skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Are hijabs focused on beyond what would be expected from the fact that they are extreme - they cover the user blocking identification, they prevent socialization, they stigmatize the wearer, and unlike some symbols (ex: a Sikh turban) they're forced upon the wearers by non-wearers - they signify the wearer is a possession who must be kept "clean" for her purchaser.

It's reasonable that hijabs would have been the straw that broke the electoral camel's back, and the focus of most of the enforcement, while the law is a general law without undue focus on hijabs. Hijabs are regressive in a way yarmulkas are not.
MicroLEDs Move Toward Commercialization
I am not talking about the one at bottom, but the annoying popup...

"Twitter disables browsing without an account" - https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/p62que/twitt...
It may not be responding to ping but curl works just fine.
> I've thought about this comparison to human artists taking inspiration from each other a bit. The problem becomes the scale. A human artist can't look at 5bn images and use them to be able to instantly mimic the style of another artist, hundreds of times an hour.

To me this seems to similar to old fashioned luddites. The machines back then that improved the productivity of labourers mostly displaced the societal role of skilled craftsmen. Of course using the machine is different to doing it by hand, but we did have some benefits from improving our productivity using machines, as well as some downsides. The interesting thing is that in this case we are moving from using machines to improve productivity of material objects, into sociocultural objects (art), and it's not clear what that will "do" exactly.

> But this example does show that things that are fine on a small scale can be harmful at a big scale.

Right but of course, the words "can be" are there. I don't think anyone is claiming that scaling a given thing up is always harmless, but generally with these kinds of technological developments you really need a super strong, clear, and concrete (for this specific case) argument to stop them. I haven't seen any such arguments, except the traditional luddite one I posted above.
"But security!" has been the "won't somebody please think of the children" of the technology world for a long time. The end goal, intentional or not, is the same: restricting freedoms (or, on a shorter term, ignore valid criticism).

Unfortunately, at least in the tech world it seems to be a great success. We now have walled gardens and unskippable updates. The next step, "trusted computing" (which is ultimately using a whitelist to forbid the usage of certain software), is already halfway here.
I always wonder how Doppelgängers from far away places in the world happen to meet each other.

And how the porn industry was able to find so many and which are willing to become pornographic actors.
So, Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook, etc should all shut down their scanning for CSAM? Do you realize the outcry this would produce?

Google is not unique here, nor does it have unique power. This story would be just as plausible, and difficult, if the company in question were Facebook or Apple.

Once a system exists to scan for this material, it’s quite easy to argue that shutting it off would be immoral and potentially criminal. “You had the means to identify abused children and help them, but you turned it off because you couldn’t work out a reasonable policy to deal with the false positives? Try harder, people.”

(Note that I do not speak for my employer here.)
Some are upset by the "Senate Launch System" epithet, but it applied a decade ago and still applies today.
I will not on the simple basis that this tool will empower me to create things I never could have imagined and essentially have a tool that transforms imagination into images in the same way that my own imagination does.

It will take very very large ethical issues, direct death or suffering, for me to reconsider. It's just such an amazing opportunity that I am not willing to just give it away for nothing.
Very thought provoking analysis. But the idea that inflation is here to stay is a bit naive. It underestimates the power of the Fed. The Fed is the most important actor in the financial markets in the whole world. And it has a legal mandate to tame inflation. If Jerome Powell does not fulfill the mandate, he can in principle be impeached. If he does, and the economy is going into a recession, nobody can accuse him of anything. Economic growth is not one of the Fed's explicit, or even implicit mandates.
I've studied Thiel, he's just not mainstream left. If you want to listen to him with good faith, I enjoyed this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9f0W2KD5s

Doesn't come across evil to me unless by evil you mean just not mainstream left, which might be the correct in the valley.
As expected, the pro-nuclear comment is cherry-picking the details of the argument to make a poor attempt at a rebuttal. Did you miss the part where the proposed system was almost half the cost of the nuclear plant? That leaves quite a bit of money left over to address the long tail risks. A few nat gas peaker plants that rarely if ever get run could be more than sufficient. Maybe include a carbon capture system if you are so inclined. I am more than happy to entertain counter arguments, but please make a more comprehensive evaluation of the original argument before responding.

