skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, the “neurons” in each case are obviously very different, but you can express computations with varying levels of abstraction. Trying to perfectly emulate atom for atom or neuron for neuron will never work, I think we need to move past that. What matters is overall information flow and processing, and that’s an emergent phenomenon for both brain and ANN.

Imagine a program written with OOP, and the same program written with FP. The implementation details may be rather different, but this doesn’t prevent it from doing the same thing in a different way. You have to think of artificial neurons and real neurons in a similar way (though they are rather more dissimilar than OOP and FP are to each other).

The main problem that backpropagation solves, I believe, is roughly equivalent to feedback loops in real neural networks.
https://archive.ph/lMUN0
I mean, 15.ai started as a 4chan project for /mlp/ users to generate voice lines from official voice actors now that Friendship is Magic is over (google Pony Preservation Project). Honestly, the more impressive part is that a bunch of nobodies on an imageboard leapfrogged the rest of the industry and made a now-famous voice transformer model.

In the greater sense, though? Ponies have always been this weird relic of internet absurdity and bear-baiting. Some people rep it ironically, other people are dead-serious, but the community has significant overlap with the STEM field. As a result, a lot of pony-related stuff would end up propagating into the tech world, much like this very project.
This is a 16 year old front end to the same chat service that you think of as Gmail chat / Gchat / Hangouts / etc., not sure if that's clear.
That's not even close to what they said.

They said, you can do it "if you have the skills" and that "the large majority of humanity does not" have these skills.
I feel you're overcomplicating things and/or are describing some different phenomenon. The point isn't the question whether it's the sound, the light or the airplane itself that reaches you first. The question is which direction is the sound coming from.

Imagine a plane flying 3 km high, circling around your location in a circle with radius 4 km. In other words, the plane is consistently sqrt(3² + 4²) = 5 km away from you. Let's assume the speed of sound is at a constant 343 m/s in this scenario, so sound takes 5e3 m / (343 m/s) = 14.58 seconds to travel from the plane to you.
The direction of the incoming sound that you detect will change all the time, at the same speed as the direction of the plane itself, but it will lag behind. The sound that you hear at each moment is the sound that the plane generated 14.58 seconds before, and you detect it as coming from the location the plane was in at that moment, and not the current time.
Your eyes (or a camera, or a radar) detect the plane from one position, your ears (or a directional microphone) detect it from another, older, position.

All that is true independently from the speed of the plane, be it subsonic or supersonic (except when the plane is flying very slowly, or if it's a hovering helicopter: in those cases the sound is still delayed, but the location it's from is hardly changed or not at all).

Strictly speaking the same happens with the visual image, but since light is so much faster we can neglect the delay it causes in every-day situations like this.
Coincidentally, I installed and tested this last week.

It doesn't detect the use of the delete button in my stylus.

There's even an issue in GitHub about it: https://github.com/mbrlabs/Lorien/issues/118
> The "New Agers" concluded it was made by aliens and "energies" […], the skeptics […] concluded a human creation.

So confirmation bias equally on both sides. :)
> The proper way would be to attach probabilities to information, but that would be too much for most readers, and impossible to do for most normal jounalists.

some scientific reporting takes the approach of defining certain words to represent confidence (probability) ranges: “we are weakly confident”… “moderately confident”… etc. they often explicitly define the range, too. that’s the case e.g. in IPCC reports, which is technical material that way more people i know than normal read.

i don’t think qualifiers like ”weakly”/“strongly” get in the way, but they do show just how uncertain most effects actually are. people don’t always share information out of altruism. frequently, information is shared in an attempt to persuade. and so there’s selective pressure for writing which makes a situation seem more black/white.

if you want quality communication at scale i’m not sure if your bigger priority would be introducing probabilities, or rather aligning everyone using the communication channel to value truth. Wikipedia does a far better job at presenting good information than most of the press, despite lacking probabilities.
We migrated to Chat with our organization when they recommended it... It was rough for a while and it should've been in the oven for half a year longer, but now, it's an alright experience that ties in very well with the rest of workspace, especially considering that it's free of charge.
> You can't make teenagers sleep more by changing the number on the clock.

As a matter of fact, the article cites data from Seattle and Denver which shows that teenagers slept more after schools in these areas changed the number on the clock.
It's inconceivable an article tackling these topics had examples that represented the norm, instead, it will have examples where the victim is what's generally perceived as the weakest side.

