skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's actually not that difficult in the case of someone like Peter Scholze. There's a good deal of scientific journalism available and some more accessible meta publications. But I guess public interest in crystalline cohomology isn't very distinct. Turns out a scientist's lack of visibility in the public eye via publications like Wikipedia is shaped by more than their gender.
This.

Also, the market segment ("small physical businesses") seems too large for an MVP.
Searching for the function names in his libraries, I'm seeing some 32,000 hits.

I suspect he has a different problem which (thanks to Microsoft) is now a problem he has to care about: his code probably shows up in one or more repos copy-pasted with improper LGPL attribution. There'd be no way for Copilot to know that had happened, and it would have mixed in the code.

(As a side note: understanding why an ML engine outputs a particular result is still an open area of research AFAIK.)
Stars don't represent anything real. You don't star a project when you clone it, when you grab a packaged version from a package repository or the home page, when you use it as a transitive dependency, when you scale it out successfully to thousands of machines, when you pay for a support contract, when you contribute a pull request, etc. In turn, when you do star a project, it doesn't require the project to even work, let alone do things well, respond to feedback or contributions, etc.

And startups have long asked for people to star their projects for visibility.

I don't know at what point it hasn't been "gamed." Maybe there are now bots starring repos, but is that meaningfully different than masses of very real humans being excited by hype?
There have been a number of stories about musicians being copyright claims. Here is the first result on Google

https://www.radioclash.com/archives/2021/05/02/youtuber-gets...

For being sued for looking at source here is the first result on Google

https://www.wired.com/story/missouri-threatens-sue-reporter-...
It was great for 13 years...then disappointingly in the last 12 months my eyesight deteriorated sufficiently that I'm back to wearing glasses, which is mainly annoying because I can't actually use the computer/phone/read books etc. with them on, but need them for seeing anything 5+ metres away clearly. Still, no regrets and I consider it some of the best money I ever spent. Given how much it costs now and the fact it's unlikely they could fix my vision to compensate for my reduced focusing ability ("presbyopia" is apparently the technical term*), I doubt I'll do it again, especially if it was only going to last another 10 or so years.

*) just googled and apparently they way they "fix" it is to adjust one eye so it's good for long-distance vision, and the other so it's better for short-distance vision. So I suppose that might mean in my case I'd only need to have one eye operated on. Interesting idea...
In addition to the type system, I'd also add purity. If you have a function f :: a -> b, there is literally no way for f to read anything besides a, or affect anything besides returning b (aside from unsafePerformIO, which you can ban from your code.) so if you want to refactor f, you know exactly from the call site everything that needs to be updated.

all state is factored, so it can easily be refactored.
None of Google's services are banned in Russia.
Obviously this is a matter of philosophy. I am using Copilot as an assistant, and for that it works out very nicely. It's fancy code completion. I don't know who is trying to use this to write non-trivial code but that's as bad an idea as trying to pass off writing AI "prompts" as a type of engineering.

These things are tools to make more involved things. You're not going to be remembered for all the AI art you prompted into existence, no matter how many "good ones" you manage to generate. No one is going to put you into the Guggenheim for it.

Likewise, programmers aren't going to become more depraved or something by using Copilot. I think that kind of prescriptive purism needs to Go Away Forever, personally.
How is Tesla's FSD off topic during a discussion of self driving cars?
As a thought experiment: what do we all suppose would be the impact to Microsoft if they deliberately made public the proprietary source code for all of their publicly available commercial products and efforts (including licensed software, services; excluding private contracts, research), but the rest of their intellectual property and trade secrets remained private?

Since I’m posing the question, here’s my guess:

- Their stock would take at least a short term hit because it’s an unconventional and uncharacteristic move

- The code would reveal more about their strategic interests to competitors than they’d like, but probably nothing revelatory

- It might confirm or reinforce some negative perceptions of their business practices

- It might dispel some too

- It may reduce some competitive advantage amongst enormous businesses, and may elevate some very large firms to potential competitors

- It would provide little to no new advantage to smaller players who aren’t already in reach of competing with them and/or don’t have the resources to capitalize on access to the code

- It would probably significantly improve public perception of the company and its future intentions, at least among developers and the broader tech community

In other words, a wash. Overall business impact would be roughly neutral. The code has more strategic than technical value, there are few who could leverage the technical value that is any kind of revenue center with growth potential. Any disadvantage would be negated by the public image goodwill it generated.

Maybe my take is naive though! Maybe it would really hurt Microsoft long term if suddenly everyone can fork Windows 11, or steal ideas for their idiosyncratic office suite, or get really clever about how to get funded to go head to head with Azure armed with code everyone else can access too.
I disagree.

