skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Since I responded to and argued against the OP's specific assertion, "Seems pretty clear that we're on a path to machine intelligence," your reintroduction of Fermi paradox, even if it is the subject of the article, still becomes OT in response to my comment, which has nothing to do with Fermi Paradox. In fact, I agree with you that it doesn't matter that machines will never be conscious, I'm just not going to get sucked into arguing about Fermi Paradox because I don't have any position on it. And I might as well argue, "so what? The pizza's here."
As somebody who has been “that coffee friend” and received far too many coffee-related gifts for years (including many pounds of stale, burnt beans), I wish people wouldn’t do this.

If I’m super into topic X and you’re not, there’s a good chance whatever you get will either not be of interest (e.g. bad beans) or just redundant (I can only use so many mugs or grinders).

Obviously the thought is always appreciated, and gift buying can be hard, I get it. But receiving a gift also creates an obligation to at least perform enjoyment of the gift and now it’s another thing I have to own (consumables at least are temporary if you’re not into them, so that helps).

There’s a sweet spot in gift giving of looking for something the receiver is into and will want (but not already have) but also something the giver is knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision on. So, again, the thought is always appreciated, but if the giver can’t operate a k-cup maybe leave your coffee snob friends to buy their own beans :).
It would be obviously foolish to build out storage before there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. Until then, money is correctly spent on renewable generating capacity that actually displaces CO2 emission.

And that is, in fact, what is being done.

The only error is in spending less on renewable generating capacity than the looming catastrophe demands. I recommend you put your $500 there, instead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988
Jeez come on

> One can be guided by Christ, or more generally, by consistent moral principles, restraint and forethought. Or one can abandon the pretense of morality and by definition follow his impulses to fornication, substance-abuse, and general reckless living.

Or be moral and not a slave to superstitions in the first place. It's easy to think that the Judeo-Christian god is basically a widespread conspiracy theory spread by the sword and rack, while also respecting other people's spousal arrangements and not drinking or doing drugs to the point that they impair social relationships or work quality. Shall we act like Catholic priests? No, that'll get us shanked in prison.
>”boundaries largely chosen by the English aristocracy of the 17th Century?”

There’s a vast stretch of land past the Mississippi River that the English Aristocracy had no say in the division of past 1776. You could broadly argue that the land West of the original 13 states up to the Mississippi was drawn by the English, but even after independence Americans chose the borders of states like Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and many more.
The v5 or v6 would be Canada and South Africa - which have widely praised (by legal scholars) Constitutions.

But neither are really great or terrible. Canada didn’t really change much, and South Africa hasn’t been doing great.

The “West German Basic Law” was widely condemned:

* it was unrealistic to have strong privacy protections for a nation filled with refugee camps and few private homes

* the protections for the family were meaningless when so few nuclear families survived (something like 70% of the country was female)

* the mandate to reunify was unrealistic and possibly undesirable

* there were no provisions for the victims of Nazi Germany

* it favored the establishment of strong, stable leaders - which brought back memories of Hitler

* many of the civil liberties - such as abolishing the death penalty - were just excuses to prevent punishment of war criminals (which was true)

* claiming the lands East of the Oder as part of Germany was unrealistic

Buy it turned out to be an extremely effective Constitution that lead to the transformation of Germany and its eventual reunification (mostly).
Generally arduino, or raspberry pi. Learning to light up an LED and move a servo motor, plus read some kind of sensor are great ways to start to see how code can interact with the real world.
The disease is not going to go away just because we are bored of it. I’m continually shocked at how cavalier everyone is about a deadly communicable disease. Billions of people covering their eyes singing “la la la I can’t see COVID so it doesn’t exist!” Future historians will earn PhDs explaining this decade.
What sticks out to me is the part saying "the compiler should be changed". It's weird enough that this isn't even a doc comment but a comment inside the function (making it harder for people using the function to notice), but even as someone who thinks the passive voice is often unfairly maligned, the phrasing immediately brings to mind the question "who should change the compiler?" Is the Go standard library not maintained by the same group of people as the compiler, or is this comment just a doubly obfuscated "TODO"?
Sure, I can give you a CO2 inflator cartridge!
Biggest solar flare in modern times: [https://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/]

"19:29 UT on 4 November 2003. This one saturated the X-ray detectors on the NOAA's GOES satellites..." Estimated strength: X28-45.