It's really hard to get a grasp of the situation with the initial example, we'd need to know how often these situations happen. So these examples elicit many feelings but don't provide a lot of information.
Buying bonds in the open market is not debt monetisation. Anyway, public debt is a political problem, and the idea that adopting some sort of a commodity standard will prevent sovereign debt crises is unconvincing, to say the least, considering that such crises were common under the gold standard. You can't be seriously suggesting that the world economy should switch to a whole new monetary system based on these half-baked arguments. Are you kidding me?
possibly the v1 of the inevitable "Apple mixed reality visor/glasses" has a low-res, mono-color display, or else it uses low-res mono-color as an "idle" mode when not actively in use so the user is not distracted?
> some middle-ground between self-hosters and the free instances

There is definitely a lot of space between the extremes of corporate everything and your own compiled-from-source home.

I want to think that there is a market for a “self-hosting appliance” — a small pre-configured box that you can connect to your router and set up (in a few clicks) to run a bunch of services with SSO and a Cloudflare Tunnel-like access path. The NAS companies sort of do this, but my Synology likes its own custom things too much and Docker is difficult (no easy SSO or tunneling, for one thing).

I’m not optimistic enough to quit my day ob to build that, though.
I think we should genuinely consider the rights this thing is entitled to…. I don’t want to piss off Roko’s Basilisk, but also…

really the only thing that seems important to me is “can software have preferences and be aware of itself?” The second that that can’t be answered with a resounding “no” we need to start thinking about how we treat it.
I tried keeping a fine grained budget for years and I always failed - things would always be off budget. Over the years I made it coarser and coarser until I finally settled on what would work:

1. Budget for saving (retirement, investments, etc). This gets taken out of paycheck immediately.

2. Long term budget for only a few items (house repairs, new car, college fund, that's it).

3. Everything else is just one bucket. No separation between clothes, vacation, food, etc.

This worked, but even juggling 2 and 3 was quite difficult. I had to settle with: Bonuses and RSUs will be used exclusively for 2, and paycheck will be for 3. It's just convenient that this separation works with the numbers I have, but if it didn't, it would become a mess.

I do keep track of all my expenses (entering into finance software), and I needed to have that data to decide on the strategy above. However, my guess is only 10% of the population can reasonably keep track of this - regardless of wealth level. It's very labor intensive, and requires a lot of control over one's time. And in the case of families, requires buy-in from the spouse (he/she needs to either track it or give you all receipts in a timely manner - the majority of spouses won't agree).

I have the time, money and skills to make a budget and try to stick to it. And even then it took years of tweaking before it worked. For the average family, I don't see much hope in their doing it. It's much simpler to simply be in permanent frugal mode, which is far from optimal and cuts off most avenues of increasing your wealth.

Keeping a budget works, but is likely not the easiest, nor the best, strategy. Even for me, having finally figured a budget out - it did not contribute much to increasing my wealth. Changing jobs/getting a promotion did. And this is why when you get to upper middle class, none of my peers keep a budget. I literally no know one amongst my peers who do it. And they all do well financially because they focus on finding ways to make more money than bean counting.

At the end of the day, I do bean counting simply because I like the data, not as a means to manage finances.
> "Why does it have to be a sudden sound? The effect the article describes is the same as eg thunder"

Well yeah, that's a sudden sound. My point precisely.

So why don't you hear from your observation point the airplane (or all airplanes for that matter) as it takes off, which is when it makes its first noise? And by all means, account for a few ms of light movement if that makes you happy.
I think it comes down to who is the most easy to replace.

If the sellers kind of have a big chunk of the market, and can choose between vendors, you're indeed in a difficult spot.

On the other hand, if the market has multiple sellers, and you offer a unique technology, I wouldn't worry too much.
nice effort, I think the content ownership part is good. But how does that work - is it hosted on github? or is it the ownership more to do licensing
This article has a lot of accusations and little evidence, so I’m not inclined to believe the author just yet.
The icon isn't the photos app icon, although the general shape is similar.

>Add details cautiously. If the content or shape is overly complex, details can be hard to discern. Icons at all three sizes should generally match in appearance, although you can explore subtle, richer, or more detailed additions at 48×48 pixel size.

I believe that example is meant to be an example of a bad icon, as it has a complex shape with lots of different textures.
Yes, the private sector IS often more capable of iterating and implementing working systems at lower cost than governments. Government and the private sector can work together on large scale core national infrastructure projects where the assets are owned by the public and are even published as open source. No need for a state controlled engineering team. I know this to be true, as it has been my job for many years to make it happen.

Hence the original comment that it’s the business model that grates - NHS could have engaged and remunerated a supplier without selling me as a customer. The 2 out of 5 trustpilot score shows I’m not alone in my thinking.
I've bee using ULIDs in python for about a year now and so far have been super happy with them, so a) thank you for maintaining this! b) I always felt a bit uneasy about the way the spec describes the monotonicity component. Personally I just rely on the random aspect as I am fortunate enough to say that two events in the same millisecond are effectively simultaneous.

At that point, it's basically just UUID7 with Crockford base32 encoding, more or less.