Those are effectively cases of cryptomnesia[0]. Part and parcel of learning.

If you don't want broad access your work, don't upload it to a public repository. It's very simple. Good on you for recognising that you don't agree with what GitHub looks at data in public repos, but it's not their problem.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia
Unfortunately this drive to testing has had very concrete negative effects on teaching real skills - even the best schools now ‘teach to the test’, and have been skipping learning of practical applications or fundamentals pretty heavily. At least from what I’ve been seeing in person.
Basically, copyright is for people with copyright lawyers
My criticism of Wayland has always been that they dropped a spec, forgot to make an actual server, and now every window manager needs to implement support for various extensions separately. It's a fine design if you assume everyone only uses Gnome, but...

It's not just throwing away a decade's worth of work on X, it's making everyone redo that work per display manager (thankfully wlroots exists as a kind of Wayland shared library).
Your post is a good example of the tu quoque fallacy[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
> I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI.

In other words: the banal observation that people care far more when their stuff is stolen than when some stranger has their stuff stolen.
correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you add a compiler flag to prohibit using functions that can panic like "error" and "head"?

aside from that, you'd just need to worry about OOMs and faults in native code.
I look at IP differently.

For copyright, the act of me creating something doesn't deprive you of anything, except the ability to consume or use the thing I created. If I were influenced by something, you can still be influenced by that same thing - I do not exhaust any resources I used.

This is wholely different from physical objects. If I create a knife, I deprive you of the ability to make something else from those natural resources. Natural resources that I didn't create - I merely exploited them.

Because of this, I'm fine with copyright (patents are another story). But I have some issues with physical property.
>Search engines operate under the assumption that they have permission to access any public available server unless explicitly forbidden.

And why should opt-out be a reasonable norm? To be clear, the internet (among many other things) breaks down if every exchange of information is opt-in. Sharing of photographs taken in public places is another example. But the internet basically functions because people share information on an opt-out basis (that may or may not even be respected).
Right, but ctags isn't the reason it's not. Ctags just works and goes substantially above and beyond what you'd expect of "Just a text editor".
He owns the copyright to the code, and the code is not in the public domain, therefore it is proprietary code.
Maybe. But identifying vulnerable drivers being used in prolific malware and providing a signature to block them isn't.
Ctrl+Win+G to activate, then uijk to move quadrants and m,. for left/middle/right clicks
>Canadian society and culture is generally incapable of excellence.

Avro Arrow? ATI? Yoshua Bengio?
A simple web hook that forwards prometheus alerts over XMPP
The ACT like all standardized testing is worthless. I git an 18 twice while my brother who took it drunk got a 21 and therefore received scholarships. It's a sham.
Notability is a core concern of Wikipedia by anybody who cares about Wikipedia being a useful place to get information. People who delete are generally more useful on wikipedia than those who add, because there are way too many people on wikipedia who add articles relative to those who delete them which is gradually degrading the quality of the site over time.

More articles of low notability means worse searchability and editing inherently. The issue as somebody who has fought to delete far more articles across knowledge bases than anybody I've met (also somebody who had ADDED an unusually high amount of articles), you have to fight for every inch, and reasonable people eventually people give up because they get nothing but abuse for their labours and just let things decay. Of course, this only makes it easier to berate anybody so unreasonable as to keep up the fight.

Look at the people who fought edit wars for notability over these articles, they are literally now in an article about "gender bias on wikipedia", what sane person would wilfully inflict such reputational damage on themselves? Did the people who added all the articles of men but never added articles of women end up in such an article? Honestly the person in the OP would be more useful deleting the articles of irrelevant men than adding those of under-represented women which addresses the exact same issue of gender bias, but then she would likely receive several times the hate. The neutrality of her edits would receive several times the scrutiny despite having the exact same agenda.
Most of big brand aircons have an option for wired control. It's just those controllers & gateways are rather obscure, and hard to find.
Yup. Right now I’m renting. Not great but it’s ok. But in a year I plan to start house shopping and it’s not going to be in the Bay Area.
If it were entirely factual, based on notible sources, and met the usual criteria, then no it probably wouldn't be deleted.

If it is factually incorrect, or has no approved sources then it would be fairly easy to get help either deleting the offending material, or even having the article deleted outright. Wikipedia has a few ways to report issues, but even just asking an administrator on their talk page to take a look, is fairly common.

