skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks!

> A keyboard shortcut to bring up the right click/edit menu.

Ya that would be cool

> pick nodes that not right next to each other and or delete connections

If you right click on a connection (line) you can delete it. You can also cmd+click to expand the selection to multiple non-adjacent nodes.

> a way to search in the graph

Ya that will be necessary once these graphs get huge. I'd like to do a search-to-scroll feature where you can jump to nodes that match.
How?

You can't go all the way to escalating to remove children from their parents care, but then who are they to be cared by? Other abuse victims.

It's very easy to say "prevent x from occurring", but then there's people and religion, and politics, and culture, and...
Did you read the article? The author's research shows that trauma creates epigenetic changes.
We then strongly disagree on expectations, then.

I don’t think this prof expects anyone but the most diligent students to confidently check each box. You should be able to get a B by doing a subset of this list.
Or more succinctly, all the known laws of physics effect things in a way that can be simulated by sufficiently complex computation. The idea that there's something going on in a wet, warm l, mushy brain that has a macroscopic effect, and yet isn't accounted for by the currently known physics or bonkers.
A hot bar of iron can "compute" the next state of a hot bar of iron. It cannot compute the next state of any arbitrary program. Can I play Fortnite with nothing more that a hot bar of iron? No, I cannot! Not unless it's compiled to WebAssembly.
But good parenting is not black and white.

Do you shout at your toddler when it does crazy stupid & dangerous things, or do you just let them suffer the consequences of their actions?
not sure what to do about tge later part but there is this regulatory idea for sky roads. Fly in a straight predefined line/speed/height. bit like a ski lift.
(Author here.)

> Do you believe that a hot bar of iron is a computer?

This is the crux of it. The main objection to the triviality argument is that we've just used far too broad a definition of a "computer." If we're thinking that a hot iron bar is a computer, then this should suggest to us that it's the definition that's wrong. You are correct in saying that if the definition we use is wrong, the whole triviality argument falls apart.

But for me, the problem with this objection is that I've never seen any workable alternative definition for a computer besides the standard definition. (Namely that a computer is a mapping from physical states to Turing machine states.) Any alternative seems to introduce some measure of subjectivity. The hot iron bar doesn't seem like a computer to us because it requires a random mapping and is not repeatable. But a requirement that the mapping be "simple" or "low entropy" is not easy to rigorously define, nor is it easy to find a principled way to determine how "repeatable" or "deterministic" a computer's behavior should be.
To no one. "It is an illusion" is transcribed and recalled as an explanation for feelings that drive actions in the person who said it, because we evolved to be able to explain our actions with sophisticated language, and to judge the arguments of others so that we can act together to overcome challenges and to kill the out group. In this case, OP is, without knowing it, signaling which group is his, and which is not, and we'll all jump behind the most convincing speech etc etc.

We do these things without thinking about it, because we do not understand consciousness, because it cannot be understood, because it is not a thing. It is a construct we share and use to separate ourselves from the animals so that we can kill them and eat them as a group.
In theory yes!
Practically speaking, I think it'll be very hard to find a pricing model that works.

You can get in touch if you want to discuss.
Right now its geared towards right-to-left directed graphs. Probably because most of my use cases have to do with time (like project timelines). So the state machine you mention towards the end isn't an immediate goal because a) it probably needs nested states, and b) it probably has tons of cycles which knotend doesn't do great at the moment.
They don't and never did. All that stuff was fought for tooth and nail by Labour over the course of the 20th century despite the elites.

The BBC thing is much more subtle.
I have questions but first with a premise.

Atoms configured in a certain way produce the rich behavior of awareness and agency that we can observe in humans and other animals. This awareness and agency seems similar enough to our own behavior that we associate our internal experience to be similar as well. This internal experience we assume exists can be called "consciousness".

Based on the above definition of consciousness...

Atoms by themselves cannot be observed to have consciousness. In addition, there seems to be many more configurations of atoms that do not produce the behavior of consciousness.

However, it seems reasonable to assume that one day, we could arrange atoms in a specific way to produce consciousness from an atom-based computer system.

It feels like we are moving closure to producing the behavior of consciousness but I don't know about the efforts underway to produce the internal experience of it.

Finally to the questions.

- Is there efforts to produce some sense of self or internal dialog?

- Similar to how hand coding image recognition didn't work, maybe then the design itself of consciousness exceeds our ability... could we indirectly use AI/ML to build consciousness?
I barely use it anymore, but a lot of search results lead to (mostly helpful) reddit threads. If old.reddit.com dies I'll stop clicking on reddit links (even if I wanted, the new one so extremely slow for me it's borderline unusable).
> To protect the data that is not covered by end-to-end encryption

No data (so Signal) is better than whatever legal hoops you're going through to supposedly avoid giving out the data you have. Plus if you look up "telegram data germany", it's not clear that it's actually working and that they're actually true to their word.
I would encourage to update the Wikipedia page accordingly.
launching people with cannons seems both cheap and fast
Agreed. Optics aren’t that hard. If you put a good sensor in something with a form factor similar to the old iSight camera, seems to me like it would be a winner.

