skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> But my coworkers and I have so much shared context. We spend 8 hours+ together. It feels like a waste to pretend that we just don't have anything in common despite the time.

I think that what is kind of unsaid and lost here is that long working hours in office were super often about socialization and not work itself. I mean, it was noticeable even before - people who were there long hours tend to chat away a lot of times both in and out of meetings.

But, it looked like work, it was pleasant and rewarded.
To me it sounds like preview of Mars missions. The things breaking and having to be repaired with only the stuff available on board. Hi-tech complexity vs. simplicity. The more complex coffee machines, with iPad and rich UX/etc., in our office break more frequently than the simpler ones and definitely wouldn't make it to Mars without several rounds of repairs.

In a recent Mars flight series (on Netflix if i remember correctly) the water filtration machine broke midflight and the crew started to take it apart and stopped doing it - recognizing impossibility of such a repair endeavor - after taking out 4000 something pieces, and that failure put them into a mortal danger. (Sidenote: I had though to suspend disbelief as it looked completely unreal to me that one of the crewmembers - a USSR/Russian cosmonaut - wouldn't immediately rig a simple distillation device to make drinking water - everybody in USSR was doing it everywhere to make moonshine, especially in the "dry" places like ocean ships, remote military bases, etc., and i can do it myself in a few minutes with as little as 4 pieces of generic kitchen wares :)
Why can't you put the panels on an electric swivel? I assume it's significantly more expensive? Why?
> already you can tell this was not written by an intelligent person

I didn’t read the article so you could be right, but I think it’s good to keep in mind that the authors of these articles often read the HN comments. Would you say something like that to them if you were face to face? It may even be true, but it wasn’t kind, nor was it important that it be said. So why say it?

If you had to get this sentiment out, you could have said something like “this article doesn’t give the impression of being written by an intelligent person”, to add a layer of indirection and make it less personal.
>> FWIW, he's a self-proclaimed "Christian Mystic".

> Which is weird because articles about him from when he was convicted describe him as pagan.

I suspect something similar to the purported horseshoe effect in politics.
That was the same argument anti 5g people used for 5g arrays, they suggested the normal operation is safe but they can be turned up or focused on targets using software.
Curious how much it cost to build for Lenovo, because since it gets user data, that's how it's being "financed".
>Amazon's seller-side stickerless inventory documentation specifically says that identical items from different sellers are never put into same physical bin so that the original source can be traced.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Keep reading the link that cj provided, starting at the "Example", and you'll see that there is nothing preventing a counterfeit item being sold on behalf of a FBA seller even if the seller shipped genuine items to Amazon. All virtual tracking does is (theoretically) allow *tracing* of the counterfeit item should it be detected and reported.
He means too blurry. Any Chromebook under $200 will have a 1366x768 resolution display.
Thanks for clarifying. I think the question is more about sentience than ML. So, a PhD in philosophy would suit better your initial claim.
Slightly OT but that espresso machine will use high-pressure steam. Not the type of thing I'd want to buy from MOFFBUZW!
What I don't understand, personally, is how people who are apparently experts in this domain seem to consistently treat the word "sentience" as a synonym of "sapience," which is what they are really talking about. It's almost as though their expertise comes from several decades' worth of bad science fiction writing rather than from an understanding of the English language.
We can smugly look back and laugh at this 'tech'. But a future generation will look at us and our 'Google Maps' (it always is) and think how primitive our direction finding is.

In the future with self driving everything, maps might go the way of phone numbers, not something worthy of committing to memory what was once learned by rote. At best your phone might show you a personalised 'tube map' with just a few points of interest pertinent to your existence.

In the 90's we had the last word in route planning software, you could print out your route and take it in the car with you. You had an advantage over everyone else if you had Microsoft's Autoroute.

This advantage could mean discovering a route you had been taking for years thinking it was a 'shortcut' was anything but. You could find the actual shortcut.

Then we had efforts like the Garmin products that are now a bit clunky. With it the people driving off a cliff because sat nav told them to.

During this time came the end of being able to get that optimal route because of driving skill. No longer could you get to a party or gathering and, in small talk, divulge details of that epic shortcut that shaved hours off your journey time.

This era of discovery, albeit sometimes imagined discovery of a better route, came to an end. The route we do is the route Google tells us and all distances are measured in time, not miles or kilometres.
Harry Browne had a technique for splitting up assets: One partner does the splitting. And the other partner gets to choose who gets which pile.

(He also has a more elaborate one, where the partners do a virtual auction of all items among themselves, to account for cases where particular items are worth a lot more to one of them. I believe it’s in his book “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World”).
The black Swan

Previous book was the innovators dilemma. Both are kind of cliche books, good reads though which pull me out of the IT technical stuff which one has to read nowadays to keep up.

