skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Personally, having thought about it, there is a non-zero possibility of a Boltzmann Brain that wants to end us all even if we stop all AI and stop all Earth busters, and there is a non-zero possibility of us stopping it. Therefore we should stop all current activity on anything that is not Evil Boltzmann Brain.

The problem with Evil Boltzmann Brain is that it could destroy all life in all galaxies through the infinitesimal chance that it spontaneously produces space travel.

Therefore, I have dedicated my entire life to fighting EBB instead. Currently, this requires that I buy an iPhone with the money I had planned to use on GiveWell.org but it's all in the plan.

I have not forgotten the goal, though. If I consume all resources on Earth, then I can stop evil AI at the same time as I increase entropy and reduce the possibility that EBB can utilize any energy differential. This requires that I consume consume consume. Which I shall do out of altruistic purposes.
Once upon a time you could do this:

int z[20];

x = z;

because arrays were formally equivalent to int*'s.

But apparently things have changed since the last time I looked.
anyway, use searx! https://searx.space/
you aren't paying attention to the trends. and the overall trend in modern world - especially within the OECD - is curtailing freedom in the name of some greater good.

we're one "cyber pandemic" away from all new consumer hardware being turned into locked down plastic toys for our own safety. and the seeds are already being planted in the minds of the public https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cyber+pandemic
> tongue in cheek word for this: patternitis.

This term recently occurred to me:

OCD -- Obsessive Class Disorder
Sure, if you can prove revenue, income or assets.

So basically after some sort of check of credit worthiness?
If the government so desired, it could essentially seize all assets represented by the chain, establish an exchange rate, and open the window of the Federal Reserve to redeem tokens when a person provides enough identifying information to redeem their Ethereum for fiat. Essentially making everyone whole for some definition of whole to be determined. It's been done before, in fact, back when the country was fresh out of the Revolution and getting it's feet under it, and disparate currencies consolidated.

This is, in fact, exactly the kind of thing Governments tend to exist for.
Project silica by Microsoft Research seems like a very interesting project in this direction. Storing data on glass which is incapable of bit rot (and in more ways similar to the stone carvings from the medieval era)
Neat. Thanks for the background. I think you may have mentioned the Camrose thing before here on HN, I recall this coming up before.
You may be able to leverage this write-up, but it's not necessarily geared towards non-engineers: https://frdmtoplay.com/on-a-researchers-momentum/
Seems unrelated. This happened ~10 hours ago.
I’ll take Google being down for a whole day if we get more rewards like that.
you vill vatch ze shorts and you vill like it
they're the 5% twtr reports as bots each year
Make sure to check PromptOverflow.com if you get stuck.
-- Switching to Seattle on Nord fixed it for me --
no google obviously can't sneed smh
If you are writing a library, sure. If you are designing a system, this is silly. Functions aren't written in isolation. Such that there can be a broad definition of all exceptions that are expected to go to a user.

In the full system, you will have many side channels of data flow. Metrics and logging are also worth considering.

If you really want to boil a system down to a single entry point, at least do it like lisp, where the system has pluggable restart conditions defined.
> So ... don't make panic part of your API, and don't recover from panics?

Don't recover from panic except at high level - retrying or failing that "scope" is ok, but don't try to do business logic around panicing or not (if you absolutely must, catch the panic at the lowest possible level and turn it into a result).
looks like leetcode interviews don’t work for finding the right talent with actual skills and experience
This was my first thought. Ask the person to turn sideways and then put a shoe on their head. Or put a shoe on their head and then turn sideways.
Lots of PoCs have been built over the years, but so far they've almost all been fun academic stunts, and not actually useful for real world scenarios.

We live in an unprecedented era of understanding when it comes to technologies used by criminals, law enforcement, and every major intelligence agency on the planet, and none of them use chip backdoors, because they just aren't needed. Nearly every attack scenario you can imagine is better served by exploiting existing bugs, or parts of the software supply chain. Software based attacks scale better, and are easier to deny later.

The closest we have to chip backdoors in practice is likely the hardware supply chain tampering for North Korea's missile program, which supposedly serves up the slightly off spec chips that cause their missiles to fail spectacularly every time they try and show them off. It makes no sense to have active backdoors like that in consumer electronics when there are so many more useful and easier to exploit bugs in existing devices.
It’s what I would have done. Insane that this is for free. I feel like we take all this magic for granted.
Ahh, ok, thank you for sharing
Imagine a person who lives in a dictatorship country and used it to send a donation to an opposition journalist. Because otherwise he would go straight to jail. Is it a good use of such a service or bad?

