skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The source has been verified by The Wire to be a Meta employee / contract worker.

We reiterate the faith we have in our sources, whose identities and positions in Meta are known to us. Our reporters have had a productive relationship with them for some time already, prior to the Instagram story. Meta’s suggestion that sources who don’t know each other have teamed up to “hoax” The Wire is ludicrous.

Source: https://thewire.in/media/statement-by-the-wire-on-metas-resp...

The emails have been verified to be authentic by The Wire and 2 independent experts, one of whom works at Microsoft. Further proof of the "instagram URL" has been shared.

Even if we assume that the "instagram" workplace portal is the "weakest" evidence and a "fake" (as you and others claim), than Meta should be easily able to identify the person who created the "fake" instance and populated it with all the "fake" tickets. This is what Alex Stamos too tweeted:

If The Wire is wrong, then Meta has all the evidence they need. While you could create a whole fake Workplace, the easier move is to just create a free trial instance, meaning those fake notes are sitting in Meta's databases along with the metadata of whomever created them.

I think, at this point, it's on Meta to write-up a detailed response with whatever technical evidence they have. This will not go away just by ignoring it.

The fact is that The Wire have an obligation to protect their source and so are limited in the evidence they can share publicly (unless taken to court). So this begs the question that if Meta and you and other FB employees) are so sure of the evidence being fabricated, why do you think The Wire hasn't been sued yet to take down the "fake" articles? (Note that you do not even need to identify who faked the evidence, to sue them, as long as you can prove that it is fake, which should be easy to do so according to all the claims made by Meta, you and other FB employees).
The next step is to change your legal name to Zhang Wei or at least a John Smith.
The "solutions" are all about using willpower, of which we each have a limited amount. It's not clear whether exercising it strengthens it or weakens it. Same old same old. "It's your fault, because of your character defects." Yeah, whatever. Not helpful.

A few days ago someone posted here a link to a study about new weight loss drugs that actually work: up to 30% weight reduction in "severely obese" people, iirc.
You get a little obscurity with random though
I strongly suspect you might be disappointed. Battery collection and recycling - even as “raw ore” - should be easily profitable with plenty of motivated parties eventually. In the meantime, redwood materials will probably make quite a bit of money.
I'm sure there are folks who don't read disclaimers but that's on them. Before I can send any messages I get the disclaimer

> Please use this for non-urgent medical questions. Replies may take 2-3 business days. If you need immediate assistance, you will need to contact the practice.

> If this is a medical emergency, call 911.

> Please note, this is not a text message and should be used to ask questions directly related to your medical care. Some requests for medical advice may require an office visit.

I've only used it to send 2 messages but I think they were fair. One was telling my doctor that I had gotten a lab appointment for an exam they referred me for on a certain date. The second messages was today, I got some scan results back, my cardiologist commented things looked good, so I sent a message asking if I could start jogging again. I don't mind if he takes 5 days to respond or even says "we're not sure", but Id rather not wait for my next appointment in 3 months to ask that.
Another angle to diffuse their power here is the idea of radical transparency.

Once everything is public, and you have nothing to hide, it is very difficult to be blackmailed or coerced in the traditional ways govts have thought about this tactic.
Note: In the US, this concept is explicitly in the Copyright Act:

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." (17 USC 102(b) [0]).

See also the "Useful Articles" doctrine. [1]

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
How does this post have so many points (350+ right now), yet no comments?
In my state you can carry concealed inside a bank (and indeed, the vast majority of places) without having a permit or an ID. There is no need to interact with the state in any way before doing so.
256 points and just this comment? Flagged the post for likely vote manipulation.
I like this tidbit!

I think it is apt and we are collectively ignoring how dangerous new technology and technological trends are or can be because we can use them without understanding anything about them (I'd argue even their creators understand little about them).
> fly.io is instantaneous. I deploy, I see the result, I fix it, I deploy again and figure out the next problem.

Clearly, you haven't hit those spontaneous fly.io bugs, yet ;)
That is not a link to the definition of propaganda. Did you click the link?
I think backups for the electronic systems would not need the same level of redundancy as the primary systems (which presumably already have backups).

It's sort of like how you don't need RAID for your offsite backup disks, just some parity for bit-rot.

The mechanical instruments would be the (additional) redundancy. The additional weight/lines/service is indeed burdensome even without redundant mechanical systems.
This is the core problem. In this thread people keep referencing the data of the actual historical track record and you’re bringing up imaginary scenarios that haven’t existed and might never. Of course, the flip side argument is that past performance is not indicative of future results. Still, the track record approach feels like a better way to evaluate because a) non-green alternatives are waaaay worse b) green alternatives have a comparable number of deaths per MWh produced c) nuclear can reasonably ween us off fossil fuels d) if you actually invest in technology and make the regulatory environment sane, over time the cost and risk of nuclear decrease really rapidly.

