skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think that search engines like Google are unbeatable to find content that we already know about. On the other hand, those lists are great to discover what we don't already know about, such as new topics, etc. Just like the awesome lists on GitHub.
But how can you possibly trust anything the model spits out as accurste and true if it's happy to spit out a whole thing on bears in space, something that plainly never happened.

Sure, it be spitting out these links between mechanisms, but it could have pulled them out of the same place it pulled an article about bears in space: the server's ass. And verification is going to take you far longer on something that actually seems realistic, which is a massive problem.
Rest, exercise and nutrition are the pillars of health. No surprise there whatsoever. It is understandable that they have cognitive impact on alertness too. It is interesting therefore to see this connection explored.
Thanks, didn't know about this
> Musk responded to the tweet saying that the issue is "Priority #1."

Obviously it's "top priority"! Is there any other acceptable answer? This answer means nothing except that he saw the question.

The reason for distrust is that the Q people have been insisting that Trump was secretly engaged in an enormous battle with pedophile rings, and using the typical, constant, and normal arrests of pedophile rings as proof. Now, another claim of a right-wing hero bravely picking up the sword and vanquishing the forces of evil, but again, no evidence! No proof at all. We just have to take her word for it, eh?

Of course, she can't give out the hashtags and allow independent verification, yet somehow hordes of pedophiles already know these hashtags? (How are they publishing those to each other, and if they have such a channel, why aren't they using that instead of Twitter?) So who is she keeping the hashtags from then?

So I remain super skeptical.
Wait before they start complaining about "car piracy" and how they can't afford to stay in business unless they do all of this stuff and show you ads on your windshield while driving.

I mean you already here such arguments from smart TV makers and their fans as well as in other industries.

The real truth is all of this stuff would be fixed if a new standard and baseline was set for them so none of them have to do any of this stuff to survive. They'll find other ways to compete.
I think there approach and model are interesting the problem is that they overhyped it to the point that it would be unacceptable academically.

Their abstract says "In this paper we introduce Galactica: a large language model that can store, combine and reason about scientific knowledge... these results demonstrate the potential for language models as a new interface for science. We open source the model for the benefit of the scientific community."

If I was a reviewer of this paper I would ask them to add (if they haven't so) significant section to the body of the paper highlighting the limitation of the model and the ways it can be misused. Including showing examples of wrong output.

I would then ask them to rewrite the abstract to include something along the lines "We also highlight the limitations of the model including inability to distinguish fact from fiction in several instances and the ways it can be misused and outline some ideas on how these limitation could be mitigated or overcome in the future."
> Think again

I mentioned microformats & RDF in my comment...
There are a lot of problems that arise from lack of domain expertise, but they can be overcome with a multidisciplinary team.

The biggest defeating problem for pure AI teams is that they don't understand the domain well enough to know if their data sets are representative. Humans are great at salience assessments, and can ignore tons of the examples and features they witness when using their experience. This affects dataset curation. When a naive ML system trains on this data, it won't appreciate the often implicit curation decisions that were made, and will thus be miscalibrated for the real world.

A domain expert can offer a lot of benefits. They could know how to feature engineer in a way that is resilient to these saliency issues. They can immediately recognize when a system is making stupid decisions on out of sample data. And if the ML model allows for introspection, then the domain expert can assess whether the model's representations look sensible.

I'm scenarios where datasets actually do accurately resemble the "real world", it is possible for ML to transcend human experts. Linguistics is a pretty good example of this.
Petrol generator or batteries bank. The former is not an option in a flat, though, but is the best option to withstand long electricity cuts. Neither are prohibitively expensive (at least in normal circumstances) but might be harder and harder to find.
So if you're on the go, and you're the type of person who wants to edit wikipedia, you'll be prompted to log in. If you don't have an account you would need to create one which probably involves waiting 'til you're back at home or the office. That's ... not that bad, I imagine they didn't do it randomly but because they had a wave of bad-faith edits from EE users.
Yeah, I have both of those bookmarked myself. I know they sell posters of the articles. I've always wanted to get them, though they're a tad pricey. But I guess I can write it off as a business expense…
This seems to gives you no starting point.
I've already decided the same, and my current vehicle is a 2015, before they started this new wave of nonsense.

I drive a truck. I think I'm going to get my favorite body style of F150 (late 70s/early 80s) and put a brand new engine in it, and whatever else it needs to make it 100%. I don't need any tech except one of those things that turns AUX into FM radio.

When I bought this truck, it replaced a 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee with 318,000 miles (512,000km). I can live without luxury. I'll miss my heated steering wheel, though.
Because it's like cavemen pondering the safety of nuclear fusion after discovering fire. Yes: nuclear fusion could be dangerous. No: there is nothing useful that can come out of such "research".

You know what would be useful for cavemen to ponder? The safety of fire. Or you know, just staying alive because there are more dangerous things out there.

