skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interesting video.

As an ex-cuber, I disagree that including inspection time would make the event more fair or would reduce the number of ties.

The reason there's so much variance in inspection time (usually over 8 seconds since that's when you get the warning from the timekeeper) is because nobody has previously cared about inspection time. If it started being included, people would spend far less time inspecting (maybe just looking for the first cross pieces at most) and you'd end up with similar competitive levels.

I'm also not sure I agree with the statement that they're "already solving the cube". It's not wrong but it gives the wrong impression -- given enough inspection time you couldn't solve the whole cube in your head using traditional methods like CFOP (obviously you do this in blindfolded solves but that's much slower than CFOP). Cross planning is a thing but I doubt that the variance in times is actually because Felix is slower than other cubers at doing cross planning -- he just takes his time because he knows inspection times are not counted.

That being said, I'm not against having it as a new format. It would be interesting to see how the meta would evolve (though I suspect it would just result in cross-only inspections, if that -- but it would be interesting if CFOP fell out of favour because there are better techniques that don't need as much inspection to get off to a running start). I also get the viewpoint that "it makes more sense" but I've also never had issues when solving cubes for laypeople when I say "hang on, lemme take a look before I start" so I'm not sure it's that big of a deal (not that many laypeople care about speedcubing minutiae anyway).

I also wonder whether this would disproportionately affect vision-impaired cubers (though I don't personally know any so I can't ask them if they typically have longer inspection times or if they're doing anything special during inspection).
> Since the end goal of AI will result in a crisis for human, isn't it time for governments to step in and regulate?

Your crisis has been added to the queue and will be dealt with in due course. Your crisis is .. <click> 1,734 in the crisis queue.

(seriously I think this is best left alone until it clarifies or subsumed into the general "regulation of harmful doing things with computers", like privacy laws. Self-driving cars are their own game and deserve immediate scrutiny.)
We have known for a year that the vaccines don’t prevent the disease.

Is there some reason we need to cover this again?
Exactly - AI is amazing at taking millions of datapoints and interpolating between them to be extremely accurate - as long as it's well within the manifold of examples it's seen. But edge cases where it has either not seen it before, or has seen few examples? Who knows, usually a lot worse.
Then just compress every 10MB or whatever independently. Probably a good idea for parallelism anyway.
I think this is thinking small. An AI doesn't need to use human readable programming languages or frameworks to solve problems. Also software engineers are expensive. Corporate greed will drive this faster.
> (concluding that they are too complex and expensive)

She states "To make a long story short, they didn't catch on, and I don't think they ever will."

She states her opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that, but (a) others may have a different opinion, and (b) it may be possible to make them more practical if more effort is put into them that has been in the past.
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen
That spec literally recommends 80 char lines.
That is not what I got from the comments there. What I got was "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead on amyloids!"

When it is finally proven that interfering with amyloid synthesis never has any desirable effect of any kind, what will these people do instead of fooling with them?
I use a text editor (usually notepad++) for my notes. Just simple bullet lists. If I need to convey a flow, I’ll use combinations of various brackets and arrows and stuff. Then at some point I go through these notes and format them to a markdown file in Joplin, which gets backed up to the cloud. I haven’t found a simpler way to take notes than this and I feel like folks trying hard to minmax this process are losing the plot.
A powerful AI capable of programming would be amazing. It could reverse engineer binaries into human-readable source code. It could transpile tools and libraries to different platforms and languages.

Personally I can't wait to be made obsolete by the god AI.

The limit to human creativity would move from a technical one to your imagination.
Related: https://ridiculousfish.com/blog/posts/old-age-and-treachery....
I was talking about being a party pooper for not getting very excited by ML research.
It's the same with Android Auto.
Is there a list of awesome fractals to zoom into with Xaos somewhere?

edit: Wait a minute, it's right on the same site! http://www.paulbourke.net/fractals
Ten years is actually a pretty good run for a makerspace and I congratulate Hacker Lab for their unusual degree of success.

When I founded ALTSpace, in Seattle, back in 2011, there were at least four other public makerspaces in the city, all of which have since closed. A few more have opened since then; some of them have since gone under. Makerspaces are heavily dependent on the energy and involvement of the community which sustains them. You have to be able to turn over your management every couple of years.

I don't really know why you would try to run a makerspace like a business. They are fundamentally community-oriented resource and activity spaces. It's much easier to make things work in a bottom-up, volunteer-supported, community-focused non-profit style. It keeps your overhead lower and your potential membership larger. You have to think of it as more like a public library than a machine shop.

The utility of a makerspace is strongly related to proximity: the less time it takes to get there, the smaller a job you can reasonably undertake there; the smaller the jobs you feel comfortable doing there, the more often you are likely to show up; the more time you spend there, the better the community works, and the more likely you are to spend time cleaning and maintaining the space.

