skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I love the concept but I’d be reticent to invest so much in a platform that has the possibilities that if it hits it’s likely to go away from acquisition and if it doesn’t is likely to go away from lack of financial incentive.

We’re storing some valuable stuff here. I wouldn’t want to put the kind of time I put into research and then find one day it’s gone (like Reader, Delicious, etc.)

What are the plans in those instances?
This is pretty much why I became a nondrinker. Alcohol makes you dumb. It impairs thinking, and thinking is the most pleasurable thing in the world.
At the moment I think it's kind of embarrassing to see someone edit a tweet, because it means they've been paying for Twitter Blue.
Regardless of whether you agree with what I'm doing, you should agree that WebKit should not delete navigator.geolocation in any configuration. It's a clear fingerprinting issue.
> This post and others uses a lot of flowery language to point out that we train artificial neural networks and real neural networks in different ways. OK, great. I don't think anyone is saying that's not true. What I am saying is that it's irrelevant

Maybe I was too aulic.

The point is: you don't train "your artificial intelligence", because you're not an artificial intelligence, you train your whole self, that is a system, a very complex system.

So you can think in terms of "I don't like death, I don't want to display death"

You can learn how to paint using your feet, if you have no hands.

You can be blind and still paint and enjoy it!

An AI cannot think of "not displaying death" in someone's face, not even if you command it to do it, because it doesn't mean anything, out of context.

> Jackson Pollock

Jackson Pollock is the classic example to explain the concept: of course you can make the same paintings Jackson Pollock made.

But you'll never be Jackson Pollock, because that trick works only the first time, if you are a pioneer.

If you create something that look like Pollock, everybody will tell you "oh... it reminds of Jackson Pollock..." and no one will say "HOW ORIGINAL!"

Like no one can ever be Armstrong again, land on the Moon and say "A small step for man (etc etc)"

Pollock happened, you can of course copy Pollock, but nobody copies Pollock not because it's hard, but because it's cheap AF

So it's the premise that is wrong: you are not training, you are learning.

They are very different concepts.

AIs (if we wanna define the "intelligent") are currently just very complex copy machines trained on copyrighted material.

Remove the copyrighted material and their output would be much less than unimpressive (probably a mix of very boring and very ugly).

Remove the ability to watch copyrighted material from people and some of them will come up with an original piece of art.

It happened many times throughout history.
To your point here's a tweet from Stephen King that was making the rounds where he protests the idea that he should be paying Twitter instead of the reverse: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587312517679878144
not talking about checkmarks

twitter is propped up by the mainstream media, not the other way around. if mainstream journalists leave, twitter will be tumblr. for new twitterers, twitter is not a platform to stay on, but a bridge to graduate to somwhere else or build your audience and move it elsewhere (a book, podcast, youtube, articles in mainstream newspapers etc).

For example, one can say that Joe rogan used to have a 'home' on youtube, now on spotify. Who has a permanent home on twitter?
Just take a look at Mastodon's twitter replies, The most common issue is finding other on other instances.

Something people have been taking about since 2017!!!

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/1589

And Gargon(Mastodons maintainer) just added relays support and called it a day.

While the main issue still isn't fixed, none of the official Mastodon servers use relays, so discoverability is still crap.

You can't browse other servers timelines

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/1053

And can't even backfill toots from accounts(you can't view toots older than the server itself!!!!), This is absolutely ridiculous

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/14017

These issues are unfortunately predictable, and it seems Gargon won't fix them any time soon.

Its kind of funny that in Mastodon(basically Activitypub at this point) a federated platform, starting your own server is almost impossible unless people actually know you outside the platform, your chances of growing inside the platform are basically zero.

You won't show up in other instances search unless someone from the other instance follows you.

Even if you reply to users from that instance and its users liked your toots, you still won't show up in the instances search, its amazing.

Heck, even Matrix, a chat protocol has better discoverability than Mastodon, user in rooms I'm in will show up immediately in my servers search.

Its not a federation problem, its a Mastodon problem.

- show up in search here is meant as in showing up by just typing your display name / username without the server address, because no one knows which server you are in.
I did not understand if this is somehow related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sovereign_identity or not.
> You can already filter out non-verified mentions and replies.

How?
> my parents displayed a bunch of trinkets, including a 19th-century clock made entirely out of metal which vibrated

I bet it was the mother…
Lots of countries do this. It just takes leadership.
I'm struggling to understand how that would not be true. Nobody follows a Twitter link to see what Joe Blow posted about anything. They follow them to see what someone they've heard of posted. People create accounts to follow blue checks, or to try to network with them. I get that there are several market segments for Twitter but ~all of them are pretty dependent on blue checks to drive eyeballs to the site and to keep people coming back, as far as I can tell. If people just want a group chat with other nobodies, Whatsapp exists.