Of course there's my eternal struggle to read an "eternal golden braid". But that has stalled due to a chapter being incredibly meta it just hurts the brain

Shout out to my boox note Ereader. That thing has been a godsend.
Open headphones and sound isolating headphones are good for different things. I personally don't like closed back or sound isolating ones because I want to be able to hear what's going on around me.
Drug molecule interactions, simulations for super conductors, etc. Etc.
|It’s a Trojan horse firmly embedded in the US with no oversight or regulation.

Is there any proof to this statement? It's very bold.
Lumping people into groups doesn’t BS make. You can lump people into groups based on whether they have schizophrenia, and the diffidence between the average person in the two groups will be pretty clear.
I've tried it, and it works well, but setting it up is not trivial...
He is a practitioner of another field. He is a 'catholic' priest with an agenda.
If you reject physicalism, you must posit some non-physical "stuff" or mechanism to explain the "qualia" that you reject as being physical. That is inherently dualism. But dualism is a dirty word in philosophy these days, so thwy don't call themselves as much.

The hard problem of consciousness is an inherently dualist conception.

Goff for instance subscribes to the patently absurd view of panpsychism, where matter is posited to have subjective experience "built in" somehow. This is such an absurd view. He first posits that there must be some fundamental subjective experience. But then he can't actually come up with a cogent theory for it, so he then just posits that mind is fundamental to matter. So he's effectively just inventing new properties of nature out of whole cloth. But then even still he has no solid conception of what those properties are, what they do or how they interact to form a conscious mind in a brain. How is any of this helpful in any way? He took one dubious problem and projected it onto the entire universe, and gave himself another problem of emergence to boot. This is not progress, more like digging a hole for himself.

As for Searle, I'm not hugely familiar with his work, but I find his Chinese Room experiment, or rather his conclusions about it, misguided at best and wilfully ignorant at worst. The system reply, which I think is just obviously true, is simply dismissed with very little argument.

Again, I fail to find justification for fundamentally subjective experience other than it sure feels that way. That's more of a theological argument than a philosophical one.

The idea that Dennet is easier to read because he doesn't conform to the truth is pretty strange. He's clearly a very skilled writer and speaker. He's very good at avoiding a dense jungle of -isms, and when he does use them, he defines them very precicely and carefully. This to me is good philosophy. Dennet does a good job of laying out and explaining these ideas in a way that isn't completely convoluted. Argument is the core methodology of philosophy, and if a philosopher fails to represent their argument in clear way, why should I even take them seriously?

Philosophers are great at dressing up bad arguments in fancy, mystical, ill-defined terminology like "qualia". This to me is the philosophical equivalent of code smell. Whenever I read these closet dualists' arguments I have to pinch my nose.
The ties to Russia have been cut. By incindence before the war, but with the war they wouldn't have had any future anyway.

Of course lots of the software has open source licences so the Russian can even legally continue to use it. The UI components have a proprietary license. I don't know whether the Russians have the source, but I might guess they do. So they could continue to use it like they do with leased airplanes.
Related: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/navy-seal-pardone...
Coincidentally covering up for this atrocity was the start of the political career of future Secretary of State mr Colin Powell. A real piece of work.
I think the actual firing is very objective.

He was under NDA but violated it. They reminded him to please not talk in public about NDA-ed stuff and he kept doing it. So now they fired him with a gentle reminder that "it's regrettable that [..] Blake still chose to persistently violate [..] data security policies". And from a purely practical point of view, I believe it doesn't even matter if Lemoine's theory of sentience turns out to be correct or wrong.

Also, we as society have already chosen how to deal with sentient beings, and it's mostly ignorance. There has been a lot of research on what animals can or cannot feel and how they grieve the loss of a family member. Yet we still regularly kill their family members in cruel ways so that we can eat their meat. Why would our society as a whole treat sentient AIs better than a cow or a pig or a chicken?
I loved my handheld Tetris console as a little kid. I could start at speed 9 (highest) and play for an hour or until I have to pee or something.

These days I am more impressed with people hitting 60% lightning gun in Quake or executing crazy hard army manuevers in StarCraft.

Still though, Tetris is an early love of mine
It feels to me rather like the difference between cooperative versus preemptive scheduling. Some mainstream operating systems used to use cooperative scheduling. All have long shifted to preemptive scheduling. File system transactions would be global in the same way kernel-space cooperative scheduling is—and one malicious or even buggy process can now bring down the whole system.