There is therefore a kind of anti-scaling economics at work. A big, well-funded, well-equipped makerspace has to draw people from a large area to support its running expenses. But if it takes you an hour to get to the makerspace, you're only going to go there when you have multiple hours of work to do. How many times a month do you have a big project needing multiple hours of work? That is a single-digit number and for most people a small one. So you have to cast a wider net to support a larger makerspace, but you also have to charge more, which reduces your potential member base. It is a tricky balance to find, and it's even trickier to find much surplus value that could be extracted as profit.
Self checkout at supermarkets absolutely sucks. For the customer it is a huge downgrade in experience.
I think OP was referring to salary cuts. Stock is known to carry risk so it being "cut" isn't taboo, but salary, which is supposed to be guaranteed, is.
I don’t see “failing to fire bad engineers” on this list, which is a huge problem but easily fixable. A good engineer can put up with a lot of BS, but working with B and C level talent is a fast path to burnout.
I've never seen documentation on Git that was good and accurate. Pretty much every explainer out there commits major errors, claiming things like: commits are changesets, branches are sets of commits, claiming that any Git operation can be undone, implying merge is a symmetrical operation, or saying to never force push.

Being a beginner in Git is probably hell.
This, and also it ignores irrelevant files. It has sane defaults but you can tweak this with a .rgignore file, which is like .gitignore but for rg. By the way, it will use .gitignore files in a git directory.

That means that by default, it will take a lot less time and won't ruin your terminal when lines of some generated files (especially minified ones that are all on one line) match your search.

This is the main reason I use ripgrep.
Nice presentation, but I feel the underlying absurdity of world records starts undermining the point once you go this deep.

How many meters did Usain Bolt have to run in training before he ran his 100 meter record winning run.

How much of the time is a factor of the cubes randomisation, or the speed at which you pick up and drop the cube.

For the world's shortest river, how do you define river?

I think lay people would be surprised by the effectively arbitrary legal minutiae of most sports and competitions.
It’s not even a good faith argument, people cannot prove they’re not biased.

It’s just your basic lazy conspiracy theory thinking dressed up as cynical aloofness.
This article seems very simplistic to me. I'm grasping for a word to describe an argument that leads you, via brightly-colored baby steps, to a desired conclusion, but this article seems to be that.

What is intelligence? Can classical machines become intelligent, or is there some mystical quantum quality involved? Is there a limit to intelligence? What is the best form of intelligence (single entity vs society), Is intelligence even understandable, and therefore engineerable? Are current neural networks in any way intelligent (they seem extremely good at pattern matching, and/or regurgitating those patterns, but beyond that I'm not sure). Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Think of all the money that could be saved if interlocking boards of directors and corporate executives could be replaced by AI? No more need to pay bloated salaries and ludicrous bonuses and provid ridiculous 'golden parachute' contracts to top executives.

The discussion about AI always focuses on replacing the leaves of the trees in corporate heirarchies, but the value obtained by replacing the root seems to be much higher.

One could also plausible replace shareholders with AI, although then one might start to question the whole structure of investment capitalism... maybe AI would be better at making long-term decisions about the distribution of capital to prospective business operations than some group of Wall Street funds are?

Perhaps we'll see AI-managed pension funds in the near future with significantly better results (and more interest in the long-term health of the outfits they invest in) soon?
> nobody will be here to serve them

Has this ever happened? I have heard this prediction about everything from Toronto to New York to Los Angeles to Hong Kong for years and it has never seemed to come true.

There are people willing to make extreme sacrifices to live in certain places. People will live 5 to a room in cockroach infested 100 year old apartments to stay in certain places.

In Toronto, labour is no more expensive to purchase than the rest of Canada (minimum wage laws aside). Toronto is worth it to enough people to have a bunk in a bunk bed over a room to oneself while working in fast food.

People can also commute. Vancouver is notorious for having teachers commute from Abbotsford. In Toronto, people will commute 2.5 hours each way from Barrie or London.

A lot just may be that the older people get replaced with less resource intensive young people who don't have kids, need less medical care, and are happier in less space.
I would caution against applying a label like "Narcissistic Personality Disorder". That is a clinical term, only applied after diagnosis by a qualified professional. You have not met "Rick", nor had a chance to examine him. I'm assuming you're not a qualified mental health professional either, or you'd know this.
I think inspiring a bunch of amateurs to make plays with mostly garbage is a great example of a +EV play.

Additionally with two pair heads up you need to get it in, the stuff about making reads gives amateur players the license to go nuts because they feel like it, again +EV. Dolly knew the odds better than almost anyone for a very long time, objectively we've learned a lot about poker in the last few years, and it's not fair to judge his play vs today's standards.
> Why do you think this? Unless we're going to start WWIII over this, all of the things currently preventing us from imposing harsher sanctions on Russia will remain as strong - most importantly, Europe still needs Russian gas to be able to sustain its industry and population comfort.