Wikipedia takes living persons more seriously, and has higher standards than other articles. Beyond just reverting, some edits are irretrievably deleted if warranted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_liv...
Omg hilarious, thank you
A functional language is fundamentally one where the same inputs always produce the same outputs. So you can e.g. change the order of two function calls and be confident that that's not going to change the behaviour, without even running it. In a language with pervasive state mutation, essentially any change you make to the code might change what the program does, so you have to test every little thing. https://www.lihaoyi.com/post/WhatsFunctionalProgrammingAllAb...
Sorry it would likely be more correct to say "improperly licensed" code and not proprietary. Still for someone like me, the possibility of having LGPL, or any GPL licensed code generated in their project is a solid no thanks. I know others may think differently but those are toxic licenses to me.

Not to mention this code wasn't public so it's kind of moot, having someone's private code be generated into my project is very bad.

As to the option, I do not, I wasn't even aware of the option, but it's pretty silly to me that's not on by default, or even really an option. That should probably be enabled with no way to toggle it without editing the extension.
Yes, but that example trended on the frontpage of HN which only furthers my point around the ones with zero HN references.
It should work fine. Many users use Mutagen on multi-GB codebases. If we're talking something larger (say 10s of GBs or TB-sized monorepos), then there are some tweaks you can do to make life with Mutagen a little easier. Feel free to reach out to jacob[-at-]mutagen.io if you have a specific use case, or pop over to the Mutagen Community Slack Workspace[0] to chat.

[0]: https://mutagen.io/slack
The sad fact of life is that pokemons will probably be more popular than many "notable" people. More famous than any of us, for certain, haha.
> You can slow this, you can't stop it whatsoever. It's about as ultimately futile as an effort as trying to stop piracy. ... But STOPPING the use of these tools? Go ahead and try, won't happen.

So? No one needs to stop it totally. The world isn't black and white, pushing it to the fringes is almost certainly a sufficient success.

Outlawing murder hasn't stopped murder, but no one's given up on enforcing those laws because of the futility of perfect success.

> If you try to outlaw it, the day before the laws come into effect, I'm going to download the very best models out there and run it on my home computer. I'll start organising with other scofflaws and building our own AI projects in the fashion of leelachesszero with donated compute time.

That sounds like a cyberpunk fantasy.
The poor are the masses, or at least part of the masses.
For the curious, you can still find the abandoned microwave tower sites scattered across the west. All that may be left is the building that housed the electronics and a cement footing for the towers. In some cases, the tower may still be there and in even rarer cases, the ancient horn antennas might still be mounted on the tower. Google maps is a perfect tools for doing a survey. A fascinating look at how the phone network used to be run.
that's a really interesting theory re: cancer, but isn't wasting a symptom of cancer as well? or perhaps the weight loss spiral only comes into play once the cancer is advanced, or as a side effect of chemo.
Enjoy your orchids.
Aren't there journals for those sorts of things?
For anyone who has ever worked in a conference center, you will know that by adjusting microphone volumes up and down just a little, you can have a big impact on the outcome of any on-stage debate.

Specifically, if someone thinks they're being talked over and their voice drowned out, they'll normally stop speaking. By making one person's voice sound louder to the other, you determine which person will stop speaking when both start to say something at the same time.
Like, should I just stop interacting with people on this website? Is that the intent? To make me just go away?
> I imagine that Disney would take issue with SD if material that Disney owned the copyright to was used in SD. They would sue. SD would have to be taken off the market.

Are you sure?

I'm not familiar with the exact data set they used for SD and whether or not Disney art was included, but my understanding is that their claim to legality comes from arguing that the use of images as training data is 'fair use'.

Anyone can use Disney art for their projects as long as it's fair use, so even if they happened to not include Disney art in SD, it doesn't fully validate your point, because they could have done so if they wanted. As long as training constitutes fair use, which I think it should - it's pretty much the AI equivalent of 'looking at others' works', which is part of a human artist's training as well.
IIRC with .NET 7 we will be able to improve this as we can now dump the jit-generated assembly from official builds.

.NET 7 will be officially released in a month or so.

Currently C#/F#/VB support in Compiler Explorer relies on prejitting which has various issues.
I can think of two explanations for that off the top of my head.

The first is that people only recognize the problems with the things that they're familiar with, which you would kind of expect.

The other option is that there's a difference in the thing that people object to. My impression is that artists seem to be reacting to the idea that they could be automated out of a job, where programmers are mostly objecting to blatant copyright violation. (Not universally in either case, but often.) If that is the case, then those are genuinely different arguments made by different people.
I agree on all counts. I’m not sure why people are disagreeing with me without presenting evidence though. I have both a 10900K and 11900K. The 11th gen has better minimum frame rates and does better in 4K. They’re both good enough at 1080P. It also beat out my 5950X in single core while not as far back in multi threading as you’d think.

