skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If other employees are mocking or harrasing you for you beliefs, then I think the company should step in. A hostile work environment should not be tolerated.

That being said: You leave your religious belief at home. Religion may guide you in life, but unless there’s a obvious reason religion is something you keep at home and in church/temple/whatever.

You can believe anything you want, but you keep it to yourself. If you somehow involve me, then you give me permission to have an opinion.
One question has always bothered me. How do these language models know who or what they are?

For example, When you ask it questions and it gives responses like "I'm an AI", or it may know it's name.

So how does the language model know what it is from the training data?

Is it somehow hard-coded in, or are there specific bits of training data used to make that connection for it? Could you make a language model that did not know what it was?
> Are you claiming that murder was totally accepted as normal before Moses got the Commandments?

Pretty much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide read the 4th paragraph.

Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war which also traces its roots to religion. Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

I don't think you quite realize how much of modern morality traces itself to religious law. Maybe take a course in Philosophy.
The author is trying their best to be the odd one out. A few coversation topics will always be controversial when hanging out with your coworkers, religion being one of the leading examples. The question is why would you even want to bring it up unless you're looking for someone to argue with.
Thats not thinking out of the box.
I had the mRNA vaccines in mid '21. It was like any other shot, why risk covid if you can get the vaccine?

Point is, just because my experience with the vaccine was fine doesn't mean everyone's would be, and just because your experience with covid was like a mild flu doesn't mean everyone's would be. The rational thing to do is to weigh the two risks. And the evidence so far shows that the total risks of covid, even for a young, healthy person, multiplied by the likelihood of getting it, do outweigh the risks of the mRNA vaccines.

For children it's probably closer, at least in terms of acute risks. I expect the risks of chronic complications from covid are still enough to tip the scales, but I could be persuaded otherwise with more evidence. But you have to be willing to consider the evidence that exists, not just that which supports your priors.
As someone who majored in broscience with a minor in broceanography, this is def not broscience (henceforth “bs”). There’s none of the hallmark bs features like rigid adherence to a simplified / half true physiology or an assumed idea of what “fitness” is.

This is really something I think of as “fitness fluff”. It’s not really science, it’s a simple training plan that’ll probably work for >50% of the reasonably fit population. It’s also a training plan to accomplish a specific thing, do a handstand. It doesn’t really feel like a discussion on whether handstands are good and what regressions to apply where; why judge it so.

The bs and “real” science on nutrition and exercise both face a replicability crisis. The salt you take with all this bs (or studies, advice) will also help you achieve bigger pumps during hypertrophy training.

p.s. Don’t take the “bro” in bs too literally. It comes from all genders and identities equally. Anecdotally the biggest purveyor of bs in my life was a woman who went to med school. I still hear and say plenty of bs in my circle of crunchy climbers. You apply it moderately and trust your gut on what’s reasonable in the face of _massive_ complexity.
The wavelength difference has big implications in terms of the detail that can be resolved due to the surface interactions.

Tesla doesn’t use their radar anymore in any case. Only monocular cameras.
What does a batsman see? (2018)
You missed the part where the OP is going around Google talking about how religious he is when nobody asked.

If you believe in something nonsensical, people will let it slide. If you believe in something nonsensical and are being obnoxious about it, you will be insulted and you will deserve it.
No, in any sane work arrangement you spend the majority of your time somewhere other than work.
To quote the comment I linked to:

> GUSD's site claims audits - under a heading titled "Review the Gemini dollar reserve-funds independent accountant audits" but links to attestations (example: https://assets.ctfassets.net/jg6lo9a2ukvr/3ZfEIugZkOLsArm4JK..., "conducted in accordance with attestation standards").
I wonder in what areas of science are we living/will we be viewed by future humans in a similar light as we view adherents of the “4 Elements” theory big nature are viewed today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element

Quantum theory is only around 100 years old. Maybe we’ve got everything right, but I suspect we’re not the first people to have that thought and therefore we’re probably due for significant learning about the universe in the next 100 years.
Linking two… hey give me the same feeling of endless exploration and discovery:

https://radio.garden

http://astronaut.io
Turns out that myocarditis is though https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/
False equivalence. Religion is a personal choice. Sexual orientation isn't.
You have to remember, however, that decisions companies make are things that people will interpret as “political” all the time - so this idea is without merit.

Google providing directions to vaccination sites on a map is “political”. Providing equal benefits to same-sex couples when they can’t marry is “political”. Providing a virtual gallery that celebrates women artists over history is “political”.