I personally think that's the point of privacy. To protect people from the government. Otherwise it easily becomes a tyranny if they have a full control and visibility over the citizens.
Is this closer to System Analyst, or -- as it sounds -- even higher level, like strategic infrastructure acquisition?
More likely "Wait... oh yea, I would do that." and gets to go home and not serve jury duty.
"I don't want the government to know what I'm doing with my money" is not a valid objection to this plan unless you can lay out a convincing argument that a couple of entirely for-profit companies knowing what you're doing with your money is any better, and that they will not roll over and provide transaction records the instant the government asks them to.

My arguments are:

- A for-profit company can't put me in prison

- A for-profit company has an incentive to keep the government out of their business
I've had to search stuff in bing because for some reason google had only the shitty mirror sites for github issues/stackoverflow/whatever indexed. I could literally do a quote search and not get the original source.
Sincere question: how much of a benefit would it have been to the global poor if COVID never had an adverse impact? What if, as a side effect, other diseases were also mitigated? How are you going from a criticism of identity to the criticism of the aims? It’s very unclear to me.
from the article:
> it took me a lot of time to understand what this pattern does and had my "aha!" moment

The patterns are shorthand to discuss a set of concepts that can be useful in considering solutions to certain problems. Once the designer encounters those problems, and understands how the patterns can be used, the value is apparent.

It doesn't seem too different than many areas of mathematics, where the jargon burden is real.

Can the concepts be explained to a lay user? Yes.

Can the lay user then apply those concepts to solve problems? Likely not except in the most superficial of cases - the lay explanation ignores much detail that is required to get an effective solution in non-trivial cases.
> insisting that surely your jobs are too special and complex for this to ever happen to you

This insistence bugs the crap out of me, and shows just how arrogant tech-types (and even more so, business-types) can be. The late David Graeber noted this attitude, and while he's talking about investors/entrepreneurs/financiers, it could equally apply to the cocky software engineers I've met over the years:

"It's possible for futurologists to imagine robots relpacing sports editors, sociologists, or real estate agents, for example, yet I have yet to see one suggest that the basic functions that capitalists are supposed to perform, which mainly consist of figuring out the optimal way to invest resources in order to answer current or potential consumer demand, could possibly be performed by a machine. Why not?"

I optimistically believe that art will never be automated away like software engineering has the potential to be. The human creative element is so core to what art is that replacing it with a machine misses the point entirely, even if a machine could fully replicate an aesthetic.
Yes humans communicate using "words". Nothing is ever "proven" in science since there is always an arbitrarily complex hypothesis than can explain captured data. Instead, the weight of evidence is considered.

Anyway it seems like this whole conversation is out of your depth currently. There are many good X-ray crystallography texts available if your interest continues.
If being ghosted is being rejected, then I have been rejected hundreds of times.
> The moment that you have a dynamically allocated array, you are either dropping safety (e.g. expecting the developer to perform bounds checks when necessary) or performance (e.g. the compiler inserts bounds checks at runtime).

Yes, that's true. So? The original claim is that it is self-evident that this tradeoff should be resolved in favor of performance in the design of the language, and it just isn't (self-evident). If anything, it is self-evident to me that the tradeoff should be resolved in favor of safety in today's world.
> he thing is the defining characteristic of a C-like is that it has an ultra lightweight runtime

Agreed. And with my critique of the toolchain, I didn't mean to imply that C isn't a reasonable choice in many situations. But rather, holding up the C toolchain as a reason to pick C over an alternative isn't reasonable in my opinion.

In particular, because a lot of C alternatives piggy back on the C ecosystem by using LLVM as a backend. So you end up with a superset of tools. The C alternative ecosystem and the C ecosystem.

Pick C if it's all that's available. Pick it if you plan on distributing your app/lib onto that IBM RPG server. Pick it if your software is already written in C. Pick it if your software is a simple app that runs for 1 second then shuts down (and it isn't really mission critical). Pick it if memory safety isn't really a problem. Pick it if that ultra thin runtime is an absolute necessity. Pick it if you have a bunch of C devs that don't want to learn a new language.

But don't pick it because you are afraid new languages won't have something as good as valgrind or gdb. Any semi-popular language born in the last 20 years (that wasn't written yesterday) will almost certainly have better tooling than C.
Rustacean Station, 24 Jun 2022 was when it was posted.
> Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact

If that is axiomatic, it's not the constitution of the US. I don't know about other jurisdictions, but it's silent on the exact duties of a jury.
How fast is 12th Gen Intel Core?
I mean if you want any sort of enforcement of tax laws, you kind of do need that sort of traceability, no?
No, but you might be put in a jail cell overnight for contempt.
Because defi exchanges are also smart contracts. Unless you have an automated system that watches all tokens coming out of tornado and then immediately modifies the the exchange smart contracts to blacklist them it’s not feasible.
you can’t even do basic shit in a productive manner in google docs so what are you worrying about?
It's also worth noting that (at least for C), the way the standard is worded an optimizing compiler and a non-optimizing compiler can generate exactly the same output in every situation. NONE of the unpredictability actually depends on optimization, it's just that optimization can (sometimes, if you're lucky) expose it. If you're not lucky, the code gen changes based on something harder to control than a single compiler option.
I was at one of those shops. When the Mac version came out, the colorists were pretty pissed as they were comparing the price of all of the other gear they had already paid for compared to free. Granted, back then the Mac was a toy in processing power. Then the GPU expansions became available, and the non-Linux versions became real. Still held onto the Linux versions as long as possible to continue using the existing panels that used 50ohm coax cables (token ring??) until they finally released updated versions of those. At $30k, people were choking, but still at least $170k cheaper.

This will be the lasting legacy of BMD. Still shake my head and laugh knowing the quality for the price of then and now. I’m crying but from laughing while noobs are crying because it’s not free. From my experience it damn well is!
Don't you love the British. Who thought of the name "University College"?

Metabolism before genes makes perfect sense. Defining life is silliness as far as I'm concerned, but DNA is a very specific mechanism of reproduction whereas metabolism is more universal basic concept. Or so it seems to me...
HN readers should be perfect jury members then.
Really curious to see how a single (albeit large) DC issue caused a global outage.

Further; was the DC not protected by redundant power?

Also even more interested to see how this arc flash even happened. Presumably these were experienced engineers working with obviously dangerous power levels.
While I agree completely with your conclusion that mainstream media has thoroughly discredited itself in recent years, I don't feel masking likely-biased sources behind "anonymous" attribution is the biggest part of the problem. I do agree it's definitely been abused many times though.

The even bigger problems are publication bias and source selection bias. These are far less visible because massive amounts of severe bias is accomplished by simply not running stories and it's easy to mask this bias internally because editorial decisions about newsworthiness and public interest are always subjective judgement calls the public doesn't hear about.

In other cases, when editors feel the 'balance' element of an issue story they care about is a little "too balanced" they ask reporters to 'beef up' sources on one side and can also cut-down opposing view sentences for "space reasons". This is as easy as ensuring a 20 paragraph story gets assigned a 16 paragraph slot in the layout process, while ensuring the nettlesome "oppo" views are deprioritized to the last four paragraphs in the (supposedly) separate editing process.

It's surprisingly easy to spot this. Just look for articles where you actually aren't sure which side the writers and/or editors lean toward. One would assume in a fair distribution there should be some noticeable number of these, yet it virtually never happens (and this is equally true from both right and left leaning media outlets). It turns out that it's very difficult for biased editors to sufficiently mask their bias, even when they're trying to appear unbiased.
"Your honor, I have investigated myself and found myself innocent."
but if that thumbnail is from an AI-generated image, it has no value.

tech blogs don't need to follow the same practices as clickbait farms. the audience is very different
Neither software architecture nor design matters. The only thing that matters is whether you deployed your code to production. Code in production that solves customers’ problems right here and right now beats any architecture and design.
I feel like I need to read the manual for specific Google searches. Sometimes, it seems to drop an important search term and not give a suggestion link to include it. +term doesn’t help sometimes. It seems like +”term” usually does.

It seems overfitted to delivering results with mass appeal. Perhaps I’ll try bing the next time I get that tingling feeling google will throw out the search terms intended to narrow down what I want to find.
Is it this one? https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition
> Milled receivers with curved surfaces and finicky blind holes.

AR-15 lower receivers are forged and then milled. Of course, referring to mass produced ones for the military. Forged parts are typically stronger than purely machined parts of the same material.
It's great to communicate about liberty to those who are ready to hear it, for their own benefit.

I have no desire to change the world, I just inform my personal decisions and benefit from understanding the truth.

If you want to discuss how to communicate for liberty, my email is in my bio.
When I was an undergraduate at MIT I learned of a prof who’d done interesting work in urban planning named Jay Forrester. This stuck in my mind because I already knew of the core memory inventor Jay Forrester. But you know, names are not unique, even in a small institution the size of MIT.

Then a year or so later I learned that an MIT prof had come come up with an interesting theorem we used on solving, IIRC, large sets of simultaneous equations, a guy named Jay Forrester. OK, surely there couldn’t be three of them, and indeed there was only one.