MAD requires a overwhelming response to any nuclear use, it is true that Ukraine doesn’t have nukes so that response won’t be nuclear itself.

But if the world just “lets it go” then it would be speed up nuclear proliferation like no tomorrow.

I believe any use of a nuke is the end of Russia even if it’s a slow fall.
> And same will happen to development.

It is already happening. For example; setting up a production DB in primary-secondary mode; with daily back up and what not used to be quite a bit of manual grunt work. AWS Aurora and similar services handle 70-80% of the pain leaving you with setting up right table, index etc., Same in setting up a backend stack with DNS, load balancer etc.,

My guess is cloud services will automate even DB configuration. They have 100% visibility into the true production load pattern they will be able to suggest or even auto-configure things such as indexes.
Depends. Software could be like lighting, where the cheaper it gets the more resources is spent on it. Right now it looks like it. Humans want to be able to see everywhere, and we want everything to be smart. Maybe a biotech revolution will shift demand towards that, but that’s speculation at this point.
Any grid good enough to air condition every house in the day time is good enough to charge electric cars at night.
> proper psychological treatment

And that is....? There is no psychological treatment that cures BIID and the patient here seems very happy. Is it really better and "proper" to give someone treatment that doesn't solve their problem and leaves them upset?
I can't flag and i can't downvote, so i just comment

And i don't think flagging is the answer, leaving a comment to educate the readers is better than trying to censor things
> But ask which is heavier, a goldfish or a whale, and it will tell you a goldfish. Or ask what Napoleon said about hamburgers, and it will say, “Hamburgers are the food of the gods.”

Both are answered correctly by GPT-3 on OpenAI Playground's default Q&A preset: https://i.imgur.com/ewpvhp9.png

Likely comes down to the instructions/examples given. The Q&A preset tells it to give factual answers and respond to trickery with "Unknown", whereas by default - since its training includes fiction material - it's not really wrong to make up some plausible answer to fictional questions like "Where does the wizard Uldywuld live?".

i.e. it has the ability to disregard nonsense and give factual answers (well, to a certain extent: https://i.imgur.com/sKO5inu.png) , but you have to specify that's what you want since by default it's more general than factual Q&A.
AWS Lambda supports a new IAM condition key, lambda:SourceFunctionArn
> How many meters did Usain Bolt have to run in training before he ran his 100 meter record winning run.

That's not really an accurate comparison. The current setup is more akin to a 100m running challenge where he was allowed to run 50m before starting the actual 100m to get up to speed.

The inspection time is not training, it's literally the time spent solving the cube.
None of what you said relates to the problem I described. It relates superficially to the sentence you quoted, but only if you strip it of its context.

I'm talking about malicious, fraudulent results. Made up numbers, code obfuscated and manipulated to do things different from what's being claimed. I resent the implication that my issues stem from a naive, idealistic reading of the discussion section rather than a thorough examination of the methods.

Sorting the good from the bad is one thing, creating and evaluating models, good models or bad models is one thing. Having to compete AND CITE fraudulent work, lies, imaginary models to be able to participate in the system is not "literally" science. And it's not the job any self-respecting scientist should want to do.
Here's a thought experiment. What if we had a simple, effective, and side-effect free pharmacutical treatment for BIID? what if someone could take a cheap pill every morning and they suddenly felt fine with their leg that they would otherwise be compelled to cut off?

This would obviously be better than hobbling someone with crutches or a wheel chair and a disability cheque, better for society abd the individual too.

Now what if a doctor decided one day to test this treatment on someone with gender dysphoria and lo and behold it worked just as well for them? The patient suddenly felt great about their body, great about their appearance and they stopped obsessing about changing it with risky and painful surgeries.

This cheap and effective pharmacuticial treatment would instantly become a first line treatment for gender dysphoria, right?

That sounds pretty fucking great to me. Why wouldn't you want people to live their life how they were born to?
* Boss type speaking disapprovingly to some programmers and designers: *
Come on guys, back to the fields, play time's over. Those strawberries need to be picked before they spoil.
Tell the AI what you've done so far, he'll take care of it from now on.
Some managers do that kind of things to prepare the next step of their career or because they worked for the company they are hiring (which is a variation of the first point.)
> housing shortage is exacerbated by NIMBY zoning crap restricted by politics outside of your so-called capitalistic forces.

I mean, there is a cultural aspect to it. I remember a few of my white American friends being shocked at the idea of raising kids in a condo, because « having a house and a yard » is the only way to have kids. Those people, I’m sure, will turn into nimbys in the future because « this housing is not for us ».
> how do you make math political?

By proposing a math curriculum that requires teaching all students the same material, regardless of their ability, with the aim of increasing social equality.