The damages were minimal, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Halloween_solar_storms] so it's good to keep this in mind for perspective. The Quebec power outage of 1989 (lasted nine hours) was caused by an X-20 flare.
>As I mentioned above, most undergrad paper authorship is peripheral where you just succeeded in establishing yourself in a lab long term and contributed to some research.

and what do you do in a research lab as an undergrad? you contribute to research of course. you plan, monitor, and execute experiments. you write up the results and their impacts, limitations, and related aventures for future work. you work with others in a research environment. you gather the nexessary background knowledge required to understand the field of research. in short, you do most every you would do in a PhD just with more guidance. you're not giving much reasoning beyond your "personal anecdote".
It may not have been a decision, at least on the part of Intel.
> which doesn’t hurt anyone

a lot of people think it hurts you/yourself, as if it is a drug/addiction/harmful stimulant
"We the People" of? Of what?
Encouraging people to use a different language entirely (Rust, whatever) is much much more likely to succeed than getting them to use some random Go fork.
Bad comparison IMHO. Zuck universally creeps people out and is detested by a large % people, while Jobs was loved and had a huge cult following. Big difference. People trusted Jobs, unlike Zuck.
Legal where? I would wager the overwhelming majority of bug hunters are not in the US.
This is a good question that motivated a feature-length article published in The Economist this summer (which I've also referenced elsewhere in this comment section) [1].

The article argues that newer versions of constitutions are often overly lengthy due to attempting to include too many laws within the constitution, which can cause problems. The article argues: "Overly long constitutions often create conflicts between articles that can only be resolved with further tampering. And “if everything is highest law, then nothing is highest law anymore,” points out Dr Versteeg. Omnibus amendments require voters to balance the merits and drawbacks of many changes at once, making it harder to generate consensus."

In brief, the article's view is that the inclusion of too many laws in more recently-written constitutions leads to greater incentives for constitutional rewrites as times and political views change, which is why the article favours shorter constitutions that guarantee fundamental rights, and are thus difficult to rewrite.

[1] (Paywalled, though I've included a summary above): https://www.economist.com/international/2022/08/25/dictators...
Isn't this just (literal) survivorship bias?

If he'd had a spleen there would be no story to tell. People have fallen that distance and not lived (possibly because they had spleens).
>The only reason to forgive slave-owners is if you're grandfathering them into a new nation-state and offering amnesty under threat of death for their participation.

But Britain did this and it wasn't a new state at all. It worked out well enough and was apparently cheaper than the American Civil War.
Most of the energy of sunlight is visible and near infrared; UV is only a very small part of it.
The US tried that already in 1861, it didn't go well. Also you're advocating for the idea that Democracy is a bad idea here.
Boundaries, states in this case, but it's a general principal, are exactly what give the people within them self-determination.
How does one go about privatizing a river? Does NZ not have laws around access to navigable waterways?
> "login with biometrics"

IIRC Bruce Schneier has quite a bit to say about why that's such a bad idea. How might a user change their credentials if a copy of their retinal pattern is compromised?
> I believe that Tesla will one day be forced to give free camera and computer upgrades to everyone that purchased FSD (on top of the HW3 upgrade I already got), because the current in-car cameras and computers are not enough to implement what they promised.

This is called "specific performance" [1] and it is extremely rare for courts to compel fulfilling a contract when the standard approach of monetary damages will suffice. At the very worst case scenario for Tesla, they could be forced to refund those upgrades or even buy back the cars. One big way specific performance is used is if someone contracts to transfer real estate or infrastructure to be used as part of a bigger development project, but tries to pull out. Or if a subcontractor partially fulfills their duties as part of a bigger project, but is holding up key components.

Imagine someone has contracted with a tax accountant to help them respond to an audit. The contract says the client can fire the accountant and end the relationship at any time. The contract also says that if the client fires the accountant, they must pay $1000, and once payment is received, the accountant will transfer all records to the client within 24 hours.

The client fires the accountant and writes a check for $1000. The accountant refuses to take the check and refuses to transfer the files. A court might order specific performance that the accountant must fulfill the terms of the contract. This kind of issue is easy for courts to mandate specific performance, it is pretty straightforward to determine if the files have been transferred or not. The client faces monetary damages for sure if they don't get the files to give to their new accountant. But monetary damages aren't really a good way to make the wrong right.

But assuming a court sides against Tesla, what is the most commonsense remedy to make the wrong right? Refund the sales of a product that was not as advertised, or force the company to make the product into what was advertised? Courts don't have the kind of expertise or understanding of what is technically possible in future technology development.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
>”The 1st Amendment has always been widely hated, going back nearly to the very first year”

This is the first time I’ve heard that the First Amendment was hated, much less widely hated, and that it has been so widely hated since the founding of the country. What are you basing this off of?
There's speculation that the Inka used that approach to melt stone for construction, but as far as I know not much evidence. It doesn't seem to have been used anywhere else before the last couple of centuries.
There is not a single country on that list that I would prefer to live in over the US..mainly because of political stability. Not saying the US is perfect, but I’d say it’s damn sure more stable than virtually every other country on the list.
I walked that basement corridor route so many times, as a fast and non-freezing/slipping route to grab food late at night, before going back to the lab.