To my regret I was too intimidated to go meet him.
He's probably more referring to the amazon prime thing.
oh my, classic
SF too.
how about the offset on all the vehicles on the road? People still need to cool their homes reasonably while at work (people, pets) when they're not there so the difference might be less important. also this makes the assumption you're living in a place that needs AC. Commute is all year, AC usage maybe not.
Clicked through didn’t get to see the full article, but seemingly no mention of WW2, which seems a bit of a weird omission in the first paragraph for something happening in 1947
Reading the diaries and letters of great authors helps. Kafka's, in particular, gave me an idea as to why keeping a literary diary is useful and interesting.
Not sure why downvoted. This is true.
Isn't it? They didn't offer you the job.
There is one simple thing that tends to dominate - every interface is an opportunity to fail.
Hi! My name is Sam.
Well, sort of - it adds overhead, though in the form of an extra byte/object and an extra CPU cycle when objects are allocated/deallocated to check/update the reference counts, rather than the lag spikes tracing GCs are known for.
Probable cause?
Wait a minute. If this site is true, then everyone doesn't get everything they want out of life 100% of the time?

This is fascinating!
The current state of AI/ML is demoralizing with little hope of redemption
> As the author is from Andhra

Is he? He lives in Bangalore and his Twitter has his name in Kannada, not Telugu.
It is interesting that this corresponded with the announcement of the FBI raiding Trump’s house.
I hadn’t known that, though it doesn’t surprise me.
Misconfiguration at GFE control plane?
It's different every day, usually between 8 and 11 moves. It depends on the minimum number of moves required to clear the tiles in the given arrangement.
We literally do not give 99% of the population any sort of hormonal treatment in order to ensure they match their "assigned gender". For the overwhelming majority of people we say "wow this looks like a boy" and that person ends up a boy with no intervention and no gender identity issues.

Yes, there are intersex people and they are a special case that need to be handled differently than the rest of the population. And just "assigning" a gender to those people like we've been doing for most of medical history is probably not the right move. But the vast majority of trans people are not even intersex so injecting that into a conversation about trans issues is just muddying the waters.

When we do intervene, yes, of course the child is never asked. As far as I'm aware there isn't any medication/intervention we give to children where we ask for their permission. Because they are children. One of the main reasons we distinguish between children and adults in our society is because we have decided that children do not have the mental maturity to make such decisions of large import, so we place that responsibility on parents/guardians/doctors/etc.
See also: Rebel Sultans by Manu S. Pillai.
San Francisco ‘Froth Is Gone’ as Wealth Fades, Housing Slumps
My personal belief is that we will see catastrophic results from the use of AI by authoritarian governments or corporations long before we invent AIs capable of killing us; however, it is correct to view it as an X-risk. In a war against robots, we will lose. Why? Machines are stronger and faster than we are. Our only advantages are intellectual; but if we reach a technical level at which what we consider true intelligence is reduced to mere computation, then we have none. The distance between the first integrated circuit and an artificial human is massive (and we may never cross the chasm) but the distance between an artificial human and an artificial superhero/villain is not.

If we ever create a machine that's "as smart as" an average person, we're probably not very far from having one that's smarter than all of us put together. (Let's be honest; except in highly technical fields, the differences between a 150 IQ human's abilities and an average person's are not that great.) Should this happen, we'll soon enough be outmatched; we'll be just another animal in a world whose rules (ever changing) we cannot possibly understand... and just as humans have destroyed countless species often without conscious ill intent, it does not seem unreasonable that a robot successor would do the same to us.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say we want to build not just a great Go player, but the best Go player that is possible in any world. Go is harmless, right? Sure, in isolation, but now let's imagine an AGI smarter than any of us which only "cares" about maximizing its Go proficiency. It's going to need a lot of energy. It'll hack or create robots and drill new oil wells (bypassing any constraints we put on it, since it in essence is spending thousands of human years figuring out how to escape). It'll devise nuclear technologies that may be unsafe from our perspective. Consider all the horrible things humans do in order to procure excess money (a commodity loosely correlated to energy) they don't actually need; there's no reason to think a badly aligned AI won't be just as inventive and horrible in its quest for more exajoules.

If capitalism and war are still the way of the world in 100 years, we are guaranteed to see some idiot inventing robot soldiers, hundreds of times faster and stronger than us, and with at least as much operational intelligence. He might never deploy the technology--a lab leak is in my opinion more likely--but at some point, it will get out. It won't be one robot; it won't have a body we can destroy. It'll be able to replicate itself and beam copies to satellites. It'll have control of our power infrastructure (which it will divert to its own "wants") within hours. We'll be screwed, not because it will want to harm us, because our lives require the use of resources that it will divert toward some objective function we technically invented but do not understand.
That's actually kind of a myth nowadays. For example the honest answer to the classic C10K question (how do you write a webserver that can serve 10000 requests concurrently) is that you spawn 10k threads and let the OS scheduler handle it and it'll be fine.
Tbh the source code of the whole internet would probably be a few PB at most, text is really cheap to store especially because it can be compressed. Images and videos are what makes the premise impossible because even with perfect compression you need an impossible amount of storage to store every video published by mankind.
Maybe someone tried to resurrect the Search Timer code [0].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32295674