The current state of so-called "AI" is our fire. It's impressive and useful (and there are real dangers associated with it) but it has no bearing on intelligence, let alone superintelligence. It's more likely that a freak super-intelligent human will be born than that we accidentally produce a super-intelligent computer. We produce a lot of intelligent humans, and we've never produced a single intelligent computer.

As it stands, we don't have the understanding or the tools to do anything useful wrt safety from a super-intelligent AI. We do have the understanding and tools to do something useful about asteroids and climate change.
> ...Right now Mastodon seems to be the biggest player, but curious what the second/third biggest would be?

Between 2008 through about 2016, it was tough to state which was the most widely used (oh, you'll get opinions, just not sure if stuff was tightly tracked)...But after 2016 - when mastodon came onto the fediverse scene - it certainly has been the most popular software to use. As far as which is second...well that depends on whether you count number of nodes on the Fedi, or numbers of users who use a particular software stack. If matrix federated network is excluded from any list, then second might be peertube nodes (https://the-federation.info/#projects). But if counting by number of users, then second might be diaspora (https://fediverse.observer/stats). Of course, the Fedi being what it is, numbers - while likely good - are only approximations...these data only tell a tip of the iceberg. I mean, the fediverse has been around - and active - since around 2008, so you can only imagine there is some small percentage of Fedi instance admins who prefer not to be counted. So, stat sites like i cited will give you an idea, but not exact numbers. ;-)
Isn't this conflating the work with the methods used to produce it?
Yeah I’m specifically referring to good companies mentioning they’ll be in the area. It’s hard to find and there are still scammers.
How else should vandals, spammers, etc. be dealt with when their ISP lets them hop at will throughout its entire IP space?
Just what I’ve been looking for.

The collaboration tools provided by Google, while useful and powerful, appear to be exposing my data to people who do not value my liberty.
It totally depends on your use case, and what you actually need in reality.

In general, once you need/want anything past what NTP can deliver for you, you really, really need to understand your use case and then design your time services to meet your specific needs.
Ask HN: Best static site hosting with CDN?
What hosting provider would you recommend for hosting a static site (html, images, videos)? Looking for something which also has a CDN.
If I'm not mistaken, this is also an amusing retort to the idea that only statically typed languages can have common refactoring tools.
The points you are making are entirely political and apply generally, not just to insurance. Insurance is a business and it's not the job of the insurer to correct long-standing social ills.
Related: anecdotally, morning sunlight really improves my overall sleep. Learned about it here:

https://hubermanlab.com/sleep-toolkit-tools-for-optimizing-s...
Just gonna leave this here:
https://www.fairphone.com/en/
Agrarian societies are historically composed of nearly all subsistence farmers. The industrial revolution changed that, but (unless you agree with Marx) it still doesn't seem like a foregone conclusion that "society" receives the wealth rather than it being concentrated in a few places.
Cloudflare Pages is great for what I do.
We must live in very different places. I have never seen those signs make a bit of difference.
One thing I do not see being mentioned, perhaps I missed it, is the potential for 3rd parties to financially benefit from this in the future.

I envision insurance companies running batch queries against Mercedes future API to determine which drivers have unlocked higher speeds and then adding a "High Risk" fee/tax to their policy. Mercedes could charge for access to this API and who knows what it could be used for.

Even more dystopian would be a future where governments can access some API that allows them to Geo-fence drivers into an approved area after a traffic conviction or limit the drivers speed. The more evil side of that coin would be access to a secret encrypted application API bug to stuck throttle accident dissenting voices.
We can exclude his fans on the basis that they don't believe what communists believe.
I find the "slow compile time" complaint of D interesting; overall I find ldc2 to be one of the faster compilers out there. I suppose the combination of features and metaprogramming used by the author is responsible for the 3-minute compile times in debug mode. While jai is evidently expected to be substantially faster (author estimates 5 sec for this codebase???), other choices like Rust would be far, far slower than D.
I went back and forth on writing this point. I think the nuance missed in the original point, is that professional people that travel with work stuff like to take their equipment in pelican cases. So that looks less suspicious than backpack, but both are probably ok.
FIDO can and does get used as the only factor auth when people/orgs go passwordless. There are various ways of recovering and having temporary access when losing a key
This adds great context to the article - thanks.

> I don't think Wayne was really focused on behavior outside of using HTML for integration purposes.

This makes me more curious about his work now - I'll have to look into it more. It sounds like he was needing to do something he really shouldn't've needed to do, but perhaps I'm (again) missing context.
It's alright, the quality of non-luxury makers has never been better and honestly, a top model Hyundai, Honda or Toyota is still pretty comfy and nice.
Siri, turn on bathroom lights.

Downstairs or upstairs bathroom?

Downstairs.

Sorry, I didn’t understand. Downstairs it upstairs bathroom?

Downstairs bathroom.

Sorry, I didn’t understand. Downstairs it upstairs bathroom?

Cancel.