In other words, on a risk adjusted basis, the data continually shows nuclear is the safest and most economical bet for removing fossil fuels and all their problems from the energy mix. You’d need a a relative fuckton of very very bad accidents where everything went wrong and by all accounts that doesn’t really happen.
GP was saying that GitHub has an unfair advantage in that they have instant access to all GitHub code, whereas everyone else is rate limited.

I'm pointing out that this limitation is not meaningful because everyone can access all GitHub hosted source code through BigQuery, where they won't be rate limited.

I'm not comparing BigQuery to Copilot.
Not to be anti-capitalist, but you’re describing capitalism lol
who said anything about fraud/spam
Apollo astronaut Jim McDivitt has died
I don’t think George Floyd’s family is too happy about that atm
Side note re: Lego, I have fond memories of the first Lego X-Wing and Snowspeeder. I’ll never forget losing pieces in the grass outside and calling up Lego. They asked me for the page number and sent me more pieces than I needed.
> Minnesota electricity customers will see their electricity expenses increase by an average of nearly $3,888 per year, every year, through 2050.

So you're saying customers will be paying $108,864 a year for renewable electricity by 2050 under the governer's plan. Sounds to me like your modeling software IMPLAN has a bug.
It’s a contrived example. This is not how people use copilot in the real world. Copilot is designed to be used in context. The completions it provides in context are specialized to your project.

Artificially starving copilot of context and then showing that it recites parts of its training dataset is mundane.
"It's a CQD, old man!"

CQ is what we use to hail another station ("seek you"). Hams use this all the time to call out to the ether for someone to respond. It's been used since telegraph days and early wireless was no different.
BUT, the distress call before SOS was CQD.

That's very difficult to hear if you're trained your brain to filter out all the other ops calling "CQ CQ CQ" all the time. Your brain will hear the incessant CQ every time you tune where other stations are sending Morse. But to hear CQD, your brain must be actively listening and making sense of what's being said - hard to hear when you're not actively listening to the incoming signals.
That's one (primary?) driving reason why SOS became the de facto distress signal. It's unmistakable (... --- ...) and not a sequence heard often. It took the responding ships a moment to remember that's what was being called out over the air.
"It's a CQD, old man!" was famously recorded from the account of radio operators on responding ships.

("Old man" is a friendly term for one another on the radio. In Morse, we just abbreviate as OM.)
> There are two issues -- (1) feeding copyrighted material in to an AI model, and (2) getting copyrighted material out.

> The latter is obviously a violation of copyright, full stop.

It's not obvious to me that (2) is a violation of copyright. Unlike patents, copyright violation is not as simple to prove. My understanding is that, at least in the US, independent creation is a valid defense against copyright infringement. For example if 2 people independently write the same story and can prove that they did, they can both hold copyright over that story.

The analogue to this does exist without AI, when creating something that looks like copyright infringement, clean room design (don't look at similar things) is often done to ensure that "independent creation" can be used as a valid defense in court. Given that, I think (1) is probably not safe to do at all if you can't prevent (2).
It would be sad if someone succeeded in shutting down CoPilot for this kind of copyright stuff. It is genuinely useful. I don't care that it reproduces copyrighted content. The only way you can get it to do that is to bait it with the function names of functions that have already been copy and pasted thousands of times onto GitHub without proper licenses.

Luckily, someone will probably come out with a "renegade" version trained on whatever makes it a useful assistant to my coding. I won't be afraid of accidently violating copyright myself, because I won't be trying to bait it into reproducing heavily copy&pasted cherrypicked examples, and I won't use 20 lines of its output with zero modification.
Yes. I worked for a company that converted a pay-once app to a free app with a paid subscription. In protest, one guy made his facebook profile pic our app’s icon but upside down.

Whole thing was a bit of a shitshow but we got through it and it makes a good story for job interviews.
Stable diffusion it
users of github.com are responsible for their own use of any code they find, however they find it.

GitHub shows code to those who wish to see it. it is up to the person using that code to use it according to the license. when I buy a car, it is up to me to use that car according to the law. when I buy a gun, it is up to me to use that gun according to the law. etc.
> I wonder if militaries have more mapped but consider it secret.

Almost certainly, although I expect they focus a lot more on some areas than others. And they probably care about the deepest parts of the ocean floor less than the rest; if the ocean is so deep that it crushes anything short of a bathysphere, then it's probably less important to have precise maps of the ocean floor in those areas.
Nice edit.