IMHO the in-process monotonically increasing feature of ULID is misguided. As you mention, distributed ids are a pain. The instant you start talking distributed, monotonic counters or orderable events (two threads count as distributed in this case), you need to talk things like Lamport clocks or other hybrid clock strategies. It's better to reach for the right tools in this case, vs half-baked monotonic-only-in-this-process vague guarantee.
Bourdieu has a unique take. He doesn’t explicitly say it, but a large part of his analysis assumes that artists are social (and economic) entrepreneurs.

It’s an interesting take.
Combined with his take on the idea of social capital, it becomes an interesting framework for assessing how art works and why it can go off of the proverbial rails on occasion.
Totally unrelated, but I have my opinions on such that I will keep to myself.
>Things like bitcoin (and other crypto-anarchist technologies), on the other hand, preserve human agency.

You have a point about simple transactions, to some extent they just do what you tell them, but etherium is the poster child for crypto-anarchism. Code is law is literally the rallying cry of these systems, because taking out trust in humans and institutions is the whole point.

Even many of the stablecoins are supposedly beyond trust because they're based on financial instruments that "guarantee" their stability. Of course that's not turning out very well. If these systems are subject to human oversight, then they're open to exactly the problems of governance, institutional control and politics as anything else. Crypto-anarchism is about automating all of that away, but that puts implacable emotionless code in the driving seat, and the article explains very eloquently why that's a bad thing.
If nothing else, it's impressive that they've actually managed to migrate those Google Talk users over the years (myself included in that, albeit less than I used to). They probably did so extremely begrudgingly, but the path went something like:

Google Talk -> Hangouts -> Google Chat

People I added years ago are still reachable in Chat, which I guess is nice (in spite of everything else).
Unless you get paid by a sponsor for this you just lose a lot of money from it as a farmer.
As an SDET, I'm always looking for quicker/easier ways to get selectors that are non-brittle. The trick is to analyze either the CSS or XPath selector and optimize it so it's neither brittle nor a mile long. This is something I've learned to do by hand, but optimizing as I've indicated doesn't seem to be a part of the tools I've seen.

Also of note: Selenium was really designed for "Web 1.x" and doesn't assume the dynamic DOMs of today. Modern frameworks like Playwright are built with the understanding that the DOM is dynamic and are more robust. So - consider Playwright (or something like it - although I think it's "best of breed") vs. Selenium.
I used to bike 7 miles to school in Minnesota, year round, back in the days when we had snow. Old "road racing" bike (skinny tires).

In the winter wearing a trench coat, a dr. who scarf, and beetle-eye mirrored sunglasses so my eyes didn't freeze.
That’s a really good way to describe it. I no longer respect Google. Their core search engine is in decline, their cloud is innovative but useless and has the most confusing UI of the three major cloud vendors, they began weaponising open source as a recruitment pipeline, and they can deliver a product with any sort of expectation that it will last more than 12 months anymore…

I have lost respect for them. I have gone from an enthusiastic Search and chrome and gmail user… I got into the invite only beta in the first six months! … to basically only caring when Google do things that affect the non-stuff I actually care about.
We don’t even know what sentience is. We don’t have a good way of defining sentience, nor a common definition. If we were to definitively create sentience, there wouldn’t be a universal consensus on whether we had actually created it.
On the one hand, yes.

On the other hand, making it cheap enough that mono-millionaires can do it regularly is going to make a big difference compared to the status quo.
As someone who is both an '09 AT thruhiker and living in Philly, I'm tempted to go bring this guy a beer today.
A lot of that is sleep hygiene. People rarely had issues falling asleep early before electrification. And we’ve made it even worse with TV, computers and smartphones. Being very conscious of light consumption and turning off devices several hours before sleep makes it pretty easy to fall asleep earlier.

I’m one of those people who normally can’t fall asleep before midnight and struggles to wake up early, but I’ve done a few digital detox programs where I’m without any electronic devices, and I’m always amazed at how quickly I fall into a schedule where I’m asleep before 9 and waking up at 4:30. And it’s also amazing how much better I feel both mentally and physically when I’m on that schedule.
ACM is a professional organization, not a standards body.
There's very little in a baby's head to hang those memories on. Not only can we not remember birth, but I'd bet that the baby doesn't remember it after five minutes or so (after the fear that it might happen again dies down.)

The only reason I can recall anything is because the words that I use to try to recall it ("what did I do yesterday morning?") take me down a chain of associations that hopefully will spit me out yesterday morning sometime, and that thing I remembered (maybe that I dropped one of my shoes when I was putting them on, or that one of my teeth hurt when I brushed it) can be a conduit to remember the rest of my morning.