Nuclear is crazy expensive. Our current renewable technologies, at current prices are capable of providing solutions that in aggregate largely deliver the generation profile of what nuclear can provide at a cheaper cost. This is true for most regions of the world with the exception of the extreme latitudes. And renewables for the most part are continuing to get cheaper, whereas nuclear for the most part has only gotten more expensive. Also, the renewable solution, by incorporating multiple technologies will have greater reliability than the single point of failure that is the nuclear solution. And the renewable solutions can be built out in a few years, very likely paying for themselves before the nuclear solution is even producing its first electron. This is an issue that the pro-nuclear likes to ignore entirely because it is so damning. If you were a free market energy investor, would you rather invest in a capital project that pays for itself in 7-8 years, or a project that doesn't even start making revenue until 10+ years down the road, and has enormous amounts of uncertainty around ongoing maintenance costs to the point where it is not even certain the project would produce enough revenue to offset those? There is a reason renewable projects are getting built left and right, and nuclear projects are few and far between. It is because investors and project developers are running the numbers, and they know which technologies will make them money and which ones won't.

These are all essentially facts. They should be your starting point when attempting to make a pro-nuclear argument. If you fail to address these facts in your counter argument, you will not be taken seriously.

The main problem right now, is that when an energy developer goes to build a project, they are not seeking to build a robust renewable solution that mimics the generation profile of a nuclear plant, they are incentivized to build for the thinnest slice of the generation market as possible to keep costs down. There is some movement in the direction of these more robust renewable projects, we are starting to see more and more solar and wind projects with on-site storage for example. But what we really need is utilities and their regulators to step up and start shaping the energy market to incentivize these more robust renewable packages. Until then we will continue to see incidents like the Texas outage. And FWIW, nuclear will need a fairly large helping hand from those same regulators as well if it is to every be viable, so the need for regulatory changes isn't unique to renewables.
No, it's not strange at all. But it seems obvious to me that OP is referring to the common situation where there is a single human user per machine.
> Just because the image is publicly available doesn't mean it should have been copied.

There is no "Should" that makes sense here either way.

> Are the AI generated images copyrighted?

No, this is already established in the US.

> Are they protected behind any form of paywall?

You can if you want.

> Are those using the images generated by the AI responsible for derived works?

Derived works of the images? Like I generate a picture of a dog, and you draw a dick on it? Obviously not.
> The entire concept of 'state' doesn't even exist on the backend

No. Are you saying e.g. TLS is not stateful? I don't even know where to start to give you more examples. Sorry but that came off really ignorant when you're trying to sell the idea that frontend is hard.
Weird, a previous article told us the gas supply form russia was shutdown for good, and here we see 10% from russia in august.

Where is the truth?
There's research out there showing Uber has increased congestion on public roads, and I think also driven up carbon footprint per passenger. In part this is because it's cheaper than it should be. Incentivising less people per vehicle (taxis versus e.g. busses) is bad for society at large.
> The weird part about the monopoly argument is that the barriers to entry for video hosting and distribution are low…

They're low for Google, but prohibitively high for any potential competitors. To me, this supports the argument that YouTube is a monopoly.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/cheaper-bandwidth-or...

"Remember YouTube's $2 million-a-month bandwidth bill before the Google acquisition? While it wasn't an overnight transition, apply Google's data center expertise, and this cost drops to about $666,000 a month."
I dunno. I got a PhD in physics and didn't like the culture and wound up back at my roots in computing.
A US Propaganda Operation Hit Russia and China with Memes
That would be great. I've had formatting issues with Web-to-epub browser extensions so have been usin "Print Friendly" for web-to-pdf on desktop, and Shortcuts print-to-pdf on iOS.
Or firefox
I've done exactly what you describe and I highly recommend it.

My personal website is served by a couple hundred lines of Rust. There is no database or ORM -- I just defined structs like `BlogPost` or whatever and stuck a `#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize)]` on it and use the `serde` library to JSONify it, store it flat in a hard-coded folder.

I even wrote my own dead-simple Markdown-ish flavor that is tailored exactly to my writing style. I use a lot of em-dashes, for example, so it translates `--` into `—` (rather, &mdash). Or, since a lot of my posts link to other posts, I can do `[post title_of_other_post]` and it'll generate the appropriate link.

Whenever I want a new feature while writing a particular blog post, e.g. pretty inline SVG, I just go add it and then keep writing.
This story is more Style than science.

The science is fine, but it's verifying that commons sense is true:
> That people who look more alike have more genes in common “would seem like common sense, but never had been shown,” he added.
The west's neoliberal leaders really did screws the pooch in every way imaginable, huh? I hope their mansions have nuclear reactors to keep the lights on.

Between the US shipping all of our high-tech, defense critical manufacturing processes to [whatever is closest to slave labor they could find] to allowing RU and the middle-east to corner us for fuel resources.

At what point are we going to admit that maybe the free market is a pretty idea, but goes south when you pit it against other nation-states? Some regulations to force our mega-corps to be good citizens may be a better idea than we previously thought.
I use Jekyll for a few sites and it works perfectly. Design is bootstrap and so nothing to do with Jekyll and it always compiles the site, takes a few seconds. Works fine on my mac and linux.

