skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
All mosquitos have a penetrating proboscis, it's how they get their blood meal. Most (all?) other blood sucking creatures (even ticks) have mandibles, and chew their way in, or create a bite and then suck it, but mosquitos it's a hypodermic needle, essentially. Some mosquitos are bigger than others and seem to have different strategies with prey.

All mosquitos seem to have trouble with breeze or wind. Same with smoke.

The mosquitos I personally experienced in Bengaluru, Hyderabad (occasionally), Singapore, etc. were generally what I'd call 'sneaky little bastards'. They were quiet, small, and seemed to prefer sneak attacks you didn't even notice at the time. I'm pretty hairy, so I'd feel them land, but it made me on edge all the time. Most people didn't seem to notice them at all, even when bit.

The mosquitos I'm referring to in my comment were in central Ontario, Canada. My understanding is it isn't just Ontario though, and folks I know in Alaska have stories of even bigger ones.

The Ontario Mosquitos I got quite familiar with were commonly referred to as the 'national bird'. They got huge. And they're often loud, and somewhat hard to miss, but that doesn't mean you can stop them when you get enough around you. Wingspan seemed to be roughly an inch, and their proboscis was about 1/4" inch. Some were bigger.

As I said, went right through my sweatshirt and drew quite a bit of blood. It was messy.

Makes sense if you realize most of their meals are probably moose, bear, deer, etc. with thick hides. Still, no fun.

I ended up starting to treat my clothing with Permethin, that seemed to work for anything covered with clothing, but between them and the black flies, ugh. Those bastards literally took a small chunk out of you and they'd fly up your pant legs if they could to get your calves or ankles to do it too.
I'm related to the sort of people who are likely to respond that they think Obama is the anti-christ in a poll and I'm here to tell you that, for a good portion of them, it's a genuinely held belief. If you spend a significant amount of time with these sorts of people, these sorts of benign explanations don't really hold any sway. Is it possible I've been exposed to a biased slice of America that's not representative? Sure, but there's literally zero evidence that the benign view Scott Alexander is putting forth here is true. It's nothing more than a hope.
I'm not sure what average looks like. Possibly last August? Possibly some time around 2035? It'll be a moving target though, as anyone worse than the AI isn't likely to stay in the role for long.
In America the goal is to distract people from corporations not paying taxes so the media ponies up with other big companies to make abortion a pressing issue when in reality I doubt any man could care less about what a woman hes not involved with is doing to their body. Furthermore abortion should be legal and it should be handled between the man and woman with the clause that if they both agree to the baby, both will be held financial responsible. If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't she has the right to abort. If the woman wants the baby and the man doesn't, she does not have to abort but the man is not responsible. If there is no man involved than the woman is free to do as she pleases. Extraordinarily simple yet it is one of the most pressing issues in our country....not poverty...not pollution...not coporations not paying taxes...not the justice and prison system....abortions. America is speedrunning to becomming a failed society. Personally I will make as much money as I can here and then leave.
Pentagon finalizing deal worth $30B with Lockheed for 375 F35’s
Apple blocks Proton updates when Myanmar users need them most (2021)
I'm not sure how the author could be so blind to the simple fact that computer generated articles and images are not useful. I mean if you want to replicate low quality blog spam and poorly written local news blurbs, maybe you could con a few companies into using your service. Or if you want to destroy the stock image market or the album art market (maybe that kind of "disruption" is somehow beneficial to you?) I guess more power to you. But beyond those very narrow and largely meaningless endeavors, I think computational statistics (what the author calls "artificial intelligence") has yet to prove itself in literally all of the use cases the author brings up.
> Needs an RDBMS too

You could add MySQL and you'd have a MYFART stack, which is pretty robust
I agree, imagine perfect ideology X, it solves every conceivable problem but then people stop the utopia because they want to struggle a little bit and feel challenged.
What is astounding is how hard it is to find what the law says in some places. The article suggest that's the case in Israel where the situation is quite confusing.

For another example Brazil is quite confusing where even the phisicians don't know when it can or can't be done.
If you ask to have something removed, or to exclude your site, they do. They comply with robots.txt, I believe even retrospectively. I think they try hard NOT to be sued.

They are also not making a profit from “copied” content, and so damages would be small. Particularly as they would immediately remove the problematic content.
There's no need to speculate, this is all very clearly addressed in TFA:

> Technically, abortion is never available on-demand in Great Britain. (Northern Ireland is a bit different from England/Scotland/Wales.) However, the law allows abortions up to 24 weeks if there is a “grave risk to the mental health” of the woman and nowadays abortion providers—who make the determination—almost always view the fact that a woman wants an abortion as proof that such a risk exists. Thus, abortion is de-facto available on demand for 24 weeks.
DRAM.

