skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not though. No one writes perfect software on first release. Even perfect software adapts to the changing realities of our world. Staying up to date is not optional.
Coming up with "non-toxic" social media is extremely difficult and probably not something programmers can solve.
There shouldn't be original research on Wikipedia, so any citation of Wikipedia would be better sourced directly from the reference linked to by Wikipedia.

Circular references aren't only a problem when it involves Wikipedia. You shouldn't ever be citing sources who only claim to be communicating the work of others, outside of being an antiquities scholar when the original works have been lost.
Question makes perfect sense. My understanding is that hackers could forge transactions and send money to their wallet. So they took the money from many wallets and moved it to one (or many) of their wallets.

Nobody can cancel those transactions, even if everyone can see them. That's by design (and that's what makes it great for criminal use-cases, among other things).
Everything IBM touches turns to shit.
It would depend on the kind of tax. VAT and sales tax will. most directly counter inflation, and income taxes will have a sort of second order effect on aggregate demand. Other taxes may be farther removed from consumption.
> blockchain-based assets cannot be seized

I don't see the distinction you're drawing. If they've been deposited into a smart contract like a Maker CDP, then they can be liquidated, which is much like being seized and auctioned in traditional finance.

> Funds are simply swapped.

If I take a margin loan against some TSLA stock, would you say I've swapped TSLA for cash? Most people (tax authorities included) would say that I still own the TSLA, and simply borrowed against it.

Crypto lending platforms like Aave work in the same way - users borrow against assets. Yes they're overcollateralized, but so are margin loans and many other useful loans.
There used to be a troll repo on Facebook's GitHub org about Go generics, which is now archived, so ... maybe?

https://github.com/facebookarchive/generics
This is exactly what we need. The current landscape of Fediverse is too young: every application involves both functionality, identity and community. So you don't really join a network, but you join a specific community using a specific medium. You can't join multiple communities (ie follow multiple instances): you have to create multiple accounts, you can't follow a full instance but only individual instances. You can't have microblogging and forums from the same account, because they are different applications, so they are different accounts. You can't mix functionalities beyond the most basic, because they are not thought out together.

What we need is an AP store, and then applications build on top of it, like your project does. But at this point I question whether matrix wouldn't be a better platform
> The only change is who gets to decide how the money is being spent?

You must be assuming that governments and individuals have the same propensity to spend - which they don't.
In fact, new money supply is a minority influence on inflation. The demand for USD as a result of economic activity is the primary factor for inflation (which also influence the velocity of money).

Of course, this is California ONLY - whereas the USD is a global reserve currency, so the impact on inflation will be minimal.

The bigger issue I see here is that there's a tax surplus, but the gov't isn't paying the money back to the people who paid taxes - it's just a flat refund.

This is effectively a forced wealth re-distribution, which I think raises ethical questions.
> And this, in large, rests on your perception ignoring everything else about what happened in the process.

In statistical learning theory we colloquially refer to this as "averaging over the noise" which is, functionally, a very useful feature for a computing system to have.

> Would you say that I was slowly counting away at the grams of food?

No, I would say that the process of digestion slowly converted molecules of food into molecules of other stuff + heat. But that isn't even the relevant quantity in this instance, instead the relevant quantity is available energy for use in other parts of your body. In this framework both can be said to have been "computed" (there is a lot of information content in physical reality, so there is plenty to spare to represent both quantities through the same process), but I regard it as a failure of imagination to merely assume that I mean to say that counting integers is the same as collecting a quantity of something.

> I was never even cognizant of the number of grams, so that is an odd take.

Why do you need to be cognizant (aware) of something for it to have occurred? That presents as egocentric hubris to me. You will certainly experience something (having more energy to do other stuff) but you shouldn't expect that a priori and any subsequent experience is only incidental. Phenomenological experience is purely receptive, ie, only works with what it can receive.

> It does not make sense to call that counting, as you are advocating in this thread.

I am not calling it "counting", I am calling it "computing". I have been clear and consistent on that. Probably your definition of "computation" conflates the two, but the two are only synonymous in cases of digital computing.

> My take is that, if it is a calculator in that sense, it is only calculating on the simulation that it is building of and for itself.

