that seem to heal you

what if more free time, vacations, etc, seem to heal me?

I think I get your general gist, but this seemed a bit contradictory.
How do you know when you are in love?
I found this to be a very interesting feature, but yes, it's woefully inefficient, competes with efficient tech, and I'm not convinced it'll follow a Moore's Law trend and be a viable 286 replacement in 2035.
A former neighbor made a living doing this. He was an MIT-trained physicist with a very unusual area of expertise that was somehow in demand in certain types of personal injury cases. I think it might have been how things bounce.

That was his only occupation. His wife had a regular job that provided health insurance and income in between expert witness gigs.
> Sentience is a philosophy question, not a neuroscience question.

Came here to say the same thing. Neuroscience can give us one answer, but neuron-like "things", whether real or artificial, need not be the only way to build sentient beings.
I'd say you have a more black-and-white vision than me.

While it's not perfectly decentralized, e.g. some users do delegate their trust to centralized services for convenience or security, it is still more decentralized than fiat where (digital) self-custody is simply not possible. Decentralization and trust are a spectrum, not a binary. Even compiling the software yourself wouldn't get you 100% there [0].

I also feel that it's a bit early to call Bitcoin a failure but I do agree that it has a long way to go for mass atoption. Bitcoin is not disrupting the taxi or the hotel industry. It is disrupting the most entrenched and powerful "status quo" there is on Earth. We're talking about global banking, global finance, powerful governments, etc. Most people have no conception of what money really is or even that it could be different.

> That people are still getting burned by trusting major exchanges is hard to believe, and why you really can't make this up. It's stranger than fiction.

Surely you knew that Binance existed prior to this tweet?

> Yes, it is me. Jamie Dimon. Warren Buffett and George Soros are here next to me too. Bill Gates is on the way, and he's bringing chips and guac. We're all out to get those pesky crypto entrepreneurs.

My suspicion was simply that many HNers tend to reflexively upvote any comment that paints crypto in a bad light.

[0] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...
Also problematic is that gitlab really really cares what programming languages you've worked in before. I've applied and they've turned me down because I didn't have enough Ruby experience, nevermind that I have plenty of years of experience in development and learning another language isn't that big of a deal.

Ruby has had it's heyday. It's 15 minutes of fame was a decade ago. If they persist in using Ruby and only hiring people with extensive Ruby experience, they're going to run out of talent AND have to pay over market rate to get people in their specialization. Like all the banks and governments forking over loads of cash for COBOL and Coldfusion consultants because the refused to modernize.
Honestly, I'd sum it up as "we'll know it when we see it". A lot of things can't be defined exactly in words or equations, but doesn't mean we can't recognize them.
See the zero-shot performance of CLIP: https://openai.com/blog/clip/

It's definitely better performance than what you'd get working in 5 minutes from more conventional approaches.
think about the children!
>There is no smart contracts on BTC

Not true, BTC does have smart contracts. They called it op-code and most people don't use it anymore, but me and my friends built a poker game and we play every Thursday.

The original wallet download also had a poker game, but they decided to take it out after a while to ensure btc wasn't labeled as "Gambling"
I agree. Sentient or not, I think the fact that we now need to start seriously considering these questions, and not just as some far away hypothetical exercise anymore, is quite impressive in itself
TFA's argument is that you don't know jack if you're not a neuroscientist. This is fallacious and reeks of somebody trying to inflate the value of their profession.

AIs are, at best, philosophical zombies. To an observer it may appear intelligent enough to be conscious but it ultimately it is still just a machine.

There are a lot of things that are not known or well-understood about the human body. The same cannot be said about computers, which are very well understood. A computer is effectively just layers upon layers upon layers of abstraction, and when you get the near the bottom all you have is simple digital logic, and when you get below that you have transistors and semiconductor electronics. It's absolutely ridiculous to think a computer has some sort of "subjective experience", "sentience" or "consciousness" just because the uppermost layers of abstraction are doing something impressive.
I keep going back and forth between the two. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses the other lacks. Currently, I'm on FairEmail because its IMAP IDLE client implementation seems so much better than K-9's. On the UI side, FairEmail is trying harder to keep up with the Material Treadmill, but still manages to seem less polished.
I've tried it a bit.

It's the most viable and promising so far I think. I have too many directories for it to be usable without some new features, though (namely highlight dirs with new mail and more filtering capabilities). It's practically unusable, but granted I may have an unusual setup. If you just have a handful of active folders it might be great.

Didn't notice any surprising syncing issues so far.
> If the unemployment rate is zero, that also means that there are jobs that literally cannot be filled and are not being done. That's bad too.

Well... I'd argue that depends on which jobs it is that goes unfilled. I'm sure many people here have worked jobs that would be better off not done.
> I think the real ethical concern here should be that people can be idly fooled into thinking good chat bots are sentient.

people can be fooled in general for pretty much any reason. this is just a newish avenue for deception. but i don't see it as something different than getting a call from some crooks to transfer some money.
How would such a test look like? Would it answer the "hard question" of consciousness? And aren't you moving the goal post?
As an individual sure, but as an organization? No way a team of 100 can just pivot to another provider.

CICD providers are not interoperable, once one is picked, it's a complete lock in.