People seem to have embraced those stupid circle lights everywhere, why is a decent camera a bridge too far?
Holy shit that visualizer has no business being as good as it is.
1) The law was actually for all radios.

2) While radios were no longer required to include the marks after 1963, most 64 & 65 cars still had them. I've seen them on cars as late as 1967 (model year).
Is there a physical system that solves the halting problem?
The reducto adsurdium just seems to boil down to: but that makes meet uncomfortable.
I'd like to support vertical layout, I just found for most the initial use cases that horizontal was the most intuitive. I find that its nice to have child nodes be left aligned with the horizontal layout so you can quickly read them top to bottom. But I know a lot of interesting tools do vertical layout for the reasons you mention.
Common Lisp does by default. Calling (/ 1 3) gives 1/3 which is a rational. The individual components of a rational number are bignums, so the size of the fraction is only limited to available RAM.

However, this is not enough in many cases. For example, how would you store pi? In the case of Lisp, pi is stored as a floating point number, and the conversion rules say that a mathematical operation between a rational and a floating point number yields a floating point number. This means that even though you have rational numbers, you still have to be aware of floating point.
If nothing else, I think compilers/linters should warn when trying to use equality/comparison operators between floats since most of the time it's mathematically wrong. All of my projects are filled with isApproxEquals(float1, float2)
For me, the lack of speed in creating the dependency graph has never been an issue. The issue when it comes to flowcharts has primarily been creating the correct scope for the particular task, to have the right visualization tools to display my intent and to fill the chart with relevant information. When I have tools all of this, a high amount of conceptual information can be baked into a small and easy-to-access space. In my experience, "all" the info is very rarely required (which the speed-dependency-chart implies), since very few can process it anyways.

I'll be sticking to Miro.
Gigabyte makes a "monitor" with the same panel as the LG OLEDs.
Providing free healthcare and handouts make people dependant on the government. And anyways, healthcare is never free, it's paid for one way or the other. Civilians either pay directly to private companies or indirectly through taxation by the government. The very wealthy can use tax vehicles to prevent paying high taxes anyway, so they're very unlikely to be harmed.

In order to increase income from taxes, governments can usually most easily tax the middle class (provided middle class isn't too small of course).

And I state that free healthcare and handouts make people more dependant on the government, since governments can always provide some reason for decreasing the handouts or healthcare provided for various reasons. For example, perhaps at some point a government might decide to withheld free healthcare for civilians that refuse vaccination. Civilians at the bottom of the food chain would then feel more pressured in taking some vaccination in order to keep access to free healthcare of government handouts.

People dependant on the government will be more obedient civilians, so its likely many governments will want to move in this direction. Central Bank Digital Currencies will also give governments more control of people, so it will be the direction we'll be moving towards in the coming years.
Talking to My Daughter Can Be Harder Than Learning Quantum Mechanics (2021)
How is it not? Quantum Mechanics and quantum field theory applies everywhere except for the black holes. Human can even harness the power by building quantum computer by that. So here you tried to deny the exist of quantum computing paradigm, a completely different computation approach?
We should really push CAP consistency concerns to the client.

Let's say transactions are committed to a distributed log (ala raft), then the log position can be the transaction id.

Passing the transaction id back to the client will then allow it to choose its own level of consistency by:

1. Pick consistency over latency: Make read request with transactions id to a random node, and the node wait until it has caught up that point in the distribute log before responding

2. Pick latency over consistency: Make read request for whatever is latest data on random node

Note how this is a departure from how raft services client reads. In raft land only the primary is allowed to service reads as it waits for other consensus tick to ensure it is still the leader before responding. While this guarantees consistency, it hurts scalability as you now have a single bottleneck serving all clients for BOTH read/writes.
Do not completely shade the hope of those upon whose shoulders you stand, for you do not want to find your feet in direct contact with the ground, lest you find another's feet on your shoulders.

Balancing hope, fear, and desperation requires permanent effort.
Arduino Pen Plotter Is Built for Speed
When's the last time you had a real vacation?

This sounds like exhaustion, possibly burnout.

It could also be something more serious. You should consult physical & mental health professionals.