Thing is, the "blue checks" aren't all Stephen King level famous. If you're doing much notable at all, and using the platform, you've probably got a blue check. I do not, for the record—I'm not sure I even have an account?—but I see an awful lot of them on fairly niche but interesting & active personal accounts. Take them out and the best content goes back to being "I'm a Twitter Shitter!" kinds of stuff, like in the very early days—and the novelty for that is long gone.

If these posters stay but let their blue checks lapse, we go back to having an impersonation problem, which is mostly a problem for Twitter, which they may want to solve. Perhaps for accounts that are likely to be impersonated they could introduce some kind of free verification system....
Because previously you had to be blessed to get a bluecheck, now you just have to pay. Way more people have the means to pay than were blessed.
That link does not define the term, and I haven't been able to find a legal definition of "private use". The paper seems to be using the normal definition, though.

> It sounds controversial that a defense of private use exists at all; after all, one usually buys a book for her private use. This use may mean that one can make photocopies of a legally possessed book, in order to read it, for example, not only in the office, but also at home. One may also loan the book to a friend.

I would be pretty surprised to find a legal definition that says if you put something online just for fun it doesn't count as copyright infringement.

I don't know why we're talking about this though, I'm not a big fan of copyright but that's not what this is about. It's not "you put my drawing on Reddit without my permission", it's "you publicly released a tool on Reddit that allows anyone to effortlessly create infinite variations of my work in my name, please don't do that". I don't care whether or not it's legal, I think it's immoral to create a tool that could not exist without ingesting someone's life's work and then ignore them when they ask you not to do that.
Burning Twitter to the ground seems quite counterproductive, given the debt that was assumed for the sale. Misguided sure, but bad faith? I generally tend to assume that most people do things in good faith.
The article focuses on the internal goods of 'stealth wealth', but I think it's also worth mentioning the external benefits of not appearing wealthy. Namely, good cover from the behaviors of those who do focus on status.
> creator now working for the competition

Microsoft hasn't been the competition for while. They might not be "part of the team", but they definitely have more to win by linux being alive than dead. I'd put them more along the lines of IBM or Oracle, huge corps trying to somewhat discreetly steer linux in a path that suits them.
They don't need to, your 'full' name is just locked to whatever's on your payment method. Problem solved.
Parent is correct that the definition you gave is indeed broadly the correct definition, i.e. there's no principle difference between calculus "differentiable" and differentiable as in differentiable rendering, except maybe the modern sense is a bit more relaxed. The differentiability of the rendering process doesn't depend on the implementation - incidentally look at the first line of this paper's abstract:

> Differentiable renderers provide a direct mathematical link between an object's 3D representation and images of that object

When we call a process differentiable (in the "modern" sense you're referring to) we simply mean that we have a formulation of the process as a differentiable function. In rendering this means the function's domain is the set of tuples (3D object, camera parameters) and the function's range is a set of 2D images of some sort. These are very high-dimensional functions, but mathematical functions nonetheless, and calling them "differentiable" means the same as in the definition you linked to.

Your examples re/ implementation make me think maybe you're conflating differentiability with "autodiff"[0] - languages / libraries that allow you to just write a function and automatically differentiate it for you.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_differentiation
Strong aversion to longtermerist bs and concern for growing hostility toward many of my users (trans, lgtbq, etc). I don’t want to moderate UGC myself directly and have even less trust now in hate content being moderated by using their platform for extending my customer community
I believe the Pixel Pro phones also recently migrated from 12MP to 48MP, between the 6 Pro and the 7 Pro. I wonder if this blogger is already looking into the Pixel? They mentioned that it takes a couple of months to come to a conclusion on a new phone camera, and the Pixel 7 has only been out for a month-ish.
But none of that addresses fundamental changes to the market structure. How can a beginner artist possibly get traction in a marketplace where people only pay for premium names or pay dirt for beautiful art that's 90% of what they want. You said yourself most clients are willing to settle if the price is right, and you can't really beat free.
Bluechecks are the ones actually addicted to twitter, it makes sense to put a paywall in front of them, not create a different layer.
Oh dear, that story, except the abuse, could be me. I bought a Bechstein upright last year, an R124 with S/N 215798. The R (for Residence) and A models differ a bit. R is more refined, and the differences between individual pianos are much less than in the A series. You can buy an R blind, but should never do so with an A. That said, just like the OP, I had great As at the Bechstein center.
Buying this piano was a deep experience. It‘s a nerdy thing, too. Because you have to deep dive into why some pianos cost 4000 and others cost 40000.
And it was deep in an emotional way. Deciding to sink the cost of a car in something… so emotional… not necessary to survive… is an act of love.