If I was evil, I would offer a cheap service to employees of any potential contributors, one MBA types don't understand, then once they've made themselves dependent on it, make it unreliable. Boom. There goes your productivity and your credibility as competition.
Believe me, I hate the toolchain/buildchain as much as anyone. Especially TypeScript (see below). Luckily, Next.js also takes care of all that too! Out of the box it preconfigures all of it with sane defaults. `npm start` and you have a working server with transpilers all seamlessly configured, and when you change a line of code it just hot refreshes in the browser. On a `git push` to Vercel or a similar capably platform, the server transparently does all that and gives you a sandboxed preview environment for that specific build. It is magical.

But really, what I meant about "writing code not like the old days" isn't so much about the shitty toolchain (which Next helps with, but I agree it's shitty). Rather, it's the ability to write code like:

<Header loggedIn={isLoggedIn}/>

<Sidebar options={isLoggedIn ? navOptions.loggedIn : navOptions.loggedOut}

<Dashboard>

{widgets ? widgets.map(widget => <WidgetContainer>{widget}</WidgetContainer) : <Spinner/>}

</Dashboard>

Basically, the ability to compose pages & apps out of components (which different developers can work on), and the ability to manage state in a central controller via Redux or useContext to avoid race conditions and the such. That sort of stuff is REALLY hard to do with plain HTML and JS, especially where there are multiple developers involved. React isn't a magical cure-all, it just makes it easy to componentize large apps into smaller areas of concern.

The shitty buildchain isn't a feature, it's an unfortunate side effect of browsers being limited to JS. Essentially it's a "compile" step that became necessary as the vanilla-JS developer experience wasn't able to keep pace with the complexity of desired business apps (and as devs of various skill levels flooded the market). So the developer tools kept growing, but they still had to be compiled/built into JS for the browsers. Next.js makes it relatively painless, compared to how it was just 3-4 years ago. But I agree, I hate that this is a step at all.

Ugh, as for TypeScript... I get that it's a necessary evil, but I spend more time fighting it than actual bugs... coming from PHP, it was already common practice to manually typecheck and coerce everything when needed, anyway. TypeScript often felt redundant and overly sensitive, especially when it came to async nullables, causing false alarms that React could just've silently handled with {isLoaded ? <Component/> : <Spinner/>}

But TypeScript is optional anyway. It's a superset/addon on top of JS, so you never have to use it if you don't want to. If it's scaffolded for you in someone else's project, usually it's just a matter of a either using a .JS extension instead of .TS, or adding a ts-nocheck or similar to that file. Other devs may hate you for that though, when your object or props ends up breaking theirs... so it's definitely a conversation worth having first :)
People ask "was that photoshopped?" all the time.

Kids will be video calling each other as SpongeBob and Richard Nixon soon.

polote is right. In a decade, anyone will be able to make a nude of anyone else with their phone with just one photo. Or any other funny or stupid video or image.

The tech is real and is coming fast. We can either legislate it or stop worrying and get used to it. I prefer the latter approach.

This is going to be the biggest artistic renaissance of all time. Everyone has something to say, but most lack the years of practiced skill to say it. Not anymore.
Hey, that's already halfway to a six pack! Maybe these BSD developers do know what they're doing, after all...
Well since the only choices that exist are Java, PHP or Ruby, you made the right choice!
"Yes", is the short answer. Every ECMO machine I've ever seen uses a [1] peristaltic pump and, despite the use of tubes coated with anticoagulants and with various proprietary bits of chemistry [2] to reduce the size of the inviscid layer and hence shear stresses, the maximum length of time you can spend on them is limited. It's always a downhill battle and typically a "metric shitton" of heparin is infused in order to reduce the risk of thrombus, despite the hemorrhagic risk [3].

All of these things are fine balancing acts but you do not want to be on ECMO for a long time. Similar technologies, such as cardiac LVADs are only licensed in the UK as a bridge to transplant, for example, where a well-defined end-date already exists before putting the patient on them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristaltic_pump
[2] https://www.terumo-europe.com/en-emea/products/tubing-set-pe...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5457945/
Thanks for the extra detail. I need to go dust off my Kirchoff rule books. :-)
Hello!

I just really don't understand how the industry adopted these ridiculous practices. I'm lucky that I get a ton of recruiters reaching out once I toggled my LinkedIn to say I'm open, but I don't understand what they expect other than me to say "I guess I'll message you in 3 months after I take on an unpaid second job of learning how to write algorithms I never once used in the last 15+ years of my engineering career to solve problems that are meant to just trick me". You would think they'd want to make it so that engineers did have the option of evaluating other companies at any time, rather than having to prepare endlessly. If I decide I want a new job now (which I did a few weeks ago), I can't do anything about it for a while (unless I'm one of those who practices LC all week rather than learning much more useful things).

No point in ranting further about this.. everyone is well aware.

There's of course some companies that don't subject you to this nonsense, but the list is really limited, and just finding out who they are has taken me many weeks and many phone calls. But a month of that plus trying to "learn" everything required for all of these interviews has made me burnt out and bitter (just like you said). I don't want to jump through these ridiculous hoops and play this stupid game... but what's the alternative?