IIRC TSMC's 135MBit 5nm example is 79.8mm^2, although that's got other logic.

In the abstract, a 0.021 square-micrometer-per-bit size [1] says you'd need about 21mm^2 for a gigabit (base 10) of 5nm SRAM, without other logic.

Micron claimed 0.315Gb/mm^2 on their 14nm process, [2] so somewhere between a factor of 6 and 7.

That said, my understanding is that there is some sort of wall around 10nm, where we can't really make smaller capacitors and thus the limitation on things. (This may have changed since I last was aware however.)

(There is also the way than 'nm' works these days... but I'm not qualified to speak on that)

Also, AFAIK SRAM is still broadly speaking more power hungry than DRAM (I may be completely out of date on this though...)

[1] - https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/3398/tsmc-details-5-nm/

[2] - https://semiengineering.com/micron-d1%CE%B1-the-most-advance...
Full-time web developer vs. being a full-time dad (2020)
We’re headed for dystopia.

We desperately go transhuman with Musk’s Neuralink tech or we die as slaves.

Once AI approaches AGI it will enable a highly dangerous form of fascism. Society can be controlled top down by a dictatorship using AI to oppress whoever it doesn’t like. That means the recently impoverished masses will be at the mercy of whichever fascist or totalitarian government is in charge.

You have to do transhumanism in order to make yourself strong enough to resist machine fascism, or you somehow slow technological progress so any mass technological unemployment can’t happen fast enough to cause the civil war meets economic riots scenario that I’ve alluded to in my last post.

Note that I’m not saying the riots inherently lead to fascism, but that fascism may emerge as a reaction by current economic elites against the uprisings, or as a result of an extremist takeover caused by the crisis. The latter would be like the Bolshevik or Nazi takeovers in Russia or Weimar Germany.

If you slow progress down enough there also can’t be a point where machines progress past human level without humans also upgrading themselves at the same speed.

The crux of my argument is that progress in AI is dangerous because of the direct economic consequences and second, third order risks from political chaos.

If I had my way GPT-3 wouldn’t have happened until we already had brain computer interfaces at an economically useful level. Unfortunately neuroscience looks way to hard for that to happen.

I would not at all be surprised if Neuralink isn’t even economically useful by the time AGI happens.

We don’t have the equivalent of the scaling hypothesis for transhumanism yet. Scaling neural networks is simply the best way to make them better. It’s dead simple. You just throw money at the problem.

We need something like that for whatever tech can preserve human agency i.e. Neuralink.
> Why is anybody happy with "de facto"? If something should be a legal right, enshrine it specifically in law.

Exactly.

At the moment everyone is effectively turning a blind eye to the law. If there is a concensus that abortion should be available on demand then the law should be amended to that effect.

The UK is not on par with other European countries where "on demand" does exist in law, which is what I wanted to point out.
I completely agree.

I often explain transhumanism to others as "The elevation of the ego above all else. If one can imagine it, it's real or plausibly could be made real." It's a rejection that there is anything outside our understanding (e.g., God). That's why this entire thread is filled with science fiction quotes which are, I guess, supposed to convey some kind of deep meaning or prediction-making ability but which are nothing more than the imaginings of their authors.

Sorry, folks, we're still stuck with binary computers, needing food to survive, and a planet absolutely chock full of people who practice theistic religions.
> > As a web designer with a speciality in a11y

> This is hard to believe

Oof. Even if they're outright wrong they could still have lots of experience with accessibility. On HN we typically assume good faith even when we disagree with each other.

That being said, I agree with them. The arguments made against the "numeric" field here are out of date, and not something I have ever ran into with my own testing. I'm not claiming there are no quirks, or issues... but I find it so weird that everyone is throwing modern accessibility under the bus here for what seems to be edge cases... from 2020.

> `<input type="number">` is something that might be recommended blindly on the basis of a checklist, but not something that might be recommended by anyone familiar with relevant concepts.

Can you please provide sources why it is not recommended to use numeric input types? I've read the .gov.uk article and it's from 2020 and many of the issues are resolved in the years since it came out.
yah - our weekly 'all hands' seems to basically be: The Marketing Team marketing the marketing team to the rest of the company.

It's frustrating; and worse, we've had our CEO several times send group messages to scold people for having their camera off, or worse (my sin), camera on, but obviously doing work and not paying attention. It's pretty gross.
The point I'm slowly meandering towards, is it is a very different thing to cold call everyone and get an off the cuff answer than to really get people into a position to recognize the enormity of the answer they are giving.