I'm OK with that aim; but I know from my own experience that trying to teach calculus to someone that's not ready for it isn't just a waste of effort, it's disastrously counter-productive (I totally fell out of love with maths when I was taught integration, failed to "get" it, and my well-regarded teacher didn't get why I didn't get it).

My understanding is that nowadays in UK state schools, maths is largely student-paced, using worksheets; they've given up on trying to get a whole class of students to all understand the same stuff. That's partly because a set of worksheets is much easier to come by than a good maths teacher, of course.

I'm not a maths teacher, and I don't know enough about the California curriculum arguments to have a view.
The thing people forget about whether it's 80/20 (and the last 20 takes infinite time) or whether it's 80/20 (and it happens super-linearly) is the nature of the 20.

One of two things tends to happen.

1) The 20 is a fundamentally different problem, but is itself solved by applying different new developments (e.g. most breakthrough devices: semiconductor manufacture and design, cellular phones, iPhone)

2) The 80 is so useful that work realigns to avoid / ignore the 20 (e.g. most mass market adoptions: horse drawn carriages, trains, automobiles, planes, television, personal and business computing)

The key thing realistic futurists harp on is what drives revolutions is superior utility versus the status quo.

If AI is "same as human, without the labor costs," it will be adopted gradually. If AI is "better than human in a fundamental way," it will be adopted overnight.
When a Woman’s Retirement Account Becomes the Family Emergency Fund
> These days that doesn’t work beyond micros (or small stakes at a brick and mortar casino.)

I would like to introduce you to Hustler Casino Live. I assume that most of the games they steam are not B&M small stakes. There is plenty of room for exploitative play at higher stakes if you game select well. This is especially true if one has figured out the home game scene (where the best games are, imho).

Online on competitive sites, folks still make have relatively large gaps in their game up to nl100.

On online agent apps… lol, gto is not a thing except at 5/10 and higher (sometimes).

I will add that all of this is a discussion about nlhe.

There is a push to get away from solver-based games online because they are largely bad for the ecology. Casuals get fleeced rapidly, even by folks who implement a “gto” strategy poorly. Just having a good starting hand strategy/chart is usually a huge advantage alone.

The following are some ways that this is happening, and I think that these are the future of poker:

- plo

- more blinds/antes (3 blinds, big blind ante, short deck antes, etc.)

- bomb pots

- double board

- deep stack (most solver work is for 100bb or less)

- mixed games

Plo bomb pots are typically very much loved wherever they are played, and double board adds an extra element of skill. It lets causal gamblers gamble and get action (see every flop!), but there is a huge skill element that is not in solver territory yet.

Any poker scene for which a gto strategy can reasonably be implemented will rapidly wither to a small pecking order of pros. I hope folks in the poker playing community, especially pros and serious casuals, can embrace games where gto theory is not the baseline. It’s healthy for the poker ecology by keeping casuals involved and engaged.
When you're have a small company you're hoping to turn into a larger one, many deadlines are every bit as existential as a DoD proposal deadline for a defense contractor. Especially when you don't have a big slosh pool of VC funding (but this is largely true even if you do), the difference between "stable and growing at a healthy pace" and "if something doesn't change we'll have to shut down" is often one or two customers.
It would be interesting to see how such a challenge evolves, because if you do include inspection, then you really just have a no-inspection solve time. And the question becomes how often does it help to do inspections and when do you start doing solves with look ahead along the way.
Thanks for checking it out.
The course starts with the basics, so if you are already proficient at JS you would get less value from it.
Sample collection was from solicitation by a YouTuber:

> In June 2015, the French YouTuber Mathieu Sommet posted an online video that invited his followers to complete a questionnaire entitled ‘Sexual profile of adults’.^2 A total of 171 462 participants (18+ year-olds) started the questionnaire, and 101 572 finished it.

There’s probably some value in the study, but it’s probably inappropriate to draw hard conclusions from it (pun not intended).
There's limited value in reproducing a theoretical result. That doesn't tell us if it's actually a valid model of the world. You can "reproduce" the results of string theory all day long, but nobody know if that's how things actually work. It's entirely possible that 100% of the papers in that sub-field are wrong even if the math checks out.
This is equivalent to people who argue "President X didn't REALLY win because they didn't win the popular vote"

Such an argument ignores the fact that president X would likely have changed their strategy if the determinant for winning the election was changed to winning the popular vote
Now you have to hire not just for a specific language but a specific backend platform. Idk man.
> It is extraordinarily difficult to find something concrete as a demo.

I think that's because it would be extraordinarily difficult to write something good using StretchText. It would amazing if it could be done, but the amount of effort needed to do so is probably the main reason why no-one does.
> Or adapt in some other way.

Like, you know, by building more housing. Government restrictions is what put us in this mess in the first place.