Would I have picked Jekyll today? no. Is it worth the cost of switching? no.
He said, "We're going to jawbone a lot about inflation and make some token steps, but not actually do what will solve the issue. Who do you think I am, Paul Volsker? We're in debt trap and more worried about springing the trap than about persistent and high inflation. Don't worry, young whippersnapper, in the future you'll own nothing and you'll be happy!"
If you were walking down the street and saw your Doppelgänger, would you instantly recognize them? You see yourself most days in the mirror but that's a very limited context. Seeing "yourself" walking down the street towards you, would you know who they remind you of?
I appreciate the author's intention to help.

But I can't but be annoyed by his stance that "I am at Cambridge", therefore the way I prefer things to be formulated is the correct, universally accepted way.

What's wrong with honest, no-nonsense recommendation letters? Why is flattering and positive language a requirement?

I am sure the author knows how to differentiate "you are doing brilliant work" coming from his mother vs coming from the leading researcher in his field, and interprets each version accordingly.

Similarly, what stops him interpreting "this is a good, promising, student" differently, depending of where it comes from?

--

And I agree on another point with the author, yes it is "excruciating" to read recommendation letters, and also, it is "excruciating" and soul-crushing to write them if you are not used to telling white lies, and it is also "excruciating" as a student to deal with getting one, especially in institutions where the professor-to-student power distance is much higher that in western universities.
I had a doppelgänger during college. Made for some beyond-weird circumstances. We got to be pretty good friends, but I'd wear a hat and sunglasses when we we were in the same place at the same time, it was weird to me even at those times.

And yes, there was a time when a hat and sunglasses was not what anyone wore in general, so it was a bit Unabomberish.
A huge part of the reason society values those thing as practically zero is because they've nearly always been provided by companies for free.

If the ad-supported model fell apart, people would eventual change their understanding of the value of those services. They'd probably pay a decent amount for it.

But its a race to the bottom since someone will always offer ad-supported. It'll take an outside force (like ad-blocks by default or bans by governments) to actually kill off the ad-supported industry.
I'm surprised no mention of this very topic from ten years ago. Dark matter developers.

https://www.hanselman.com/blog/dark-matter-developers-the-un...
Except that unmanned missions are not that much cheaper for the same level of capability - robots and probes have limited sensor capabilities, little or no ability to improvise especially not in time critical circumstances, and generally are just physically inferior to humans. For example the opportunity rover averaged 28 feet per day of travel. The lunar rover on Apollo 17 drove further in 5 hours than the curiosity, spirit, perseverance, and sojourner rovers put together. Humans have excellent strength and dexterity, able to easily move or reorient objects weighing many kilograms of arbitrary shape, and overcome arbitrary obstacles. While there are significant costs for this additional capability, the fact is robots simply can't be made to outperform humans at these tasks at the moment. The divide was even worse in the early days of space exploration.

Then, the idea that things would be substantially cheaper without man-rating is also based on shaky assumptions. The fact is large space probes are extremely expensive pieces of hardware and launch windows for certain missions are uncommon, so even if humans aren't on board it is still extremely undesirable to lose a probe to an engineering failure. Indeed while putting a price on human life is extremely taboo, the fact is that in situations where such a price must be determined, it usually comes out to the low tens of millions of USD. Compared to the multibillion dollar costs of many space missions, it makes sense to treat them with the same care as human life.

Finally, the idea that quickly iterating unmanned projects will make human spaceflight safer doesn't make much sense. If you're not using safety systems regularly, and you're not under pressure to improve them, why would one expect to gain useful experience and develop better improved versions? If anything, in the future we should have more capable probes that swing the pendulum further away from human spaceflight.
The beatings will continue until the yield curve improves
This reminds me of counterfeit capitalism
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/wework-and-counterfeit-ca...

"Engaging in such a strategy used to be illegal . Capitalism works because companies that thrive take a bunch of inputs and create a product that is more valuable than the sum of its parts. That creates additional value, and in such a model companies have to compete by making better goods and services.

What predatory pricing does is to enable competition purely based on access to capital. Someone like Neumann, and Son’s entire model with his Vision Fund, is to take inputs, combine them into products worth less than their cost, and plug up the deficit through the capital markets in hopes of acquiring market power later or of just self-dealing so the losses are placed onto someone else."
Exactly. Boeing used to build great stuff until the McDonnel Douglas merger. Now the money people run the show and engineering takes a back seat. Love how no one has tried to refute me. Just downvotes.
> [after] hardening steps [...] most of the bots can't even negotiate a connection

Yep, same here, except I'm using [tinyssh], which organically does not support password-based auth, or any ciphers other than ssh-ed25519, curve25519-sha256, and chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com.