When you upload code to github you give other people the right to fork it... I knew that already. But you license it. You don't give anyone the right to fork it and not abide the license. So if I fork it, I'm still giving Microsoft rights I don't have, I'm giving them the right to violate the license. That makes it illegal for me to fork it.

Let's say I am on a git mailing list, following a project, and I upload that project to github one day. It's licensed GPL. Microsoft says I give them the right to violate the license, and in uploading it I implicitly attest that I have the right to do so. I've violated the license? It's illegal for me to upload the code, with the license, to github, because Microsoft demands rights I don't have to give? Then let's say someone else forks it. They've now also violated the law?

It's nonsensical. The license is the binding ToS here, period, it doesn't matter what Microsoft's lawyers argue. Everything else is secondary.
Intent matters. It sounds like maybe the pilots are being led to believe they’re teaching at a flight school in South Africa rather than being outright offered to help the Chinese government spy on British tech. The Bitcoin guy knew full well what he was doing and IIRC he had been explicitly told by the US government that his planned travel/speech was illegal.
More and more public transit is requiring a smartphone or an elaborate and complicated setup with contact cards. It’s getting annoying.
Yeah. It has upsides and downsides...so does everything.
GitHub provides the code free of charge, you pay for the GPU time to train the AI model, I would assume, since that is what costs GitHub money.
Google loves employees, Amazon loves customers

Thanks for that. It now makes perfect sense why I shop at Amazon and avoid anything with a Google label attached.

Food for thought --- without customers, employees aren't needed.
Yeah I think it just means a non-commercial alternative would be made to replace it
Frank Zappa had plenty of legal issues with people of that background in the recording industry and we never heard anything more untoward from him than a certain unfortunately titled song Google likes to censor out of albums. No “death con 3” , etc.
Coins/cash have been around for thousands of years, and war since time immemorial. Cards aren’t making us do anything we haven’t already done since, well, forever.
The core idea is that pension funds should only invest in companies which are socially responsible. In order to achieve this, pension funds/large investors assign (or outsource the assignment of) scores to each companies based on each company's "Environmental, Social, and Governance" practices. As these have become more and more standard, large corporations have started changing their policies to improve their ESG scores. Pushing companies to be more responsible for externalities sounds good and reasonable, but the implementation gives a lot of power to the people who define and calculate ESG scores, and like all metrics, ESG scores are flawed and gameable. (A common complaint is that companies can get away with dispicable behavior by gaming the scores in other categories.)

These scores are currently a big deal on the right, since they tend to be based on socially liberal values and tend to push companies into left-leaning policies, but the left should be just as concerned about the trend given that the trend is to reduce the diversity of policies among the very large companies which (seek to) control our lives.
>which is peer-to-peer, permissionless, censorship resistant, borderless, neutral and open

All of this is false. Every word of it. If that's what you heard from an MIT course then what that professor is doing is shameful. Here, let's go through it.

- Bitcoin isn't peer-to-peer or permissionless and it never has been. The network is de-facto run by mining pools who have exclusive permission to determines who gets to write to the blockchain. In order for two users to send payments to each other they must go through the miners and must pay them fees to gain permission. Peer-to-peer would be if the two users directly sent messages to each other to exchange funds, but that isn't how Bitcoin works. The core design of it intentionally has middlemen and gatekeeping built in.

- Bitcoin isn't censorship resistant or borderless. Have some articles:

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/eu-issues-bitcoin-crypto-ban...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/politics/fbi-north-korea-hack...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/us-seizes-1-billion-bi...

- Bitcoin isn't neutral. The political leanings of bitcoin have been known for a very long time. Satoshi intentionally put political statements in the whitepaper and the genesis block. The early adoption by wikileaks and silk road wasn't a coincidence, they had a very specific goal they had in mind.

- Bitcoin isn't open. The code itself is available on github but only a small number of people have commit access. A random person can't just go in and start modifying the bitcoin code at will. The best you can do is try to fork the network and launch your own token, which has happened a lot of times but none succeeded at causing the system to actually become open.

>The rest of the applications that are built on this idea may be "useless" as the author believes, maybe not. I don't know that and I don't think anyone can be sure.

I can say for sure that it's useless because every single positive claim I've ever seen about it has been completely false.
Prism Reactor
It's far more democratic than that, at least insofar as people voluntarily gave the person money vs. it being collected in non-voluntary ways.