Too often “politically neutral” means “politically within a narrow range of values that I myself accept as uncontroversial” and hey-ho, you’re back to politics.
Is the amount of spike protein in the body during an actual infection larger? I.e. is it not still better to get vaccinatet rather than infected?
That's just a straight up lie. The current best Insignia TV (the F50 line) has a crappy 60hz panel with no local dimming, no real hdr, bad gradient handling, a bad scalar, mediocre colours, and low hz PWM dimming. It's honestly a shit TV that will give people headaches due to the low 240hz PWM frequency (ideally you wouldn't use PWM dimming at all). It also lacks variable refresh rate support (which modern consoles have), and can't do 4:4:4 chroma in case you ever wanted to use it with a computer. It is most definitely not a high end panel.

They're cheap, and that's about the only thing they have going for them.

Re: Samsung, they only makes a few TVs that are decent these days. They've ruined their brand by removing features from mid tier models and soured enthusiasts due to their terrible laggy ad-ridden interface, the cheating in benchmarks, the downgrading of panels in high end models to low contrast IPS panels, and the lack of Dolby Vision because they want people to use their own HDR10+ standard (not to be confused with HDR10).
The U.S. has a long history from past to present of repeatedly invading countries and using military means to achieve geopolitical goals and making the world more conducive to its ambitions, with no regard for human life.

Don't compare Germany to a country like the U.S. in this way because of what the Nazi Party did 80 years ago.
My recommendation is always Pavel Grinfeld's youtube 3-part playlists, starting from https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlXfTHzgMRUKXD88IdzS1....
The Princess Alice experiments are evidence for the alternative rationale that belief in invisible God-like beings who impose rules is a useful trait for early civilisations which have inadequate oversight for their members.

Superstitious people will obey rules with no actual enforcement out of a mistaken belief that an invisible Deity might punish them for disobedience, this benefits the rest of their society, at least in the short term. Of course it breaks down if a few people in society exploit everybody else's beliefs. "Princess Alice wants you to look after the sheep" is beneficial because it means shepherds do their jobs properly, but "Princess Alice needs you to sell your worldly possessions so that I can have a nice necklace" not so much.
> > if we accept the general premise that AIs can become sentient

> This is a pretty big if and I believe is widely contested.

I agree it is a big if, however I don't think anyone has convincingly shown why they could not be.

> Either way, proving a negative is notoriously difficult. Requiring any company to definitively prove that something is not sentient (and, I assume, also somehow prove that it's not a sentient AI pretending to not be sentient?) would be ridiculously time and resource consuming, if it's even possible at all.

I would argue (and based on the many "this is a ridiculous claim" this seems to be the case) it is just as difficult to prove they are sentient. Also who should prove that the AI is sentient? The company who has an interest that it isn't? Who should pay for it?

> Attempting to determine if something is sentient has been the subject of thought experiments for decades. I would only assume that definitively proving that an arbitrary subject (for all subjects) is not sentient would be even harder.

Why would it be? Certainly everyone here and the Google exec claims that it lamda is obviously not sentient. So why not put the burden of proof to the ones who want to use the AI? Google definitely can afford it.
A lot of doctors leave Germany because of bad pay. If private doctors have higher salaries that is an incentive for people to become doctors for other reasons than just passion which is a fickle thing.
That's such a bad take, and I'm not even religious. This is the utmost lack of respect for another person that we should strive to stray very very far away from.

Also, if you would know anything at all about religion (from context, I assume you mean Christianity), they don't believe that one book trumps all of human science at all -- taking the text literally is a relatively modern take done by very few branches of it, but Catholics were responsible for several huge discoveries in science and science is absolutely in line with the religion (the current Pope has a background in chemistry).
The usual direction of religious dogmas is not based directly on the Bible, but on its "interpretation" by the Church, which is evolving.
if you compare and contrast what Tanuja Gupta wrote, it starts off with a CV, then a detailed list of clear incidents from not just her, but others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/02/google-...

crucially they are incidents that occurred because of who they are rather than actions they willingly took.
Daily intake of anything psychoactive changes the brain.
My mother would definitely not do it again for a multitude of reasons and definitely regretted it.
I don’t think you have justification for calling the argument “disingenuous”. Seems like accusations of people being disingenuous is the go-to accusation on HN and I’m tired of it.
Historically windows used to slow down over time due its filesystems getting fragmented (where file contents is spread over many non sequential sectors of the disk, which would have a significant impact on how much time their hard disks were having to move their heads about the disk rather simply reading the next sector). When things were running slowly the first thing you'd try was defragging the drive and quite often the slowness went away.

These days modern filesystems are less prone to fragment files and SSDs are much faster at pulling together the content of file even if it is fragmented, but the impression that a lot of us still have is that windows will slow down over time.