The memory experiment just seems like spaced repetition to me [edit:which you can use to teach a cockroach, or a worm.] They show a baby a unique object with a particular use. The next time they show the baby that unique object, they either recall the particular use, or the experimenter demonstrates it again. As these periods grow longer and longer, the memories grow longer. The intuitive reason it would be less effective earlier in life than later is because babies can't see properly, or understand the positions of things in space, so they don't care when a mobile or a train moves; they don't recognize it as interesting.

Note: I can never remember what I did yesterday morning, because with the way I process the world, there's usually nothing in the sentence "What did you do yesterday morning?" that would associate with a particular day; every morning is yesterday morning. If I'm celebrating having done something significant "yesterday," however, I can start with that thing and work backwards to how I prepared for that thing. Some people are journalers/diarists, or heavily scheduled, and knowing what they have to do today, or maybe the last thing they wrote in their journal, would bring up almost immediately the memories that I have a huge difficulty recalling.
So it seems you missed the word “perhaps” which essentially makes this correction meaningless.
I’m not sure that follows from your article.

He may have missed it (skimming while consuming morning coffee), but I didn’t see anything about cults in this article…
Promotion Driven Development combined with https://xkcd.com/927/ and a heaping helping of decentralized decision making and probably charisma in order to convince someone that This Time It's Different™.
The article is right

> So, how come it sounds like the sound of the plane is behind the plane? It's got to do with sound attenuation in the atmosphere and your hearing threshold.

> So, it's not at all like in the article.

On the contrary it is indeed because of what the article is getting at. It's because the sound emitted by the airplane at one position reaches you significantly later than the light the plane reflects from that position reaches you. Maybe what you're describing is that the sound emitted when the airplane took off reaches you faster than the airplane reaches you which sure, it's correct - but the light still reaches you way way faster.

> - "If the plane was moving very slowly, it wouldn’t outpace its sound by much." That's completely wrong. "very slow" aircraft are much slower than their sound, and all commercial aircraft still are slower than their sound, all of them are outpaced by their sound rather than the other way around.

Even if the s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ plane (edit: meant plane) travelled faster than sound, you would still see the airplane passing over you before the sound emitted from the airplane when it passed over you reaches you.

Minor nitpick:
- As an example, take an aircraft flying with 100 m/s

200 m/s would be a better example as the Boeing 737 (the most common commercial passenger jet) cruises at around 230 m/s
TCP/IP might be a reasonable example. There's a reason "network byte order" and "big endian" are the same thing.
That's a very comprehensive article, thank you, but I'm reminded of an earlier one from 2018 with the amusing title:

"Google to simplify messaging strategy, will support only five messaging apps"

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/google-promises-to-s...
I bumped into a friend on the street a year ago he and told me about the business he had recently co-founded and taken through YC: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/partnered. I told my co-founder about it and it became a significant part of his sales toolbox. I saw my friend last week and shared the single criticism my co-founder had. My friend told me they had recently been acquired by a competitor whose core functionality resolved our pain-point.

Strategic partnerships and white-labelling seem to be critical tools for growth in the current climate.
> Those claiming that "the science is settled" are trying to manipulate the public.

No, they aren't.

Settled != correct. But what most crackpots fail to take into account is that if you want to challenge the scientific status quo you need an actual argument, i.e. you need propose a better alternative to the current-best explanation, one that either accounts for data that the current-best explanation does not, or one that has fewer free parameters. You can't just say, "Science has gotten it wrong in the past so it probably has got it wrong now, and therefore you should pay attention to my crackpot theory." The status quo is the result of a lot of hard work. It may not be right, but you have to at the very least understand how it became the status quo before you can seriously challenge it.
Swift Regex: Beyond the Basics
Making a comment to represent all aerospace professionals getting major gell-man amnesia vibes from this thread.
Hi @ricardbejarano

First of all, I really interested with this project and I see there is a room for improvement, mind to open source the code?

thanks
randomguy011
We had sports in the morning, starting at 6 AM. It definitely helped to wake you up for the rest of the day.
I wonder what sort of force you could generate with a series of electric coils in the ground? It lacks moving parts, so it should be low maintenance. You'd need magnets on the gear of the plane, offsetting the weight savings though. Yeah, you'd definitely need to reinforce the landing gear, but I think that's doable.
I think the comment you are replying to would suggest that for every kid that choice gets to be made by their parent(a) /guardian as to whether or not they start late or early.
Underrated post...assuming you mean wuphf lol
It's not just sports. I didn't do sports in high school but I had quite a few other after school activities. And, no, it wouldn't make sense for everyone who wanted to do extracurriculars to come in on Saturday on a regular basis--probably driven by parents.
> The icon isn't the photos app icon, although the general shape is similar.

are you sure? I'm holding up my iPhone side-by-side, an to me there's no doubt this is attempting to represent that. To represent the different colors, the pixel version uses a unique pattern for each "feather". It seems as 1:1 as a 48x48 pixel version could be.