Legislation is literally the parcelling up and selling off of the liberties of everyone around you. This is not a task that should be undertaken haphazardly. To really do it, you should be grappling with questions of "Does this policy make sense across the board, rather than localized to where I am?"

Polls never drill into that level of detail. Ever. At best they provide a passing narrative confirmation that makes a nice sound byte. Case and point:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141104

If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample, then don't come back and try to justify the legitimacy of one policy over another based on the fact that a bunch of people with nothing better to do than respond to cold called political polls (who may or may not even be voters) is truly representative of the will of the people. I'm sorry. When it comes to writing off liberties, I'm in the school of thought that the extra work is necessary, because this isn't something that should be streamlined, especially given there is precious little track record of any streamlining be applied to rectify bad law..

I write my Congressional representatives on issues that weigh heavily on my conscience. Multiple times if I don't feel the point is getting across enough. I've got a couple more letters to get written in light of current events, in fact.

Your polls, don't reflect that. Or for that matter, any of the streams of communication that actually end up in a Representative or Senator's mailbox, which to be quite frank, are far more indicative of what the People want, than any Call Center with a script is ever going to get. I don't even care if the Rep/Senator is of the opposing political party than the issue I'm concerned with. Reigning in extreme right/leftness can only happen under the pressure of reminding said individual they are still representing a hefty constituency that differs on platform, and if they like that seat, they'd best pay attention.

Polls are not grounds for policy.
Journalists detained by defense group in Peru
That's kind of amazing when I can't find any of those concepts with a Google. I mean, I can find the great schism, but that's the East/West Christianity divide.
That sounds like a weird case of suburban sprawl.
To a first degree approximation, it's the actively-developed fork of mplayer.
Sure, but something else seems to be going on:

> whereas VLC didn't have this when at the same volume
They have a few special permissions from the US federal government which certainly doesn’t hurt when it comes to archival efforts
This made me laugh.

Just want to bitch: Anyone can get a kubernetes cluster up in an hour.

Very few people can get one back up that has blown up in an hour or can upgrade a cluster without downtime or can persuade terraform to do something without destroying the cluster due to drift.

They’re the sort of people that we need in the market.
The truth of the statements is presupposed (“these truths”). It’s only the self-evidence of their truth that’s asserted. There’s no component of the statement that’s performative in Austin’s sense (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance). For example, a statement of the form “A holds B to be C” is clearly truth evaluable, and so doesn’t qualify as performative.
The Non-CEO Founder
If you believe in Creationism, you believe the Earth was created 10,000 years ago. The two beliefs go hand in hand.
My comment wasn't about justice. It's about that when your country is basically destroyed: nearly all young men killed and the remaining population has their homes destroyed, you have all the industry and agriculture destroyed as well, it's very hard to make excellent consumer goods and personal computers for everyone. First, you need to rebuild the houses for the people, it's a lot of work. Then you need to feed the people. Then you need to restore the industry to give people jobs and prepare for the next inevitable invasion.

And BTW, despite all that, USSR invested a lot in development of those Baltic states like Latvia. Like really a lot. They were swimming in money compared to RSFSR or other republics (maybe only Georgia had the same level of allowance in the USSR). USSR built industry and power plants there, that they later happily sold for scrap after 1991. And closed fine nuclear power plant built for them by the USSR. Now they have no jobs, population is rapidly declining (during the "awful" USSR times it was growing), they have no energy. Good luck to them.

I think it was a mistake to invest so much in those states, one of the reasons for USSR decline. Russian people worked hard to make those Baltic states happy and now they are the most ungrateful nations saying only dirty words about USSR and Russia. Just as Georgia.

It seems the more you give to people, the more ungrateful they become. Just look at British/USA colonies: they still respect the master. E.g. Japan didn't invite Russia this year for the ceremony on the anniversary of US nuclear bombings. But invited USA. We joked: "Why the didn't invite us, but invited USA that bombed them? Because without USA this ceremony wouldn't even exist in the first place".
The Changing Landscape of Eating Roadkill
It's not even an oversimplification, it's axiomatic. We have easy and tough times, and we have people who lead us into easy and tough times. If we define those who lead a nation out of tough times as "strong men," they are necessarily a product of the tough times they lived through, and vice versa. Without saying exactly what kind of person a "strong man" or a "weak man" is, the saying says literally nothing.
they lent out digital copies 1:1 of copies owned by closed libraries

That would probably have triggered the same lawsuit. You cannot rent digital copies of physical works no matter how much sense it makes.
> Does the time spent writing feels worth it to you?