As an alum living in Cambridge, I don't get the urge to go back into the buildings, but not being able to does give the feeling of one fewer positive connection remaining to MIT.
There used to be thousands of tech/pharma workers on campus. I used to eat lunch at the different cafes and food trucks regularly. With WFH the campus is a ghost town to what it used to be.
> There is no one trust about this sh*t except intel themselves.

AMD has this also, they appeared around the same time, and there is no reason to believe (if) this was outside of their control (i.e. mandated) that Apple isn't also playing ball here.
The last time I played DX1 was maybe 3 years ago. It looks dated, ReVision simply takes some of the edges off. But the gameplay is still superior to many games today, having recently tried CP2077, or before Fallout 4, I’d rather play DX1.
NSO creates their own chains, they don’t buy them.
Ok, but we still don't see any ET's. I personally think interstellar travel is impossible for biological lifeforms. Some suggest some form of AI robotic craft, but that may be impossible as well. I don't know of any energy source that will last 20,000 years. By the time a robotic craft reached any sort of destination, the craft would be a derelict and non-functional.
You mean it’s anti user when it says in big letters “turn off Bluetooth until tomorrow” when you click on the button in control center?
> The obvious use case is reading, altering AND writing back

That’s actually (if what you are reading is human-edited input thar you might transform but expect to be human edited) a hard case, because then you want to keep as much as possible the format entered in, while accommodating changes, which is easy to subjectively evaluate but seems potebtially hard to express mechanically in a way which would provide generally optimal UX. You don’t want to hand edit config and have a UI, but have an “I touched it with the UI and made a couple small changes out of dozens of entries and now its unrecognizable”.
Yeah, this is my experience too - in general, it's best to never buy gear for an enthusiast in something unless you really know exactly, specifically what they want and don't have. Even if you're an expert, you might just have different preferences to them and then they'll feel guilty about keeping something around that they don't use, or about giving it away or selling it...

But if you're an enthusiast/expert and they're interested but not to that level, and you have a decent idea of what gear they have and don't have, then it can work.

In terms of coffee beans, yeah, they can be a nice gift if you have a bit of an idea (good small roaster, roast type, e.g. espresso or filter, freshness, etc.) but for me at least, I basically always have just enough coffee for what I need (I buy a new 250g bag of espresso roast about weekly, one or two days before I run out of the old stuff)... But I'm always happy to try something, just don't go overboard and buy a kilo or something! 250g is plenty!
Computers Draw Weird Shapes (Marching Squares) [video]
It may appear that way, especially if someone doesn't make it their life's work. But although concise, it is rich in meaning.

You call out Article III, for example, so I'll focus on that. It doesn't say "we should have a Supreme Court and other courts Congress may establish." It says the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in them, and that judges shall be appointed. It isn't magisterial or clerical power. It clearly establishes the United States as a common law system. That's further reinforced by the use of the term jurisdiction — literally the power to say what the law is. It's clear that any and all courts established by Congress are "inferior" to the Supreme Court, which is a significant protection of judicial independence. It's also clear that Congress can't reduce their pay as retribution - ditto. And that's just the first section.

It's a much richer document than your previous comment gives it credit for.
> For instance, there are private corporations running airport security and there are numerous ways to skip steps (such as taking off your shoes), by simply paying the government. Liquids and knives are trivial to circumvent as well.

To be fair, you're paying the government to do a check on you, so it's clear that you aren't a terrorist.

As for Clear, all it does it move you to a shorter line.
Scalia said this a lot. I’ve read a number of interviews with he him, and he brings it up again and again.
Does anyone aside from Meta even want a “Metaverse”?

Metaverse just feels like it’s trying to be a “premium” version of reality, that comes at a premium. Seems like such a small target audience to spend so much money on, when across the spectrum of people I know, would rather meet up IRL, or go disconnect from technology..

Some of the tech is neat, and probably innovative, but think no one is as hyped about this as zuck. Also no one likes zuck.
> I think, for some of the words I will share with you at the end,
> there is a high likelihood of those words having Chinese roots
> rather than Japanese.

A rough (but not perfect) way to decide if a Japanese term is derived from Chinese is that it is composed of two or more kanji. Often you'll see a single-kanji word with Japanese pronunciation, and the same kanji in a compound use the Chinese pronunciation.

Examples from the article include 「感情」 (kan-jou), 「同士」 (dou-shi), 「反射」 (han-sha).