Bechstein itself is to be loved, too. While their pianos are super premium just as those from Steinway, they also produce the Hoffmann-brand on their own, which is much more affordable. In contrast, Steinway more or less sells rebranded pianos from Asia as their lower brands.

For those not into pianos: Steinway and Bechstein are premium manufacturers from Germany, like BMW and Mercedes. (Fazioli would be the Rolls Royce then).
Man this tiktok is freakin communist propaganda playlist adjusted by someone with big red present
Of course he does. Yemen is to Saudi as Ukraine is to Russia.

All with our heartfelt support.
There are already laws against taking trade secrets/proprietary information, and using it elsewhere.

You go to jail for that. It's called "theft."

My company had us sign a ridiculous NCA. It pretty much made it impossible to get a job anywhere, after leaving the company; even if they fired you, or laid you off.

Their description of a "competitor" was so vague, that it could, literally, be applied to a 7-11, as they potentially sold peripherals that could be plugged into our devices.
It’s a socio-technical problem. But technology definitely contributes to the problem: the algorithms determine what kind of behaviors receive attention and this determines the kind of behaviors dominate the platform. I have written more about this idea here:
https://deliberati.io/the-law-of-attention/
Wish I could have played it, bought it for PS5 and installed it, before I could even play one match I was falsely perma banned for cheating? A ton of other people have had this happened and Activision won't say anything about it... got a refund though.
'Regulation' is not a solution for countries that do not answer to the morals of the West, such as Turkmenistan, China, or Russia. Regulation should be demonized, for many situations it ends up being a hammer to a screw.
One would be tempted to say that deleting a user and logging out are definitely different operations with expected different outcomes.
Thanks for your kind words about Weaviate (I’m affiliated).
If things get really bad and these things are deemed bad for the planet, could a nation demand the facilities be shut down or else be destroyed by military strike?
I have and FAQ point that addresses this here. Quoting from the site:

What happens if Recall disappears one day?

It is understandable that there is some hesitation to invest your time into adding your information to a new application and the obvious fear that it may just disappear one day. I want to reassure you that we are fully committed to Recall for the long term. But in the unlikely and unfortunate case that Recall doesn’t work out we will ensure that there is more than enough time for users to export their data so that it can be moved to another application. We would also open-source the project to allow users to host Recall themselves.
Turkmenistan gas extraction company right now:

"Gee, thanks for finding our leaks guys! You won't believe how much money we were just leaking into the atmosphere there."

</dreams>
Cynical me thinks that if NASA tried to get funding for a project that could detect large scale methane plumes which might be used against the oil and gas industry they might just not be able to get that funding.
How do you get wealth without money? You need to start by chasing money…
I think it would be great to experiment with building this sort of thing for an e-ink tablet, adding an enhanced layer of interactivity to by-hand notetaking.
This isn't a very good take. Business leaders are generally fine with reasonable regulations that are evenly applied and easy to comply with. The operations out there spewing methane are essentially free riding, and their competitors who don't do that probably want better enforcement. Obviously this isn't universally applicable to all conceivable regulations, but its true enough in this case.
This is exactly the mindset that holds science back. While we often romanticize the idea of the eccentric genius who has some brilliant eureka moment and revolutionizes a field, such instances are an incredibly small minority of scientific progress. Every once and again there is indeed a paradigm shift that opens up a new area of knowledge to explore, but then there are decades of methodical effort actually exploring that space. A small improvement in one area can be used to make a more precise measurement in another, which in turn gives further insight to some third thing. And ultimately, while we might not give out nobel prizes for something as "mundane" as a mild refinement to semiconductor manufacturing or drug synthesis, the value to society of any such development might be many billions of dollars.

High risk, high reward moonshots might sound like an appealing alternative to the current strategy of methodical investigation, after all it's just a numbers game and a you only need a few wins to justify many attempts. But unfortunately it does more harm than good. A single experiment without the context to interpret the data it yields or the commitment to refine its operation is not going to lead to new understanding. Unless you were incredibly lucky and just happened to set everything up right to strike gold on the first try, odds are you will see nothing and convince people that therefore there is nothing of interest to be gained by continued pursuit. In analogy to actually prospecting, you're much more likely to hit paydirt by taking the time to study an area's geology and identifying good spots to dig than digging holes in the ground at random.