This is what I mean by "abstract representation". The brain builds up a model of the world, dividing it into self and other. But there are more fundamental operations underpinning that process, and by now it is common parlance in the neurosciences to regard functional neuronal sub-circuits as "computing" things, even though we have no direct access to their inputs nor outputs. "We" as in "self-aware, sentient, cognitive beings with a functional world model" experience the representations which are built up on those more fundamental computations, and simulate the outside world, and that's the closest thing to "digital" computation that can be said to occur in our minds because of the relatively abstract nature of the representations.
A List of Free Learning Resources (SQL)
This piece is perfect for anyone trying to get up and running with SQL. Compiled by Josh Berry it lists out a number of free SQL resources to upskill your abilities.
"Scaling" means increasing the number of parameters. Parameters are just the database of the system. At 300GB of parameters, we're talking models which remember compressed versions of all books ever written.

This is not a path to "AGI", this is just building a search engine with a little better querying power.

"AI" systems today are little more than superpositions of google search results, with their parameters being a compression of billions of images/documents.

This isnt even on the road to intelligence, let alone an instance of it. "General intelligence" does not solve problems by induction over billions of examples of their prior solutions.

And exponential scaling in the amount of such remembering required is a fatal trajectory for AI, and likewise and indication that it doesnt deserve the term.

No intelligence is exponential in an answer-space, indeed, i'd say that's *the whole point* of intelligence!

We already know that if you compress all possible {(Question, Answer)} pairs, you can "solve" any problem trivially.
Isn’t this a form of… (gasp) socialism?
In practice the reason taxes are not used to combat inflation is purely a political one - it's much more difficult to convince voters to raise taxes to combat inflation even if they are the one's complaining about it.

Take an extreme example - one could take a portion of their income convert it to bitcoin and then destroy the wallet's private key. If people did this en mass, it would be like burning money to reduce inflation. The only thing stopping people from doing this today is the social cooperation that it would take to accomplish it in spite of the game theoretic solution we find ourselves in today.
My understanding of "don't cite Wikipedia" is the same for "don't cite the Encyclopedia". By failing to use a primary source, you're subjecting yourself to the interpretation and biases of someone who has already ingested the source material and formed an opinion.

It's a great place to orient yourself on a piece of subject matter, though! And I certainly agree that the dreck that makes up 95% of Google results should certainly not be cited academically.
Yes, but if you had someone who died of an apparent heart attack, you could also spin all kinds of theories about how they were poisoned with an undetectable agent cooked up by a foreign intelligence agency.
I have pretty mixed feelings about them. My opinion hasn't changed dramatically since they've been released--they make certain things easier, and they lead to people overcomplicating things. I also don't care for the dict-based implementation--it makes it considerably harder to reason about performance tradeoffs.

Mostly though, most of the stuff people were complaining about regarding Go's lack of generics were really minor things, like map/filter versus for loops. There are some things you really couldn't do easily in Go without generics, but for the most part Go's critics were just obstinate about not wanting to learn a new style of programming (so much so that many are willing to forsake all of Go's considerable advantages with respect to tooling, deployment model, build times, package management, ecosystem, etc). Moreover, Go's critics were (and still are) unwilling to admit there are benefits to avoiding generics--the code becomes less abstract and more standard as there are fewer ways to express a given solution.

If you really want to dunk on Go, the more valid criticism is that it lacks sum types, and unlike converting a map/filter chain to a for loop, there is no good way to emulate sum types in Go (there are some tricks to get close, but they involve far more boilerplate and they don't give exhaustiveness checks (and the performance tradeoffs suck).
If asked to qualify my own character, i would put myself firmly in the over adapted niche. I think society is no longer capable to integrate "characters" into institutions. A endless process of social justice, persecuting the insufferable and market forces promoting finacial gaming of systems see to that.

If you want to find out what i mean, take some biographs of break through characters and find out, when today there ability to inflict change would actually end.

Would they be kicked out of school, university, the first job. Somebody as charismatic as feynman, would be a scandalous figure in todays scientific community.

What is your explenation for the great stagnation? We have 8 billion people, 3 billion of whom could engage, even if just in there spare time (as many researchers did and started out in the past) in science. Break-Throughs and Future shock should be hammering down on the hour every hour.

Instead we have todays society, with a world in crisis falling back to historic means (coal powered energy) to keep a untenable situation stable a little longer. Its really hard, to see todays institutions & companys not as utter failures in regards to enabling progress, yes even roadblocks to it.
Yes! I spent some time a few weeks ago redoing some code that relied heavily on reflection into code that is fully statically typed and this only works because of generics. The particulars is that I have a YAML file that defines some validation information for incoming data and the old code used to dynamically compare the expectations from the YAML file with the data. The new code statically defines everything that's allowed in the YAML file and turns that into a small number of function calls to validate the incoming data.