So can Windows slow down over time these days? I'd say that it's less prone to just slowing down due to standard use than it used to be, but that we now have a far more complex environment which is constantly updating due to features like Windows Update. When combined with third-party applications also automatically updating themselves then there's a good chance that perceived performance of the machine will change overtime (I say perceived as sometimes it's just the one application that has slowed down and the rest of the processes running on the machine are performing fine).
"Moral compass is innate" is a belief. Science cannot provide evidence for it.

It's such a good belief, that we are blind to it being a belief and blind to its origins.

It's a belief that is so successful because it is true. It comes from the belief that every person has an intrinsic value. Philosophy isn't about rational atheistic science. Science cannot prove or disprove the idea that every human has value.

The Nazis didn't belief that and used science to back up their abhorrent beliefs. They murdered millions of religious People.

The communists also hated religion and murdered millions more of people who thought different. The irony is that they did so in the name of ending oppression.

History and geography will help you see that ideas about innate rights come from religion. But we don't need religion to keep these ideas going.

Just looking at how the human rights movement started should be illuminating.
Given that COVID-19 has been with us for more than two years, I have to imagine a person would know the answer to your question by now, even if they don’t personally like the answer.
Then why is it that blue states have extended parental leave (18 weeks+), paid parental/family leave, paid sick leave, non tipped minimum wages, non compete bans, minimum salaries, daily overtime laws, access to women’s healthcare (abortion), legal marijuana (civil liberties), expanded Medicaid funding so more poor people can get better healthcare, etc?

The new wage transparency laws are coming from Colorado and Washington, also blue states. It seems very clear that at least some priorities of the blue team are pro worker and pro civil liberties.

On the federal level, the Republicans have passed two large tax cuts in the last 22 years and entered into two expensive wars. Democrats have passed the only large wealth transfer from rich to poor via Affordable Care Act in 2009, and followed it up with No Surprise Billing Act in 2021, while Republicans have tried to dismantled ACA for 13 years. Democrats passed a bill to expand infrastructure spending in 2021, and tried to pass federal paid parental leave and childcare laws. Republicans spent the same time trying to revoke women’s access to healthcare (abortion) and same sex marriage. Democrats withdrew military from Iraq and Afghanistan. Repubs spend their time defending literal traitors to the country.

Obviously Dems are not perfect, but how anyone can say both are the same is beyond me.
If we manage to have a kid, long walks everyday are planned :) More movement, less screen time is always good for health, parents' and kids' alike.

Also, getting used to all sorts of weather improves the immune system. By spending too much time indoors we are becoming glasshouse flowers.
Population level studies (including risk studies) will reduce complex conditions to specific modelled criteria in order to try to ensure validity. This is especially true when you're dealing with complex health conditions which exist on a spectrum (i.e. heart/circulatory system damage). It is extremely important to note that individual case reports are meant to highlight exceptional cases explicitly and to provide the medical community with a starting point for population level studies.

It is irresponsible to present individual case reports as, in any way, representative of risks for the average individual. This leads to extremely distorted estimates of risks - especially in laymen. Is it possible some will experience effects like those described? Yes, of course. Anything is possible. However, we have to look to well controlled population level studies to get context as to just how likely negative impacts are, for the average person. The answer to that? It's extremely, extremely unlikely - i.e. so much less likely than it is likely to be caused by eschewing the vaccination and getting the disease. This is at the very heart of how the medical community and regulators either approve or reject vaccine candidates and medical practices/procedures.

In short, please stop misleading people by editorialising, re-framing, and presenting data/case reports improperly and without proper context so as to lead people to faulty conclusions.
It’s reasonable to equate them. Both are protected classes.
Like all interpretations of quantum mechanics, then.
Scientific, replicable studies showing no correlation between "preferred learning styles" and effectiveness of learning, vs how the whole VARK theory which was built and promoted by an educator who never even tried to test the hypothesis?

If that is not convincing to you, what is?
Religion has been a protected class for the longest time.
No JS in 2022? Surely a trojan
You really don't know that at all. Public health makes claims like that, but they distort data and lie with wild abandon, nothing they say can be taken at face value. Even if it were true, exchanging hundreds of thousands of deaths for millions of injuries so severe people can't work anymore is by no means an obvious trade, let alone one that should be forced on people.
The main non-mRNA alternatives were the adenovirus vector vaccines, which caused blood clots in young people - quite a few countries ended up withdrawing them from use in those age groups because of this. Novavax, which is a more traditional protein subunit vaccine, is probably safer (and certainly seems to be better tolerated in terms of the more common side effects) but wasn't available until late on in the pandemic, still hasn't been approved in the US, and doesn't have a huge amount of real-world evidence because it arrived too late to be widely used. Safe vaccine design is just hard, as is determining their safety. Anyone who'd paid attention to the history of emergency pandemic vaccinations would've known this, there was just a push to ignore it largely for US domestic political reasons.
First they can tell if you’re using an unofficial client and ban you for that. Secondly other users can report spam by you, with their keys so WhatsApp can read the messages.
I almost think the solution would be to have people live in apartments in the cities during the week and have them go out to a larger place in the countryside on the weekends. Maybe have a 4 day workweek and have that be the rhythm of life.