I'd also be careful about using jisho.org as a source without cross-checking to make sure you got the correct meaning. Some of the examples given in OP are wrong, for example 「同士」 is a suffix used to indicate a relationship is mutual -- 同僚 (coworker) + 同士 = 同僚同士 (coworkers) -- and 「大きい」 means "large", not "a lot" (which would be 「多い」 (oo-i).
France is on a different list than the one that is anchor linked, as well as the other countries you mentioned other than Costa Rica.
Probably, putting ultrasonic whistles on the ends would do more, and more cheaply.
I'm all for libraries over frameworks in general, but... React super sucks on its own. 99% of people don't just need a view library - they need a router, state management, scoped CSS, etc.

You should always be able to use the view library on its own - same with all those others. But even if I picked up Svelte, I'd be using Kit.

Next.js seems to have earned its place, and that's great. Next.js is React to me now.
>* Well, checks and balances in the American constitution were founded on the idea that there would be no "factions" (parties), and so the three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) would balance each other without any single group ever taking over.*

I’m not a constitutional scholar but I take issue with that characterization.

Federalist #10 by James Madison is all about factions, how they are inevitable, and how the system of government should be structured so that their self interests balance out for the good of the nation. Madison wrote the Virginia Plan which proposed the three branches of government and he wrote down exactly what his thinking was at the time. For most of the 18th century the British empire was a single party state ruled by the Whigs which is what they were trying to avoid by explicitly allowing room for many factions.
What a Wednesday is like for a quarterback in the NFL
There are all kinds of things I don't want Apple employees to hear, or developers of some random app that runs on iOS or Mac OS.

Little brother can in many ways be far more threatening than big brother.
I've bought "digital gold" quite a few times from apps (in India). So they could demand 30% out of that as well? Apple's greed is now getting to ridiculous levels.
Tesla’s not near the level of Apple.

The physical product creaks and groans, and the software UI is android level.

Tesla just has the convenience of competing with luddites
> He acts as a spokesperson for the company using his personal twitter account.

Tesla has made corporate filings that @elonmusk is an official communications channel of the company. That's why he was required to have a lawyer vet all his Twitter posts. Even though he plainly and openly ignored that.
Okay, what about $10,000? That's what I paid. I took delivery in August 2020 when he was still making the empty promises. Biggest investment failure I've ever had to write off. I guess if it isn't a Bernie Madoff level fraud, it's all good though. Maybe not prison, but I believe Elon Musk's citizenship ought to be revoked at the very least.
My personal hack for this is to be into french brandies and wines. 30% of the French government is dedicated to ensuring that when you buy "Cognac" or "Armagnac" or "St Emilion, Bordeax" you are getting exactly that.

Also makes it easy for my wife to tell others: "Cognac, Grande/Petite/Fine Champagne". And boom, guaranteed right thing.

Also, no redundancy - just more to drink.
There's a few reasons this broke down...

1. The 17th amendment (1912) - Electing senators by popular vote broke the state representation in the federal government. States no longer had representation to protect their sovereignty.

2. The federal reserve act (1913) - enables government to self-fund by printing money and enforces everyone onto a single, centrally controlled bank.

3. The 16th amendment (1913) - Federal income tax - allows the federal government to directly tax citizens for the first time.

Those three amendments, in effect, decimated the federal system and centralized power. After that, they could pass what ever they wanted.

IMO the internet is re-igniting a public debate and push towards populism -- that and that's why you saw the 2008 rise of Ron Paul, Occupy Wallstreet, Tea Party, Bernie Sandars and now MAGA.

(yes, it was coupled with a financial crisis, but the government response led to push back).
> The 1st Amendment has always been widely hated

Not really. Everyone loves what it says, they just all think that what they dislike falls into a hidden “but...” clause.
Are we really going there?

About 40,000 people die per year in the US from traffic fatalities. There are about 200,000,000 people licensed to drive in the US. So, about 1 in 5,000 drivers die per year. Tesla has released FSD Beta to ~160,000 drivers. So, to first order, we can approximate that as ~32 Tesla drivers will die a year due to a traffic fatality if they constitute a representative sample (they do not, but we are doing some quick estimates here). So, a system that is used as a full-time, unassisted replacement for their human drivers will result in, on average, one extra person dying per year per 3% worse it is than a human driver when applied to a mere 0.1% of the US driving population. If applied over the entire US driving population a system that is 3% worse applied to all driving interactions would result in ~1,200 extra people dying per year.

At the scales being discussed, extremely small differences applied over the entire domain result in very serious risks to human life. It is not okay to knowingly sacrifice people at the altar of moving fast and breaking things so that Elon Musk can make another couple billion dollars.

Also, it is not even close to being one of the better systems from a safety perspective. It is something like 400-800x worse than Waymo and 2,000-4,000x worse than Cruise [1]. It is so far behind so many other companies it is fair to say that they are not even in the race let alone a frontrunner.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33227450