I’m skipping 13th gen because it appears it won’t have native Intel PCIE5 storage. But once they have that and add AVX512 back I’ll be upgrading one of these systems.
> historically they have never told my spouse about my affair

Have we forgotten Google Buzz? Google changed GMail to publicly list the people you email most. In one case, this de-anonymized a woman's blog and enabled her abusive ex-husband to stalk her. https://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/fuck-you-google/

This is IMO the most likely way that "bad stuff" will happen: not maliciously, but through privacy-invading misfeatures connected to pushing people to share more.
The best proposal I’ve heard to deal with the societal/economic problems this sort of A.I. poses were made by Jaron Lanier:
https://youtu.be/rGqiswuJuQI?t=1190
…I can see why his proposals of providing (micro-)compensation to people whose tremendous efforts end up being mined by these algorithms would not be popular with researchers/companies who stand to benefit vastly (…presumably including the investors who own this site?). The lobbying power/political power/ awareness/financial resources of your average (atomised) artist/programmer/musician etc. is pretty much nil in comparison…
Forgive the clumsy analogy, but I have a feeling the whole thing might end up something like a haulage company that doesn’t want to pay any taxes to help fix the roads though?
Being a techy who has become a sales person over the years and running my own companies (which is the ultimate in having to sell) I can highly recommend Closing is NOT your problem (1). It cuts through the fluff and breaks down the Sales process into identifiable steps that actually allow you to spot and FIX what is wrong in any sales cycle you are doing.

1) https://www.amazon.com/Closing-Your-Problem-Lisa-Terrenzi/dp...
That's not how anybody uses the word proprietary when dealing with software licensing. It's a term of art that stands in contrast to open source licenses.
The same NHTSA that allowed the high beam (slightly dimmed) to be used for DRL?
That g4 has a green power light, so it's probably a 'yikes' or 'sawtooth' model. Those G4 processors use like 7W of power!

It wasn't until the Quicksilver dual processor models that they started hitting the limits with that case design. They introduced the "Mirrored Drive Doors" model to help lol. At that point we were talking about 40w or so.
Interviewing is outside my skill set, so take this with a grain of salt, as it's just the sort of question I'd like to answer:

"We have an application that needs to run inside a vehicle, which means the power will be killed at regular, but unpredictable, intervals. How would you design this to ensure data integrity?"

It's weird enough that few people will have solved it before, but it can be solved at every layer between circuit and application, so you can actively brainstorm with the candidate to draw out some of their solutions into more detail.

And if they start with, "well, I'd build a react app," you can go straight into the trash can with their resume, because you can have that whole discussion without deciding on so much as a language, much less a framework, so you can see who jumps too hastily to wrong assumptions.
The option to omit "public code" means it should, in theory, omit code that is licensed under such banners as the GPL. It does not mean "omit private repositories".
Some of us were aware of this as students two decades ago. One of my friends had a weird way of looking at it: ignoring the assigned work and jumping ahead, he felt like he was cheating by having an easier time on tests.
You can't really hold an open source project like this to such a high level of scrutiny, all development was likely done in people's spare time with no compensation.
To your point, the law can do a lot of things. The issue here is the clarity and ability to enforce the law.
Most modern LG TVs work via a wireless connection to the remote, not IR
My experience is that a mouse is most accurate, followed by a trackpoint, followed by a trackpad, but then again I rarely use trackpads. I inevitably move the mouse when I take my finger off or try to press buttons. Also if I leave it enabled, I inevitably teleport the mouse around the screen with my palms, "palm detection" or no.

Sadly every non-IBM/Lenovo trackpoint I've ever used is awful (although significantly improved by putting a Thinkpad cover bit on the joystick, if you're stuck with one).

That said, having played through the SC1 campaign with a trackpoint... even the best ones are not as good as a real mouse.
It's not coincidence that through most of human history doctors did more harm than good. Yes, sometimes unnatural interventions are better for us than the ancestral environment, but that's very much not the default case.
Yeah that's a mess, but that's way too much legal baggage for me, an otherwise innocent end user, to want to take on. Especially when I personally tend to try and monetize a lot of my work.

I understand there's no way for the model to know, but it's really on Microsoft then to ensure no private, or poorly licensed or proprietary code is included in the training set. That sounds like a very tall order, but I think they're going to have to otherwise they're eventually going to run into legal problems with someone who has enough money to make it hurt for them.
That's an entirely plausible explanation, but it doesn't mean that Microsoft has any less of a legal nightmare on their hands.