It's a very frameworky piece of code, which is exactly the kind of thing that can benefit from generics.
>After playing a ton of rounds, you get to where you can visualize in your head what is happening based on the sound, timing, and what you've done with the controls

"Use the force Luke" - Yoda
Got to plug the associated Freakanomics episode that discusses the paper with the author: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/are-m-b-a-s-to-blame-for-wa...
Circa 1989 I remember people complaining that the NeXT computer (which eventually turned into the current Mac OS) was needlessly coddling users, and that anybody who wanted the power of Unix needed to know how to recompile their kernel. I also remember people objecting to MS Windows because people really should be using MS-DOS so that they understand what's going on.

The main point of computers is to make things easier for people. Most of us make our livings because computers are very good for that. If most users really had to deeply understand the technologies involved in solving their needs, a lot fewer of us would have jobs and much more time would be wasted by people who were just trying to get something done. So yes, let's absolutely coddle users.
> It's stupid to ban students from using Wikipedia- sure, Wikipedia isn't of uniformly high quality, but it can be a pretty good encyclopedia. It's just not something you're allowed to cite.

Actually, it's probably pretty smart for schools to "ban" students from using Wikipedia, in order to encourage them to develop habits to use better things. If you let them use Wikipedia for their research, you're putting them in a situation to slouch into using it for most of their research (except for some source laundering at the end).
> How about the homeless person remembers a good password,

Which would go one of two ways:

1. One uses the same password one uses everywhere else, and now one is much more vulnerable to credential stuffing

2. One is reliant on a book of passwords or a password management app on one's phone, resulting in the same exact problem we're trying to solve
Interesting. Can you initiate a message?

I can only talk to people if they've granted access to their contact list, and initiate conversation with me (which is not a solution, just a shifting of problem to others).

On android at least, I cannot initiate a conversation with somebody I don't have a going chat with. It won't let me just type in a phone number.

Specifically, Clicking "new chat" asks me for contacts permission, and if I say no it simply closes. I have to contact a person out of band and ask them to initiate whatsapp with me. By no definition is my experience "just fine". Is this not your experience?

Can two people who have not granted access, converse?
I see few communities outside of open source and adjacent being interested in Mastodon because it’s hard to find the people there.

Even a technology related post will get much bigger reception on Twitter.
https://github.com/HEIGE-PCloud/Notion-Hugo
(Edwin from Stripe here.) These aren't actual disputes. A very small portion of Stripe businesses saw failed SEPA payments show up as disputes instead. (We've since fixed the bug and we're in touch directly with any impacted businesses on next steps.)
He's buying it for the same reason all other billionaires buy media outlets, to be able to push their narrative onto the public consciousness. Social media isn't what users post, it's which user posts the algorithm decides to show. For someone with a conglomerate with many interests and huge ambition, owning popular media can be very profitable even if the media outlet itself isn't.
MK source code was leaked a while ago, so no need to spend months for disassembling.
> I respectfully disagree. Yes it's true that jumping to lots of information with score voting doesn't produce an equivalent increase of meaningful information and that information is eaten by the aggregation technique, but I would argue that's not the case with ranked voting.

You would be largely wrong for single-victor elections, and even trivially so for those without more than three major candidates in the race (to wit: most of them). So you're going to have to make that argument.

> But the reality is that approval voting is easily subject to bullet voting manipulation, which destroys all of the information that it would otherwise contain in theory.

No, this is not the reality. At an individual level, bullet voting is part of your strategic frontier of (all sincere!) votes, but the only strategic bullet vote is for your sincere favorite who is also a likely candidate to win. It is possible to get your most preferred candidate elected over a more widely approved candidate, but this still requires a plurality of second-candidate approvers to prefer your most preferred candidate (and enough to bullet vote them!), which is, like, not the worst outcome in the world, realistically speaking.

Meanwhile, at a campaign level, it only makes sense to push bullet voting to (a) people who most prefer your candidate, whose only viable competition is a more widely preferred candidate who shares largely the same voter base, which in context is basically betting on your targeting specificity, and (b) people who are going to vote for multiple candidates, none of which are yours, who you're convincing to vote against their own interests.

Also, you don't have a 100% success rate on convincing people to bullet vote, so your ability to convince people to bullet vote your candidate is still a proxy for strength of preference. You're making it a lossier proxy, but since you're destroying information from people who you were able to convince to follow your suggested voting strategy, this is not really a winning strategy unless you're already winning.

All in all, bullet voting simply is not remotely as much of a bogeyman to approval voting as it is to some ranked voting systems. There is some degree of strategic influence available, but it certainly happens less easily than in a ranked vote and is weaker in approval voting than in pretty much any other voting system under discussion—I challenge you to find a bullet voting "manipulation" that manages to make approval voting contain less information after aggregation than your favorite ranked choice model.