[tinyssh] https://tinyssh.org/
Anecdotally, some people find magnesium supplements helpful.
I’m sure it is mere coincidence that this freshly minted account is directly quoting the author of the post:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32640014
Makeup and hairstyle go a long way to making lookalikes.

There are only so many face shapes and body sizes.
That’s reasonable, could you suggest a preferred generic term for “abstaining from consuming a category of products for ethical reasons?”
Hardly surprising if one admits to being a "23 years old", "mentally ill, "anarchist kitten".

So many deranged folks on Twitter these days.
> I feel it is insulting to veganism to try and coin this term. The moral arguments are not similar, and this one is frankly much weaker.

I agree. This would more accurately be called "AI Luddism", opposing a new technology because of fears related to its immense productivity over humans. It has nothing to do with veganism

EDIT: that said, vegan is used in the sense of the article as "a really obvious and strong stance that people do not follow even though all the information about how it is bad is readily available"
Because of pedigree collapse people of the same nationality don’t have to go very far back to find common ancestors. Meiosis is evidently somewhat random, but given enough pairs of people who are cousins many times over and the birthday paradox you’re going to see a lot of doppelgangers.
"Long" but piecemeal. Which is a result of how they approached the problem.

They defined every possible curve in infinite dimensions based on 5 characteristics, essentially drawing the problem from an infinite space to an abstracted 5 dimensional space. Think: all black holes can be defined, so far as we understand them today, in an abstracted 3 dimensional space, that is [mass, electric charge, angular momentum](i)

Then started proving the theorem for subsets of that 5-d space. Think: proving a theorem for infinitely many integers by first proving for 0, then all even integers, then all odd integers, then proving for a small handful of odd integers that your odd integer proof fail on, then proving that negatives can be modified to the positives you have already proved.

It's really great seeing this practical approach laid bare.

Also, at the bottom, the paper includes code for "Section 11: Most of the Sporadic Cases", so if you're unfamiliar with the math but are familiar with standard python then you both gain further understanding by seeing the code process, but also by comparing the code to the included corresponding, highlighted as comments, theoretical proofs' propositions.

For example, from the paper(ii):

def can_induct(d, g, r, l, m):
# Proposition 8.4
if d >= g + 2 * r - 1 and good(d - (r - 1), g, r, l, m):
return True

(i) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

(ii) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.09445.pdf
The author is clearly an experienced and mature hacker who knows many languages well. It’s pretty difficult to maintain the shrill “X is better than everything” tone you’re referring to with a diverse portfolio of marketable skills.

I don’t know how Rust, which is quite a cool language, attracted this sizable bloc of aggressively intermediate jihadis, but it’s really worrying because Rust is in fact innovative and important, but epic languages have crashed and burned over less.
yes, everyone says there ought to be more housing, but not here...
History of Peanut Butter
> Does Julia have this quality?

Multiple dispatch, as in Julia, Mathematica, CommonLisp, etc, does get you much closer to this vision than single dispatch. To an extent, but then you're on your own again.

Maybe consider compilation as a collaboration of a computer and a wetware compiler. You have knowledge and do analysis which you are unable to share with the computer compiler. For silly tiny illustration, you might know some size variable has to be an integer power of 2, but most language's type systems don't let you tell the compiler that. Or think of writing a datatype in old C - a struct and a bunch of functions. You have a mental model of how they should all hang together, and then you mentally compile that down and hand emit C code and tests. Or you could hand emit assembly code and tests instead. But the C compiler is the more helpful collaborator. You can talk about more (with some sacrifices), and more easily. Now given say two structs and a bunch of associated functions, multiple dispatch allows weaving them together without pains which in single dispatch so discourage weaving. Which is better, but still, you've a couple of structs, a bunch of functions, and a still limited ability to express your intent so the computer compiler can help you with it.

So you can have multiple dispatch of + and - , and more easily add new numeric types, but any relationship between + and - is still all in your mind - the compiler has no idea that you think them connected.
i just hope he isn't going to murder anyone. After all, i'm doing him the same favor
> open source devalues the work of software development

Deprices, not devalues.
I feel the same way about OAuth2.

It's very complex. It has it's business use cases, but if you don't need it (or don't need full-blown OAuth2) then don't use it. If you're worried about the future separate auth user from account internally in your application (SSO ready) and move on.

It sometimes feels like there's a cabal of people who think the more complex something is, the more skilled they are for being able to implement it. That's not really where the skill lies for an engineer.
i see..you are comparing a living being to art.

how about AI Cannibal? apt, i feel...by your logic. and better than "AI vegan".

everyone has access to human flesh and sadly only a few indulge in this opportunity. how about we leave vegans out of this?