skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You can actually compile ReasonML to native code with dune.

Yeah but the community doing native ReasonML is small and the maintenance has really petered off.

With OCaml 5 looming you're better off just biting the bullet and writing OCaml if you're going to do it IMO.

> What are some of the things that weird you out about OCaml's syntax?

For whatever reason, I really dislike the named-argument syntax -- and some of the operators make it hard to read compared to named alternatives IMO.

Below examples showcases some of these:

let variables = (json_variables :> (string * Graphql_parser.const_value) list)

~resolve:(fun info () ->
Lwt_result.ok (Lwt_unix.sleep duration >|= fun () -> duration)
)
For me, this is easy because I consider copyright amoral — that is to say that copyright does not involve morality or immortality, and only its formal legal definition is meaningful.

I am not saying that attribution doesn’t have an ethical dimension. Only that attribution is morally/ethically independent of the legal construct of copyright.

Not that I think it matters much because I don’t expect AI art will have much impact as art in the long run…which is not the same as saying it won’t have much impact in the realm of disposable images.

The reason I think AI art won’t be terribly important is that there do not appear to be very many intellectually interesting things to say about it as art beyond is-it-art-because-I-hung-it-on-the-wall?

And none of this is to say that artists won’t make interesting AI art. Because artists and their processes are intellectually interesting in ways that training sets are not. I mean David Hockney’s iPad art is interesting because of David Hockney not because of iPads.

YMMV.
There are a couple of ways to block YT ads, but DNS-based adblockers won't do it.

On Android you can simply install an alternate YT client, boom, job's done. Works on Android TV also.

On iOS, the content blocker lists in Safari can block YT ads, but there's no way to block them in Google's YouTube app unless you jailbreak and install a modified app. So just watch YT in Safari.
Having no evidence is not the same as being wrong. For instance, I can claim there is a flying spaghetti monster in heaven watching over us. My argument would be unfounded, with no supports to attack, but an assertion to the contrary would be similarly wrong. There is essentially no way to disprove it.

Of course OPs statement is arguably one that is able to be disproven, or at least evidence towards disproving it. Unfortunately, the person claiming it was not sophisticated enough failed to provide that evidence. So in my book, they both made unfounded statements.
What I really need is a world without ads. A man can dream.
Our goal is to create an easy-to-use Private Blockchain program that uses a Blockchain algorithm to verify integrity of a document. The program would be run by an organization that is in need of confirming that documents exist in their original unmodified state. Through a Private Blockchain, the organization would be able to authenticate a document, much like a Notary Public authenticates a signature.
Pythagoras is believed to have come up with the just intonation (exact rational) figures. At the time, irrational numbers were distrusted and despised so, as you noted, the perfect fifth really was exactly 3:2.

But it’s likely that a 12-tone system won out because lg(3/2) is so close to 7/12, even if this was never a conscious decision. 19, 31, and 53 are also credible candidates per continued fraction expansion, but unwieldy for physical instruments (although some computer music does use 53-TET).
There is so much doomsay around these image generation AIs and I don't really understand it. Did photographs devalue painters? Did digital art devalue painters? Did movies devalue theater? Did YouTube videos devalue cinematographers? Did Twitch streams or TikTok videos devalue YouTubers?

Technology has continuously brought us easier and more immediate ways to create art, inspiring new generations of artists who hone their skills with the new tech. Meanwhile, older forms of art continue to be valued along side the new stuff.

I'm also having a hard time seeing the ethical crisis with these AIs being trained on copyrighted material. Styles are not (or at least should not be) copyrightable. An artist can be inspired by the works of another and go on to create something new. Many forms of derivative work are even specifically granted safety under existing copyright law.

Besides, it would be practically impossible to prove that a model was trained on copyrighted works. Even if we decided it was unethical, any law against it would be theoretical and practically unenforceable. Either way, artists will have to adapt.

I don't think the situation is near as dire as so many seem to believe. An AI can only reproduce a style that has been thoroughly explored by the content which it is trained on. New styles will continue to be rewarded. Digital artists will be encouraged to push boundaries. And for the time being, the AIs still have some pretty severe limitations so artists will be able to capitalize on those.

And one more thing I never see brought up when talking about these AI image generators: there's already precedent for how this will play out. AI music composers have been around for many years now, but Dua Lipa and The Weeknd appear to be doing just fine. Even the more classical composers and orchestras seem to be going just as strong as ever. If AI artists show no sign of toppling the music industry, why should we expect the fate of digital images to be so different?
And there is https://librivox.org/ .
> development team's operational posture (e.g. run books, alarming, monitoring.

Isn't DevOps in large part forcing the developers to have responsibility over the code they push and giving short and frequent pushes to easily rectify problems?