In a fully controlled environment you could do it, just like you can do cooperative scheduling, but outside of such an environment you just can’t do it in any way sanely.
No quantum computing platform today has meaningful error correction. What you can get, in some cases, is limited error detection based on the outcome of the question computation, if it's built into your specific algorithm.
People who put celery in salads are psychopaths.
If every website had a 'contact us' button that just goes to email the world would be a better place.
> I doubt China has really reduced those crimes that much.

I have no idea. But the point I was trying to make is that people believe that the crime has been reduced. This is probably a more important metric when it comes to determining why people would or would not trust a government. It is important to realize that peoples' perspectives are often not rooted in reality. I bring this up because people responding to me are not operating under the assumption that this is possible. Is this not understood? Do I need to provide evidence? I can. But it seems you do understand since your next sentence is talking about propaganda. So I'm a bit confused at how to respond to your comment. I don't know if you're agreeing, disagreeing (this is what it sounds like), or just adding more information. As to propaganda, I'm not sure the average person is acutely aware of it, since this is the literal purpose. I mean it is easier to see on the outside (propaganda of another country vs propaganda from your own country) and I think we often pretend propaganda is more "Uncle Sam needs you" vs "What's your carbon footprint?"[0] Because propaganda is aimed at specific people it is generally unnoticed when you are the actual target.

[0] This isn't anti-climate change rhetoric, this is a campaign started by BP to shift fault from corporations to individuals.
One interesting thing to know when reading AirBNB reviews is that if you have a dispute and they decide you're in the wrong you're not allowed to share anything related to that dispute. So you'll never see a review that says a host did something unreasonable and then AirBNB sided with them.
No, it's a relinquishing of power from women to the state. Hence, abolition is the correct word.
They deserve an award. They even have product descriptions with use cases not intended by the vendor of the product.
This still presents an issue with shebang lines, though. I use ‘#!/usr/bin/env bash’ to work around this but occasionally have to modify other peoples scripts if they’re relying on newer bash features.
Compared to working with iptables, nftables is like this haiku:

Multiple IP protocols
Service names for ports
Chains happy

Sacred connection tracking
Automatically available for me
Configuration bliss

BPF may be future
But time is only now
lo accept

That is to say, I don't think bpfilter is ready yet, but nftables is already great compared to most firewalls short of PF.

(With apologies to Jason Dixon and his PF haiku: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-pf&m=108507584013046&w=2 )
I'm using hg-git... was fine until i started working with other humans. my changeset hashes don't match github and git branches map to hg bookmarks which i don't like.
Having been a Google reject, I thought this too. But I think there is a now almost an entire field of engineering which is "learn to get a FAANG job" which if you apply yourself too anyone get probably get in given enough time.
The user name is so bad you would almost think it is designed to intentionally mislead.

Anyone with the right sense of mind would otherwise call this functional-user-questions-plugin.

On the other hand, if someone intentionally wanted to mislead they would have named the user James to mislead even more.
Both. It's up to you how much risk == money you take.
True. Amazon tries so hard to hide the fact that 3rd party sellers exist that to the casual user it feels like they're buying everything from Amazon.
No I don't, and I'll tell you why.

The amount of energy hitting the surface of the earth is constant, assuming that the luminosity of the sun is constant. Photosynthesis as cyanobacteria/chloroplasts/chlorella perform it might be less efficient than a modern solar panel at converting the entirety of the spectrum to energy, but they did it and produced this fuel for hundreds of millions of years. Even if you get 10 times the efficiency gains on them, you reduce the amount of time it takes to produce the same energy to what, tens of thousands of years, at the same surface area as that of the oceans?

Now let's say the electricity generated is used in a way that is an order of magnitude more efficient than using fossil fuels. That takes us down to 1000-9000 years, let's say best case scenario 1000, a surface area the size of the ocean paved, to achieve the energy we have used in 100 years, and that doesn't account for the fact that we need the energy output we have now, not the output we had in 1920 which was orders of magnitude less. Constant output at current levels I would expect we would've used all that oil in under 50 years, but let's ignore that too.

Now, let's assume that that oil were to last us another hundred years at projected energy consumption rates, peak oil and all that. You'd need to pave an area of the earth, in my very rough sketch, the size of all the oceans, and process the entire earths crust for minerals for it, and keep it like this for 1000 years, to get enough energy to last humans 200 years.

I'm probably wrong about a lot of these numbers. Let's say I'm off (in your favor) by a whopping order of magnitude. You'd still have to pave an area the size of half the earths oceans to get 200 years worth of energy in 200 years. Exactly how much environmental damage do you think such a project would cause? Would you say that such a project would be more or less destructive than current climate change projections?