And yes, that may be non-binary in that some of Elon's money has likely come from the government where we have less choice about spending it, other money may come from voluntarily purchased Teslas and whatnot.
Oops, I guess the new version isn’t out yet..
Allowing a patron to enter a bank with high explosives is trusting the patron with your life. I can't think of a single person I would be happy to welcome in my home/business with high explosives or a firearm, but would refuse to take $20 from in my ordinary course of business offered to the general public. Perhaps the correlation is not 1:1, but it is pretty high up there. If you can't see the connection between trusting someone with your life and trusting them with much smaller fractional pieces of life, like an hour's worth of life it may take to earn $20, then I'm afraid I don't expect you'll ever see the correlation and you are not part of the audience which I expect to benefit from my comment.

>The two have nothing to do with each other.

And yet they do have something to do with each other. If they had absolutely nothing to do with each other, you wouldn't become a prohibited possessor (can't have/carry guns) for committing bank related fraud and other account related felonies. The state has decided they're connected so intensely that you can go to jail for 10+ years if you committed felonies against the bank and then carry a gun. The trust, by fiat, is interconnected.
maybe, but it is only an illegal monopoly if they are using their monopoly position to prevent others from entering the market.

they are not threatening to block access to github.com for all Comcast users if Comcast chooses not to block access to gitlab.com, for example. That would be an illegal activity for a monopoly. simply existing as a monopoly is not itself illegal.
I don't get region restricted apps. Sometimes it might make sense, but 99% of the time it's just unnecessary and achieves nothing except annoy travelers. Is there some incentive for app developers to region restrict their apps?
Call them and ask, my power company has several offices in the area that accept cash. My ISP doesn't, but will direct you to a Western Union office where you can pay with cash, all you need is your account number. Other utility companies let you pay with cash at various contracted 'payment agencies', which they can direct you to if you ask.

As far as I'm aware, utility bills are all debts (money owed for a service already given), so they're required by law to accept cash one way or the other. It's not the same as going to a shop and putting items in your cart; there is no debt in that case so they aren't required to accept cash.

(Also, in practice, mailing cash is a lot more reliable than most people make it out to be.)
I have a high hope for solar cars.

https://www.goo-net.com/magazine/knowhow/carlife/44363/
How do you run a search on the product of a bunch of neural network weights? Do you just mean like double-checking that the code it produced isn't a direct copy of something copyrighted?

If so I think that introduces a lot of other issues. There's an interesting phenomenon of different independent comedians suing talk shows for stealing their jokes. It almost always turned out that those jokes weren't actually stolen. Instead, there's only so many jokes you can make about a given news story and there's bound to be overlap between a whole room of comedians trying to milk every event of any comedic value and random independent comedians doing the same
I think you're trying to be ridiculous, but lawsuits of that sort do come up periodically - accusations of composition theft that in practice are probably not theft and just the fact that there aren't THAT many unique note progressions you can put into a song, and it's not that odd for a composer to accidentally imitate something they heard a long time ago when picking one.
It’s interesting and pretty much uncharted territory from a legal perspective, that’s for sure. It very much relates back to the discussion about accountability of machine learning models, in that it’s desirable to be able to explain how/why some output was generated.

I don’t think a banner would be sufficient here, though; perhaps some references to the inputs that were used to generate the output, but that’s often very difficult to pinpoint.

Whatever happens, if this ends up setting some sort of legal precedent it will have a big impact on the industry, and I personally hope it leads to more accountability and transparency of the models, rather than the black boxes they are now.
I wonder why it's gone. Based on their usual modus operandi I bet MSFT hasn't fixed this in some git version or another they're running somewhere.
And if you’re poor you can find workable shoes at a thrift store for a few bucks. Finding a workable cellphone cheap is more difficult.
How to detect an imminent Russian nuclear attack
I was looking for something like this the other day but then ended up just using RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree.parse_file and then rolled my own visitor on top of the AST. It's cool what they can do here but I think any language that exposes its AST is amenable to this kind of analysis, you just have to write some code to do it. The main bottleneck in my experience is just being familiar with the AST structure and how it maps to source syntax. It's cool that they have abstracted a lot of the commonality among several languages, definitely gonna look into this next time I need semantic code search.
Indeed, the internet is like a foreign country to me now. What's an Amouranth, anyway?

Sorry fellas, the old internet is like the old BBS scene. There are people here and there keeping some semblance of it alive for old times' sake, but it will never again be like it was. It's effectively dead.
Out of many sources, it was only the Stanford iphone course that demystified the terseness of the Swiftui dsl. The lecturer pointed out all the optional parentheses and optional arguments that could be omitted to make the declarations clean. Up until then i thought i was looking at weird structs. This is one problem i have with swift’s terseness.