Making developers do support work reduces support in the long run because they'll get frustrated and automate solutions.
GridSound – online digital audio workstation
Until they require video to be allowed for eye tracking so they can stop playing and force you to look at the ad while it's playing.

As in Black Mirror's 15 Million Merits.
I worked at a large internet company in the mid-late 00s, and the typical team composition was a handful of developers, a product manager, a designer (if you worked on customer facing UI), a project manager (for large enough projects), QAs, and a SRE.

Every team had dedicated engineers whose sole purpose was to place purchase orders for servers, set up and manage databases, deploy changes, monitor uptime and more. And this was standard practice across the industry, as soon as your company outgrew a shared host.

Even the thought of something like this would be absurd today. So I'd flip the "no one admits they don't to it" around – your company does DevOps already, whether you realize/admit it or not.
> There are many, many, many people out there who believe it's fine to eat meat but not fine to e.g. feign attribution on intellectual work. Asserting that objections to this kind of tech are much weaker than various vegan arguments without explanation is odd.

The vegan argument is that factory farms are literal lifetime torture pins. This isn't much up to debate. You can shrug and choose to eat meat anyway, but co-opting their name for your argument on ip seems incredibly shallow. Even if you believe that ip violations are worse than animal cruelty. I'm not a vegetarian at all fwiw. Not too dissimilar from trying to frame this as the holocaust of artists or any other strongly held event / movement by many others.

> Asserting this without argument suggests you have a particular unstated idea of how ethical determinations are supposed to be made that you are projecting out onto the discussion. This would be important to lay out.

If your ethical framework suggests ip violations are immoral, unless you think the execution was bad that's just silly.
>which organically does not support password-based auth

This is the way. Everything else is just gravy imo.
> And I just keep getting bitten: someone else's tool gets so big and moves so rapidly, that by the time I get around to updating my site, []something about the new version of the tool has broken the way my web site works. And then I usually have to spend hours figuring out how to fix it[], which is hugely deflating because I had just worked up the energy to write a new post. My naive belief is that if I have my own tool that evolves at precisely the pace I want it to, I won't run into that specific problem. I'll run into other problems of course, but I'm thinking that I'll prefer those problems to the ones I currently face.

This is true, as a general principle, not just of static site generators, but of all software, and is one of the major Reasons Why We Can't Have Nice Things, and why automatic updates are evil and poisonous, and manual updates dangerous and often-avoided. See eg https://jacquesmattheij.com/why-johnny-wont-upgrade/.
IIRC the system Bach was pushing wasn't actually equal temperament, but "well temperament" which was some sort of compromise between equal temperament and having pure fifths everywhere. The result was that all twelve keys sounded acceptable, but some keys had purer fifths or thirds than others. Some musicians/scholars say that Bach composed the different preludes and fugues specifically to use the resulting different characters of the different keys to the best possible advantage. I can't speak to this personally, I keep my piano at equal temperament ;)

(Big fan of your videos btw)
It's not soooo common to live alone.
I think I largely agree with you about getting the government involved. But the nature of that involvement is important here.

As I see it the fundamental problem is not that Google isn't behaving as a responsible steward of free speech. The problem is that Google shouldn't have this power to begin with. By law, Google should be allowed to capriciously and arbitrarily shut down a user's account. It's their service, they shouldn't need to provide a justification. But Google shouldn't be in a position where they control so much of the market. There needs to be real competition in this area so users can easily switch to a different provider if they lose faith in Google's reliability. Where the government needs to be involved is in ensuring real choice in a free market, rather than the current duopoly.

Ensuring a free market isn't easy. It's much easier to simply pass a law that says that Google (or a company in a similar position) needs to provide better service or offer users recourse to dispute this sort of service interruption. But that's just putting wallpaper over a crack. We need the government to commit to the hard work of enforcing open standards of interoperability so smaller entrants can get into the market.
That "marketing" budget is not going to billboards, radio spots and banner ads, it's going to voucher codes and driver "performance bonuses". It's just subsidies by another name.
He just isn't a very good writer. That's ok I guess. Some folks seem to be able to get past the alternately dull or cartoonish characters (I did get a chuckle out of the fact that the blog post mentioned realistic characters are one of his strong suits).
With StableDiffusion in particular, their business model (so far) is charging for an easy to use front-end. At the same time they've (essentially) given away the model for free for people to develop on. To me, personally, this seems like a fair trade in the sense of giving back to humanity from something that was made from the collective imaginations of humanity, and finding a way to also recoup on investment. (The model didn't train itself, and GPU time isn't free.) Everyone essentially benefits from this new technology that enables completely new forms of expression.