It's really pretty obvious, there are only 2 paths forward: get humans into space, where we can build solar panels to catch some of the unbelievably vast majority of solar energy that is not required by life on earth, out of material not currently underneath the ground life lives on, and use the lucky accident of these fuels to do it now before they run out, or take humanity down a few notches, kill three quarters of our population, somehow prevent the CO2 from our decomposition from entering the atmosphere, and start cooking with wood and cowdung again.

Or we can keep pretending that these pitches about carbon sequestration using solar and wind are actually viable and keep being frustrated that nothing is being done to stop it.
How to draw a picture with GPT-3 and DALL-E-2
To begin, select a suitable piece of paper for
use, and apply pencil to same. Then, select a
pencil sharpener and sharpen pencil to a
suitable degree. Use the pencil to apply
graphite to paper in accordance with
previously defined image. Finally, select a
suitable eraser to remove pencil markings
which are not part of the image.
My grandpa built himself a turn-by-turn navigation system back in the early nineties. It consisted of a strip of paper rolled onto a wooden cylinder. He would write the instructions down on the strip of paper at home. And later, on the road, all he has to do was advance the strip one notch after each instruction.

I believe he also built this thing in order to avoid discussions with my grandma. (There’s a reason Google Maps has this super friendly female voice. Much better than an agitated spouse hollering at you, haha)
Something is not right here, the N800 was no communicator, but what they called Internet tablet. 2 years before the Ipad and a slightly different concept.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N800
it'll depend on the firm, their current situation & what client projects they have lined up.

As a permanent employee of a consultancy, the consultancy takes on the liability of having to pay you a wage even if they run out of billable projects to deploy you on, so you shouldn't expect to make as attractive an hourly rate, compared to if you are contracting directly with a client or being some kind of sub-contractor or casual/temp employee of the middleman agency.

In some labour markets (australia, UK) contract IT work is quite common. If you can't find leads for contracts through people who can vouch for you in own professional network, hop onto the popular local job search website, set the filter for "contract" work, plug in some keywords, see what ads pop up. It can also be interesting to dial filters for salary/daily contract rate way up to get a feel for what skills or technology has the most market demand. If there are advertisements that look interesting, reach out and talk to people.

You will rapidly find yourself talking with recruiters at consultancies/agencies/bodyshops -- if they think you might be a good fit for their client, they will of course generally be aspiring to purchase your labour for as low a cost as possible so they can pocket the largest spread between what the client is willing to pay and what you are willing to work for. But there's a bunch of skill and time in finding clients, negotiating pricing and contracts, sorting out admin and compliance stuff -- you either figure out how to do it yourself or rely on another person or firm to do some or all of it on your behalf, and let them capture a share of the value.
Leon Trotsky: Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism (1911)
There was a MacOS update that set everyone’s shell to zsh instead of the default (ancient) bash.

Hardly insurmountable, but the change was a “forced” part of the upgrade.
OK, but that's just an organisation problem. The technology exists.
One big problem with alimony is it's often calculated at time of divorce and never updated. Extreme cases are when the provider is at an unusual peak of earnings. Once they are past that peak and can't keep up payments, they are driven into bankruptcy (or even jail!). This is quite common with successful actors and sport stars.

On the other end, some divorces happen when the provider is in a low (e.g. depressed with an unusually low salary, or even jobless). So the other partner has to face almost zero alimony support. Even if the provider is later recovered and well off.

There are people exploiting both scenarios by timing the divorce when it's most convenient for them. This used to be a trope in magazines.
Gitlab 15.2 released. Live wiki diagram previews,redesigned merge request report
I think I was referring to that as "temporary uses in specific situations". Like getting clients into a state of therapy addressing underlying issues being viable. I might be misunderstanding, but the way I read your response is that they are not taking them anymore?

I do disagree with your cherry-picking assessment, I am relaying my lived experience. The people I know of that take SSRIs are either in an unhealthy environment or are masking trauma. Or a bit of both.

And speaking from personal experience: I was never suicidal, more like burnt out and depressed. What helped me was an exceptional therapist that assisted me in making sense of what I am feeling and gently worked with me to build a framework to cope. That involved a spiritual component and helped me regain my creativity.

My point being: I can not imagine that SSRIs would have enabled me to do that. I am glad they helped your friends. Out of curiosity I would be interested in what they had going on at that time. I also do understand that this is deeply personal and none of my business.
Well, since the AI was put in charge of hiring and firing the system has become a lot more efficient and allowed Google to streamline a number of important managerial functions.
Why do you believe a quantum computer can actually solve that problem? The whole point of the article is that quantum computers are not and can never be general-purpose computers. And something with as many inputs as "simulate the human body" seems like the exact opposite of what you can encode in qubits, evolve as a state vector, and usefully read out.
There's no scale shown on that photo. What is the total area?