Look up the Maslach Burnout Inventory and request that specifically to rule out burnout:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslach_Burnout_Inventory

In general, don't seek or follow medical advice online. Including on HN, or from me.
I’m not sure that was more succinct, but exactly! Haha :)
Paywall: https://archive.ph/XckkG
Sure, but I'm referring to transactions that currencies are used for: goods and services. Coinbase's wellbeing depends on transaction volume and on the asset itself being desirable / a 'solid' asset class. For example, penny stocks are an asset class, but are not in the same class as blue-chip stocks or stocks on any major index. Most brokerages would prefer to be in the middle of transactions in the latter, not the former.
>> I don’t think consciousness is so specific, and I think people aren’t clear about how they think about it as something separate from recall, text generation, agency, etc.

Some people. However, some people speak about it with a shockingly high degree of clarity and insight, if one is open to exploring the ideas for oneself as a practical matter. For starters you could read the works of Chögyam Trungpa, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Red Hawk, David R. Hawkins, or Gurdjieff.

You probably assume that consciousness is an illusion because you associate 'poking at it' with drugs. While drugs can change the state of mind, consciousness is an expansive field of awareness into which we may delve without the need of drugs. What you may be experiencing in seeing contradictions or challenges are products of the ego, the programmatic conditioning that has been imprinted by being in the world. Consciousness is a continuous stream which we have learned to tune out and block off, but which connects us to the source of our being.

Completely agree with Aside.
Trauma is not automatic even for people put in very bad situations, afaik. Perception and expectations are very important here.

For example: A person is fired from their job. For someone who wanted to quit anyway, that could be a rather small annoyance, perhaps a blow to the ego. But for someone who struggled very hard to hold down even that one job, this could be catastrophic, and be perceived as life threatening. In the case of really really bad situations (like being kidnapped), just not being (or not feeling as) the only victim can make a big difference already.

People also made very different experiences during the war. Some lived in remote areas and didn’t ever hear air raid sirens or anything. Others lived in constant fear because their parents were taken away in the middle of the night (try ever sleeping well again).
> If you wanted to go about proving (even to yourself) that you are not, say, an extremely advanced ML algorithm running on a system that provided synthetic inputs in the form of your senses, how would you go about it?

Well, since an extremely advanced ML algorithm wouldn't want to go about proving to itself that it is not what it is, that would be prima facie evidence against, no? I mean it's always possible that you are mistaken about what constitutes ML etc. but assuming you have a reasonable if flawed correspondence between your education and reality the deduction comes pretty readily...

> Further, how would you go about proving to someone who doubted your subjective experience was real if they doubted it? Say, if they believed they were having a dream or hallucination, or they believed you were incapable of consciousness?

I mean in practice we don't find this too hard right now if the other person is reasonable—a 15-minute conversation usually suffices —but I imagine from your ptior question you're dreaming of, say, a future with robots that routinely pass the Turing test?

Well, the question is what science does during that time of course. If science manages to figure out the correlates of consciousness and understands something about why they need to have the structure that they in fact do have, then it becomes a question of “let's see whether you have the hardware that can do this whole conversation thing without consciousness, or whether you have the hardware that skips the algorithmic complexity by using consciousness.” But if this proves to be a quite tougher nut to crack, then we're stuck with our present crude methods. “How much of my internal structure do you appear to have?”
Bee dances are a fascinating topic, but the evidence is still inconclusive - there is some evidence that suggests the movements in the dance correlate with the position of the flower, but there is other evidence that suggests they are irrelevant and the flower is found by a trail of pheromones.

In all other animals where this had been extensively studied (except orcas and maybe chimps), syntax has proven to be absent in natural calls, and also impossible to teach artificially. There are sometimes apparent breakthroughs, but it later turns out that the animal figured out a way to interpret "a", "b", "a then b", and "b then a" as four separate calls, without any deeper understanding. This is evident when you then teach it "c", and find out that it sees no difference between "c then a" and "a then c", and it takes just as long to teach it to distinguish these three calls; and then again just as long to teach it the difference between "b than c" and "c then b".

Have we tested each possible animal this way? No, of course not - but we have tested all the most likely candidates, and orcas and chimps were the only successes (and even here there is some debate). Crows, parrots, dogs, cats, gorillas, elephants, horses - none of these show any understanding of syntax.
When we run out of fuel and win the solar flair emp roulette that will be exactly what people will conclude.

I will be sure to tell the hn story by the campfire.
{{citation needed}} for most of this.
It's when you're anaesthesized for surgery that your consciousness goes away.

No dreams, nothing. You don't exist during those hours. You cannot account for them later; they are deleted.
IMO in general Element is probably the least "least friendly" part about using Matrix (and not really half bad itself) and somebody would have to want to fork+maintain and retrofit ~5 Telegram client repos on the basis they really like using a Matrix backend but like the Telegram client so much they think that's the easier path to a better Matrix client than just improving one of the other already working clients like they are trying to do already.
Yeah they'll be fine. They have plenty of cash
Oh, tell me about all the literate and latin-speaking people available for enslavement by Roman soldiers garrisoned to stop cattle-thieving at the literal end of empire!