Now, could someone choose to use it in a completely derivative way to essentially rip-off a well known artist? Sure. That would be really crappy to do to someone. And also a very brain dead use of something so nearly infinite in its capabilities for generating new things.

Could art directors replace illustrators, filmmakers replace concept artists? Sure. But I think something different is likely to happen which is that artists will use these tools to go further. The "bicycle of the mind" Steve Jobs always used to talk about.

As someone who put in the proverbial ten thousand hours in art and technology, I'm completely excited about what this tech enables.

Now, that doesn't mean people's fears aren't valid. Desktop publishing decimated the traditional printmaking industry. Many artisans lost their living. But many small independent publishers were suddenly able to put out their own material to a vast audience. Similar with the internet.

I think it ultimately comes back around to things like universal basic income, or what have you. Rather than taking away amazing tools, we should solve the problem of economic fear that automation and displacement has and continues to bring.

Anyway, this is all so new that these are just my roughly formed personal opinions. I could very well be wrong! But I feel like a lot of the debate is superficial. That there's a lot of misconception about how these models really work. And it also reveals a lot of holes in our own understanding of what it means to think, be original, etc.
To understand the more technical aspects of how it works: https://www.paepper.com/blog/posts/how-and-why-stable-diffus...
> Developer wages would crash through the floor and all the way down to the centre of the Earth if ad blockers really took off without users also accepting micropayments or subscriptions for web services at the same time.

Well, the problem is that there are no rules, morals, or code of conduit telling when it's too much, except for users leaving. In theory.
However, unfortunately, most users adapt very easily to being thrown at their face more and more advertising every day, so we can't count on them.
Just look at what advertising became since the late 90s until today: the number of ads and wasted bandwidth/storage/cpu cycles employed to send and show them grows every damn day, why should I think it's going to stop? For a while we thought that flashing banners were the root of all evil, but what about short articles ridiculously split in multiple pages so that they can show more ads at each 5 sentences ..er.. page change? Or articles altered (possibly by AI) so that they use like 3 times the necessary words so they become longer and can be split like the above? Or unskippable ads during videos, user profiling that is becoming so dangerously close to digital surveillance, etc. Just no thanks.

I wouldn't mind opening my adblockers if sites kept advertising to a reasonable minimum in which I can get some information about where to purchase a product I'm interested in: actually I want good non invasive advertising, but every time I tried to do that I quickly had to get back in disgust and set them tight closed again for almost all sites, save for the very few ones that still do the right thing: what once was a short blacklist transitioned over time to a nearly empty whitelist.

I have no trust in the system anymore. Until the day there are well defined and enforced rules, it will always keep choosing what brings more profits, that is, more and more advertising. Not holding my breath for that day.

Also, I think the current economic system would need some heavy modifications to adapt it to micropayments on a large scale for every service one could access to. What would be the expenses of a micropayments system that, say, charged one cent for daily usage of every now free or ad supported service out there? (Google, blogs, social media, etc). I mean, that would produce a huge number of extremely low value transactions; are we sure it wouldn't cost more than the profits it should produce?
I think Pandora's Music Genome Project is just superior. It always has been for me, and more importantly, it's always been consistently superior.
Exactly. And I don't think people, in general, have wrapped their heads around what is truly unfolding right in front of us in terms of availability of cheap, accessible high density energy and the increasing impacts of the climate crisis. Energy is the economy and the economy is energy. I like the term, "energy blind" which I've heard Nate Hagens use [1]

[1] https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
There seems to be an increasing disconnect between the marketing value of a term ("DevOps") and what we're actually supposed to be doing, which might best be described as blameless accountability.

Even in information security it basically revolves around the same things before you can even do any sensible work and improvements to processes.

- Know what you have
- Know where it is
- Know what it is doing
- Know what it is supposed to be doing

If you don't have any of those pieces you're just guessing and hoping for the best. For software that might be "know what services you are building, know where you're running them, know how they are doing, know how they are supposed to be doing". But if we call that "DevOps" is suddenly marketable.
> To me, it seems an important distinction whether "excess" cash is going towards buying elastic goods/services (peloton cycles, fancy grills, RTX3080 for gaming, etc) or simply fighting over shortages of inelastic goods (baby formula, bacteriostatic water, shipping space, gasoline, etc).

I agree, but I think I lean in the opposite direction as you do.

It's relatively easy to produce more Pelotons, grills, and (to a lesser extent) RTX3080s.

It's difficult to produce more wheat and houses. When the price of housing is going up nationwide faster than ~4%, that's probably time to increase interest rates, because supply elasticity won't be coming to the rescue. By the time it filters into rent prices, it's too late and you're doomed to overshoot.
here is a serverless GPU template for Stable Diffusion hosted on Banana's cloud platform.
template:
https://github.com/bananaml/serverless-template-stable-diffu...
setup demo:
https://www.banana.dev/blog/how-to-deploy-stable-diffusion-t...
A few things you might consider...