Absolutely. For me it's mostly a tool to get thoughts out of my head and also to "think in public" in a way. It's useful to put thought out there because people can pick them up and help you move your thinking forward by interacting with what you published.

> Did it help to get noticed/ find jobs or other opportunities?

A few but I don't write about my job for the most part because it a personal blog and not a work blog.

> Do you learn something new from it?

That internet strangers are—for the most part—a lot kinder that we might think. I've been blogging on my manuelmoreale.com for more than 5 years and I only had very pleasurable exchanges via email with people around the world. Not one that I regret and I got to learn from other people's experiences. Which is awesome.
There are dozens of us! Dozens!!!

But seriously, if anyone needs training on this (or emergency help!), shoot me a message.
Okay, but the whole point of the article is to address the nuances around the realities of abortion access. It's not an advocacy piece, and it's not specifically about UK law.
> I a sure lawyers will argue that while the SEC filing was accurate, Twitter is not making a reasonable effort.

A reasonable effort at what?

> Could Twitter estimate its revenue in an SEC filing by sampling 100 paid invoices and putting in CYA statement saying the estimate could be wrong?

It could. It might be a problem between Twitter and the SEC. It might be a problem that due diligence would founder on. It might be a problem that would constitute an materially adverse effect without an explicit contractually agreement that risks disclosed in SEC filings could not do that. These are among the reasons why no sane buyer would sign a merger agreement like Musk signed waiving due diligence and excluding a whole of of specific things from being considered materially adverse events without having done a thorough investigation on their own first.
I think that enlightenment western philosophy is incapable of grappling with these kinds of questions. The question of "who has rights?" has ultimately been a question of "who has power over who?". It's obsessed with hierarchies and how they should be structured.

I think something like animism would be more apt. Start with a rock or a grain of sand-- how much respect should it be shown? Well one grain of sand doesn't mind being moved. But eventually if you take too many you can destroy a beach, or flatten a mountain. There is something to be said about treating everything, inanimate or not with respect. There doesn't need to be sentience or consciousness for us to be aware of our impact on our environment.

"This sounds like some hippie bs" well just like in the sand example, the negative externalities of moving sand may not be apparent at first, but over time they could lead to something like a Roko's Basilisk situation or an AI killing all humans to prevent its exploitation.
Have you never used anything other than a DVD or Windows media player? This is ancient!

It's very good, but frankly, why is this news to anyone?
As another anecdatum, I thought the last part was beautifully done and completely deserved.

The dismissive complaint was not without merit, but wow did it assume that the commenter's use cases are all that matter and all that need be considered. The world of UIs is much, much, much bigger than that, and awash in unsolved or badly-solved problems that matter a lot to many people.

I agree with the complaint, fwiw, when applied to an important subset of the design space. I even think it's useful to try to understand where the limits of that subset are, and why.

But saying that exploration is pointless because we're all happy living on this here big island and there's nowhere else that could possibly be better so why bother looking, it's all good except we still don't know why people keep dropping dead, but that's an acceptable drawback to what is otherwise a paradise on Earth—hang on a sec while I scrape off these leeches, they're so silly sometimes—and the people who think otherwise are just malcontents who ought to be out catching fish for the rest of us to enjoy.
I would start by looking at the product description and then the product design. Does it make sense? Does it feel like you can use it as a user? How does it work? What are the key features and benefits?

Then I'd look at the team behind the proposal. Do they have a lot of experience creating software products? Do they have any past successes that will help them succeed with this proposal?

Finally, I'd look at their marketing plan for this product. Is there an actual plan for how they're going to market it and how much money they expect to spend on marketing? Are there any partners involved who might be able to help market the product?

All in all, though, my best advice is just to look at all 10 proposals fairly closely and make your decision based on what feels right for you!
It is if you are expecting maximum performance.
We are moving too fast to put in adequate safeguards unfortunately. Demis Hassabis, founder of DeepMind, recently mentioned something interesting on a Lex Fridman interview. They are going to double down on safety since the algorithm side has moved much faster than expected.

Moreover, Max Tegmark, MIT scientist and author of the famous book Life 3.0 said this on a podcast last month: "Frankly, this is to me the worst-case scenario we’re on right now — the one I had hoped wouldn’t happen. I had hoped that it was going to be harder to get here, so it would take longer. So we would have more time to do some AI safety. I also hoped that the way we would ultimately get here would be a way where we had more insight into how the system actually worked, so that we could trust it more because we understood it. Instead, what we’re faced with is these humongous black boxes with 200 billion knobs on them and it magically does this stuff."