Finally, the very premise that scientific stagnation is a problem we need to deal with is shaky. While it is very difficult to quantify scientific progress, various proxies like numbers of papers published, numbers of subdisciplines spun off, number of patents filed, etc all seem to indicate that progress not only is ongoing but has been steadily accelerating. While the change in our understanding of the world from any one discovery might be less and less, there are so many more possible avenues for discovery than at any other time in history, and each discovery expands our frontiers to expose new opportunities. There is no shortage of scientific inquiry and ideas, the only limit is that we have advanced so far that it is becoming hard to find natural phenomena at measurable scales that our models of the world do not already fully explain. We found all the particles of the standard model, we can construct things on atomic scales, genetic engineering has become mundane and protein folding is solved, we have mapped the earth from space with millimeter precision and are in the process of doing the same to other worlds, we can accurately simulate airflows at hypersonic speeds and the cores of collapsing stars. Most of these achievements would have been gibberish a mere century ago, and the achievements yet to come will be just as unimaginable to us if not more so.
> Which means you could have a valid implementation with anything from a 4-bit unsigned char to a 256 bit or larger signed char

This is not quite accurate; there is no upper limit to the number of bits in a char (except for INTMAX_MAX, perhaps), but it cannot have any fewer than 8 bits, including a possible sign bit.
Each and every one of these arguments seem to be forgetting the fact that $8/mo is a ton of money in some areas, prohibitively so, and this policy is exclusive of such journalists, users etc.

Blue checks should never be pay to play. They weren't designed that way. The problem is the ambiguity of the blue check leads to arbitrage that it seems all parties are interested in cashing in on. If Twitter is our modern Greek forum, it certainly seems like a classist and exclusive landscape. Elon's backtracking about price parity just illuminates the capitalist nature of the entire thing. Charge what we can, not what we should.

We should ask ourselves if we should be placing Twitter's financial needs over the social and intellectual needs of humanity as a whole.
> If you're referring to Visual Studio then I think you and I have very different definitions of "good".

Go to 2010 Linux and find me an IDE with:

1. A functioning graphical debugger that works across multiple languages, both native and JITed

2. A fully featured WYSIWYG UI editor that can generate backing code in multiple languages

3. Comes with a SQL engine setup and ready to use for development, that it can seamlessly connect to for testing out code locally[1]

4. Can step from your code into SQL statements and back again

5. Can step from code you are debugging on a remote box, to SQL code running on yet another machine, and back again

6. Has functional, production ready, data binding that works with arbitrary data sources, that also fully integrates with the GUI builder

7. Integrates with source control

8. Integrates with task/work item management

9. Enables the workflow of you get an email about a fault on a server in a test environment, you click a link, and the IDE connects to the remote machine, downloads symbols, and starts up in the debugger

10. Automatically fetches the proper debugging symbols for the version of code you are debugging

And again, this was all doable across a multitude of languages.

IIRC Eclipse was the nearest "competitor" and it was slower than molasses and didn't have anything near the same feature set.

Visual Studio is an impressive piece of software. Has it had some buggy releases? Yeah. Does it feel super outdated now? Yes it does, in comparison, VS Code's ability to navigate around files/projects is incredible.

But I had a better developer experience using Visual Studio and C# a dozen years ago (!!!) than I have with Node JS now.

[1] The modern cloud version of this is such a disaster.
Diesel is more efficient than gas as far as MPG, so CO2 is actually less per mile, NOx and particulates should be equivalent on a modern diesel with DPF and DEF SCR.
Or up, this thread was started by someone using a different definition.
I'm pretty sure Steve Nash would concur. "Free at last! Free at Last! God Almighty. I am Free At Last!"
Helpful content, thanks for sharing.
Not just Jobs! There is no end[0] to research[1] showing that many options is terrible[2], and "too many options" is terrible by definition.

0. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2018/07/31/br...

1. https://mediaroom.iese.edu/new-research-shows-why-the-human-...

2. https://bigthink.com/thinking/choice-analysis-paralysis/
checkmarks mean prestige, exclusivity, and validation. public figures and journalists love prestige, they live for it. twitter just removed one thing that made it attractive to them. being able to buy it means it s useless for anything other than removing spam

that s a very odd way to remove spam . and personally i dont see twitter bots because i dont go searching for them. Musk is completely obsessed with the wrong problem
If it were easy to export your data to markdown or sync with other apps, would that ease your concerns?
This is literally indistinguishable from the opinion of a person who does not know any wealthy people personally, and bases their understanding of “the rich” on the behavior of social media influencers.

I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but the “understating wealth” pattern of behavior is quite real and common.