Are you using "?" optional fields in your classes/interfaces a lot? If so, do you need to? Unless it's truly optional, you're basically making the type system less useful if you put that all over the place. If you have a lot of sparse objects, it's probably an indicator of a data type doing too much. You might be much better off splitting it into smaller interfaces and using union types when you need combined objects.

Even if you can't do the above, checking for null at the start of a function/block will "prove" to the compiler that it's not-null for the rest of the block, so an upfront check can save you from a lot of "!" assertions.

Even if you can't do either of the above, you can probably use the elvis operator "?." to safely dereference things that might possibly be undefined.

In my experience with typescript, there's a few good rules of thumb and things to keep in mind:

- Prefer "interface" over "class" for describing most data types. Especially plain old data objects that don't have methods. I'd forget about the definition of "interface" you might know from Java. It can be used that way, but it can also be used like you would use "struct" in C

- Use the "Partial" modifier instead of using "?" in the base structure if you need to do something like sparse updates. For instance a pattern I use a lot is:

interface MyStruct { a: number, b: string }

function update(original: MyStruct, updatedFields: Partial<MyStruct>) {
return {...original, ...updatedFields}
}

- Always prefer readonly fields and non-optionality.

- If you're not worried about GC pressure, it's almost always better to return a new object than mutate an old one. The spread operator is great for this.

- Within reason, it's better to prefer smaller data structures and use type unions when you need fields from both in one object.
12 notes tuned in equal temperament is a workable compromise between musical expressiveness, harmonic ratio accuracy, readability, and finger precision.

It's also an established standard, which is a huge deal because it means you have access to a huge established repertoire.

A 31-TET acoustic piano would be huge, extremely complicated, and probably unplayable. Smaller instruments mostly just aren't practical. In theory you can play with more precision on fretless instruments (including strings), but it's hard enough to get beginners to pitch 12-TET accurately.

Electronic microtonal keyboards exist, but they require extra learning and the music you can make with them isn't compelling enough to justify the complexity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZozXzKOf8o&t=94s
I'd also check out Expatfire subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ExpatFIRE/search?q=caribbean&restri...
Those are nice except for the price. It's not the size, it's the sprawling developments with thousands of identical cookie cutter houses that I was talking about. I personally wouldn't want to live in one or near one.

I was thinking this: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/levittown-new-york
> We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32635382.

Well, golly gee, thanks! That's gonna generate some insightful discussion.

I don't recall seeing very much thought to the left of Bernie Sanders/AOC on here (which is to say, left of the entire American mainstream). I'll believe that when I see it.
SRE seems the better approach. Make an error budget, measure reliability, stop releasing in favor of reliability engineering if the budget is missed, use the free time reduce toil. DevOps seems to degrade to disorganization because the incentives are not aligned between product development and software engineering.
> The problem is that I should not be able to find so many similarities in the use of technology as a form of soft power, and certainly not for spying, between a democratic nation and an authoritarian one.

This sums up my feelings nicely. Western governments are quietly outsourcing surveillance to private companies. "Social credit" as a formal system may be limited to China, but between government, insurers, and employers using data from data brokers to make decisions about people in the west, we're not far from building our own ad-hoc version.
Yep, I run a barely popular static site, but people do love trying all the attacks on it:

https://gist.github.com/Q726kbXuN/85c947a5d37cb01f72f82318d0...

This is two weeks of 404s
>An airline or UPS can absolutely say “we don’t like the contents of what you are shipping so we refuse to transport it”.

Cf.:

>An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason.

ibid

I suppose you can make "compelling reason" arguments for some things, but the default is carry.

Like, you may as well say "Well there are 'compelling reasons' exceptions so theoretically people can do the exact opposite of what the law says."
This is intended for students that go to Cambridge, of course. I thought that was obvious from the article?
Fail2ban blocked 1087 ip addresses in the last week, which seems normal.

I reset it and it has blocked eleven ip addresses in the last hour, mainly China and Digital Ocean as usual.

Just to see what happens, I'v tried sending abuse reports about ssh brute force, vnc brute force and phishing sites, by the standard method of doing a whois lookup on the ip for the abuse email address.

Some server and web hosting companies take the inconvenient approach of having an email auto-reply that says "we ignore all emailed abuse reports, you must use this web form", sometimes requiring a captcha.

When I reported a load of boxes attempting brute force logins, most complaints disappeared into the void.

I got a few responses from virtual server providers saying "no response from the customer after two weeks so we shut down the box" and one CC:ed email that appeared to be from an end user saying "we have reinstalled the box and changed the password."