Take a step back and look at the claim and counter-claim: guy must have been mad to carve that in stone; nu-uh, could have been delegated. I've given many reasons to doubt this is likely. Now you've got "priests" in the mix (this is suddenly a state function, I guess) to hold up this house of cards? The chain of contingencies your "remarkably obvious inference" depends upon is remarkable. And you are inferring all this from a single piece of epigraphic evidence? Good grief.
elite # rich. The elite could be the bureaucrats, in which case, a free healthcare is basically a government owned clinic and corruption will run rampant on that where the bureaucrats will collect. Same thing for welfare (collect taxes from business, pass some of it to the masses, collect some of it as government officials).
Shores of the Polar Sea (1878)
You look like the piss boy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OWMB3ewpNM
I think it has nothing to do with "specialness" but with proof. I can prove I am conscious, yet only to myself. I cannot prove I am conscious to you, and nothing you could do could prove you are conscious to me. In fact, it's entirely possible that our entire reality is little more than a simulation - and other entities may not even really exist, let alone be conscious.

The entities one encounters in a dream each night certainly seem real at the time, yet that illusion is shattered each morning. All the "real" reality holds to it, is that it's a timeframe that I perceive to be much longer. Why am to I believe that after my ~80 years expire I won't simply awake yet again from a sleep I did not know I was in?

This is where the oft misinterpreted quote of cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, comes from. He was not arguing that if something is thinking, then it is conscious, but rather that the only thing one can be sure of is of their own thoughts and thus their own existence.
Seems like a horrible and shortsighted hiring practice if you ask me. Is your employer “for profit”? Chances are they’ll do all the same things any other company will do to keep the boat afloat.

Plus, many mainstream companies have been sued for all kinds of terrible stuff, sometimes even criminal.

Judging others’ morals is a slippery slope.
zeppelins are a good idea
The key error in the argument is here:

"[T]he only reason we call a box with a CPU in it a “computer” is because we happen to have a simple mapping between the voltage levels across different parts of the CPU to a set of bits we have defined, and when these voltages interact they do so according to the rules of a set of logical operations which we have also defined. But there is no meaning to the physical system apart from what we, as external observers, have imposed on it."

This might be an argument against a computer program with no inputs or outputs being conscious. But it is not at all an argument against a robot with a computer brain, hooked up to inputs and outputs in a way somewhat similar to a human brain, being conscious. In fact, one way of stating the position of physicalists about consciousness is simply that we humans are such robots! We have brains that compute things (granted, our brains do it with analog neurons, chemicals, etc. instead of digital circuits, but that doesn't mean what our brains are doing is not computation), but the things our brains compute have semantics because our brains are hooked up to inputs and outputs.

In other words, the whole article is attacking a straw man. The actual substantive point of the article is not that consciousness is not computation, but that for computation to produce consciousness, it has to have semantics--it has to be hooked up to iputs and outputs in a non-trivial way. Which is certainly not easy, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
I also configure it to prevent sites from changing the page font. However, if a fix pitch font is requested, then it should always use a fix pitch font to display the text (even if it is not the same font as was requested), and I would want PDF and SVG to support loading fonts, but not HTML. However, there does not seem to be a setting for that.
Now imagine the level of sophistication propagandists have reached

Very little reason to believe they aren't, for the most part, as bunglingly ineffectual as they were then, especially when it comes to efforts tied to intelligence services or people trying to sell a service, like CA.
I don't know what the hell you are talking about, but my original post stands. The snippet posted contains a regex pattern, but as a whole its a command, not a regex. Substitution is outside the scope of what RegEx is.
I think so, people still want to gamble.
Would it be possible to not transform my browser history into an undo/redo graph?
> The last AMA before the withdrawal freeze was really pushing hard on the idea celsius is in great shape and being attacked by paid FUD'ers with an agenda

That's what made me immediately drawdown my remaining balance (well ok I've got $30 in the still - who cares).

Whenever any financial holding group is giving you confidence like that or assurances everything is fine they are telling you they're screwed.

It should never even be a question. Think, say, Chase Bank or HSBC. Nobody even thinks about whether the bank has the liquidity for them to withdraw say $20,000. Once this becomes a subject of discussion, get the hell out immediately
Oh man you're not wrong. This is fun.
It technically is, but not really. The correct term is 'work' which means something like useful change in kinetic energy.

Your idea of 'kinetic energy of the object as a whole' is probably quite close.
That's my mistake. I'll be sure to add updated graphs with all races very soon, thanks for that pointing that out.