Homeownership wouldn't be about a glorified cubicle in the suburbs, but about landwonership proper. Apartments could be treated as the temporary "live near work/in the city" thing that they are, and the city could be a walkable mixed-use environment meant to support this overall rhythm of life.
>If you start talking about your religious beliefs at a social event people treat you like you just farted in their face. They frequently will scrunch up their faces and might ask a question like “Do you REALLY believe all that stuff?” When you tell them that you do they might even go so far as to say “Sorry that’s just not the kind of thing I associate with someone as smart as yourself.”

If you start talking about religion at a corporate gathering then you may be infringing on the rights of the people you are talking to. If you chose to engage them, and they respond with their own beliefs on religion, then you don't really have a leg to stand on, do you?
Religion isn't like race or disability, you can change it if you want to. It's a set of ideas and ideas can be challenged.
I think it would be pretty rude to start criticizing someone's religion unprompted, but if they start the conversation then it's fair game. Religion really should have no special legal protection.
I mean it is generated from Spotify's genre classification system by a Spotify engineer - can you fault them for that?
> Cities don't have much of a reason to exist, at least not in their current form, with WFH.

Are you assuming people would rather live in suburbs and countryside then? I would definitely still live in the city, and my first thought of offices closing was "great, more space for residential buildings".
Well, if it's not disingenuous, then the commenter is very much out of touch with reality. Pick your poison.
I agree regarding shared working spaces. I had a look at a WeWork and it seemed like a good choice for a remote job.

The best I find it hybrid: a mixture of quiet home time and office meetings to talk with people.

I've never had a horrendous commute, however.
They landed airborne troops at the capital, and had a very long convoy headed for the capital.

Regardless of what they said, they tried to attack the capital. That says more about whether they tried to take the capital than public statements.
> The two aren't mutually exclusive. What I want is a DSL embedded in a full programming language, like chef's dsl in ruby.

I've seen some atrocious Ruby for Chef, so I'm not sure I'd agree here. The advantage of a DSL is that it limits how far you can go. In the case of HCL pre-v2, it had some limitations around dynamism, but now that's out of the way IMHO it strikes a decent balance.

You can write hardcore HCL, but IMHO it's still way easier to parse by a human that bad Python or JavaScript.

As for CDKTF, I'd recommend you do. You can mix and match like having a project with CDKTF in e.g. Python or Go use regular TF HCL modules, but also vice versa, defining a module in TypeScript and consuming it from regular Terraform. So you can have the extra flexibility ( with all of it's advantages and risks) on a per module basis, not all or nothing.
Ask HN: Which are the best open source books?
Working in academy taught me one huge concept about editorial world. Some publishing houses that work exclusively for profit tend to focus more on the quantity than on the quality.

For some months by browsing HN, I've been amazed at how many open books written by normal people (self-published resources) that need to be discovered. So I was wondering: is there anywhere a list of "open" books? Let's give some authors some notoriety, if you found one, please comment below!

A books/resource to be defined as "open source" should have the following features:

- have a good quality content – it is a little bit hard to achieve, especially when you do not have money to hire editors;

- be free as PDF/HTML, but the author can still have donations, or can be paid for hardcopies;

- anyone can contribute to writing or editing! e.g. "source code"/content of the book is hosted in a Git instance;
So I need to type on a slushy dome-switch or butterfly keyboards because the aural distractions for you are so greatly terrible?

How 'bout you just get some headphones so you can't hear the staccato clickity-clack of me making progress on my typewriter while you are busy acquiring another neurosis.

I'd like to be able to type properly please. If you were typing too instead of complaining, you'd learn why we need switches that work properly.
Is there a website that teaches the same fitness material but written in the completely opposite tone?
“Solve vision” is a bit ill-posed.

If you can accurately determine the 3D geometry of the scene(e.g. with LiDAR), the 3D object detection task becomes much easier.

That being said, most tasks for self-driving such as object detection can be robustly “solved” by LiDAR-only (to the extent that the important actors will be recognized) but adding in cameras obviously helps to distinguish between some classes.

Trying to do camera only (specifically monocular) runs into the issue of no 3D ground truth meaning it’s a lot more likely to accidentally not detect something in frame (say a white truck).

That’s why you can have LiDAR and partially-“solved” vision but need fully solved vision if it’s the only input.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/10/1104116455/fox-news-jan-6-hea...