> Every mathematical model must assume that individual's preferences are transitive, or we'd go mad.

It's okay to accept some error. People genuinely have non-transitive preferences. This only has to drive you mad if you insist on generating a total ordering.
of course! but my reply was to answer "claiming Twitter or Facebook will be shut down any time soon is laughable."

which is ... truly laughable if you like doge?
Tell me you don't understand politics without telling me you don't understand politics. If he had done it in his first week in office we would have all forgotten by now and the republicans could sour the pot drastically in the intervening two years.

By doing it now, he gains broad appeal going into an election season so that he is potentially enabled to enact more beneficial policies down the line. Never forget that the republican party is working against the interests of the people and the party that opposes them and will do whatever they can to twist public perception to their side. Being purely sincere and principled means getting routed by people who work against your sincerity without any regard for principle.

It can be both a sincere and principled choice and an action taken based on careful political calculation. In fact, I'd say that if it really were sincere and principled, it should be as calculated as possible for maximum beneficial effect.
I think this understates the risk to the US. If the US does not support Ukraine, it loses its moral position in the world. It retains (most of) its military position, but that is not the core of the US strength and influence.
So it sounds like you're trying to strategically vote to push a party you want in another direction. I totally understand this, but under score or star (where we have more resolution that approval) it is very easy to just extract this information out of an honest ballot. You can measure the distance between the voters and other candidates as well as the distance between your mean voter and other candidates. You have full information about which direction you should alter your course to better serve your population. Approval gives you this information too, it is just not as fine grained. My main (long) post in the thread argues that the advantage of cardinal systems is its ability to effectively embed voter preference better. What I'm talking about here is just extracting that information and that candidates can utilize that information without ever relying on voters to vote strategically.
It is not a matter of "number of locations".

The problem is that each location just to function requires so much infrastructure to operate and be available that it is very unlikely that it would be possible to continue any of these services.
> Such that the definition becomes pointless.

This is a subjective, normative claim. As such it doesn't hold much water.
He will have to get in line with me and millions of other worldwide students from the '90s.

Basically the launch of any AAA video game back then (like 1994 DOOM or 1996 Quake) would cause a global sink in academic and corporate performance with workers calling in sick and students spending endless nights playing.

It was a great time to be a gamer.
Do what you want. You don't owe it to thr world to master your new thing. You just have to be good enough at it to get by. If you spend your remaining working years doing something you want, but perhaps at not the same level of performance as your last role, that's ok.
Sure, if you give them access to a better encyclopedia, that's not a terrible idea, I just think it's silly to have an absolute ban- "read at least two different encyclopedias" instead, maybe? "Cite N secondary sources you didn't find on Wikipedia"? And then they can find out for themselves how good or bad quality wikipedia is.

The thrust of the link here is that they aren't giving them alternatives, and just telling students to throw themselves into Google and hope they find something. Which, yes, isn't a bad skill to learn either- there's stuff to find out there- but it's setting them up for failure.
Well, if I were the first person and my income stream disappeared, I'm now a hell of a lot better off than the person who has $20,000 in debt and also loses their income stream. Not to mention the costs of servicing that shitload of debt.

So idk if that's going to be your best choice of analogy here.
A well written and detailed articles about multiple ways to promote knowledge sharing and potential obstacles.
I'm not in a position to recommend or not a particular provider for gpu-equipped servers, simply because I've never had the need for gpus.

My first thought was related to colocation services. From what I understand, a lot of people avoid on-premise/in-house solutions because they don't want to deal with server rooms, redundant power, redundant networks, etc.

So people go to the cloud and pay horrendous prices there.

Why not take a middle path? Build your own custom server with your perferred hardware and put in a colocation
We did when we failed to marginalize such dolts decades ago.
A unified tech stack helps our tiny team punch above its weight
Huge respect. My friend is running a forum (I know madness today) and he is totally sick of it, but has no heart to close it nor trust someone will be able to take over given it is losing money (people - assuming "competition" - were posting adult content and then reporting to Google, so advertising eventually got turned off and other advert providers don't pay enough to keep the lights on).
More like "make sure your test power is what you think it is". There will still be results that fail to replicate by virtue of the rejection of the null hypothesis by chance, but that should only happen 1 in 20 times at an alpha of 0.05. With all the bad practices that alter test power, such as p-hacking and the file drawer effect, that 1 in 20 blows up to 1 in 2.