Ok. Cancelling.

Siri turn on downstairs bathroom lights.

(Turns off all lights)
Author here!

My "example" is showing an equivalent to what the C++ compiler actually outputs, inlining the `std::string` abstraction, given the input code, which in this context was C++03, and before emplace.

But emplace doesn't save you here! Emplace doesn't save on heap allocations over a `strdup`, if you're emplacing something from a string literal like this.

Doing:

```
vec.emplace_back("here's a string");
```

Does indeed do an allocation for the string. It has to, because every `std::string` must manage a heap allocation (modulo the small string optimization which is a nitpick). The string literal is in the `text` section of the binary and can't be the backing for the `std::string` object, which must be in read-write memory and on the heap.

So the `strdup` is correct as an equivalent to what the C++ compiler would output with `std::string` inlined for the example code it covered.

Also, the freeing of the empty object with move semantics is NOT always optimized out, not even close. It can't be, not when those calls can cross a library boundary or be arbitrarily wonky.

You write as if C++ has one optimizer. Rust shares an optimizer with one of the most popular C++ compilers. Implying Rust is somehow "behind" C++ on optimizations is just ill-informed.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light!
I'm not sure which is running the car rentals near me, but they keep getting tagged like the scooters do which is sorta a bad look.
It reflects the continual lowering of manufacturing costs compared to design costs. When we're talking about heated seats there's maybe $2 worth of a resistor + wiring to heat them. At some point it's cheaper to make them all heated and reduce your SKUs & design cost.

In the long run customers aren't going to pay more. The auto industry is highly competitive and that competition will keep profit margins in check.
I'll be entirely satisfied with a process/event queue/loop that we can submit tasks to like Javascript's. There is already a command loop in Emacs, we just can't use it for anything other than input events and commands. Once we have an good event loop, we can build a state machine like Redux on it, then we can start rebuilding the display machinery, then we can start deleting all those hooks that constantly interfere with each other...
> so I'd have to walk to my local library, almost a mile away, to make an edit

Or you'd walk there, set up an account once and edit away to your heart's content.
If that is the case you should get the choice, enable the feature for free but lose warranty, enable and keep warranty at the subscription cost, and then enables automatically for free once warranty is up.
I'm firmly on this side. The single most dangerous part of the car is the driver. You can do basically the exact same damage with a standard car at highways speeds using nothing but the steering wheel and accelerator.

And it happens all the time. Functionally - I don't see much difference between a misbehaving control module and a driver having a stroke.

You can also solve both problems with a single stroke by making public transportation effective and preferable in places where density is likely to make this a problem (cities).
You're speaking as if rationality was something most people aspire to. Something acknowledged as worth the effort. However, it doesn't look like this view is shared by many people.

Not to mention, people are perfectly capable of believing in something (whether it's in any way a fact or not, doesn't matter) while still acting rational regarding something else. You'd think that schizophrenic state of mind has to collapse at some point. Yet, in many people, it's perfectly stable, and they live and die without ever confronting the contradiction.

> you can't believe something you know to be false.

Of course you can. The easiest way is to simply ignore the question of falsity completely. Another is to cling to controversies, blowing them out of proportion and invalidating the question that way. There's a conspiracy-theoretic way, too.

I don't know if people are on average more rational than irrational, but I know for sure that every single person can be both rational and irrational at the same time. I'd say this is the natural, innate state of the human mind, even.
>But the A.I. hype is out of hand. "A.I. Safety" research is the worst of it, as it suggests this technology is so powerful that it's actually dangerous. The other day I was almost to write a comment on HN to a post from lesswrong where they apologized at the beginning of an article critical of the intelligence explosion hypothesis because short of Scientology or the LaRouche Youth Movement it is hard to find a place where independent thought is so unwelcome.

I hesitate to say "safe space", but... what if a group of people wants to come together discuss AI safety? If they'd have to regurgitate all the arguments and assumptions for everyone who comes along they'd never get anything done. If you are really interested to know where they are coming from, you can read the introductory materials that already exist. If the 99.9% of the world is hostile towards discussing AI safety (of the superintelligence explosion kind, not the corporate moralitywashing kind) there is some value in a place which is hostile to not discussing it, so that at least those interested can actually discuss it.
This is why the guide suggests to use a VPN.
Keep in mind having a generator could make them an obvious target depending on how bad things get do to the fact that it will be obvious they are running one from the noise. I also assume fuel to run it could be a problem.
> I think it's very arguable that there was no scenario in which the authors would have gotten paid

Just to be sure: do you think that if people can't afford something that's not physically tangible they should be entitled (or at least permitted) to have it free of charge, because they wouldn't buy it anyway? I wouldn't buy (and probably wouldn't afford) a 30-day stay at the most luxurious spa in my country, should I insist that they let me enter anyway?
> MD5(‘****’)

That’s cool HN censors passwords like this
We are perfectly allowed to be called a prediction market. That is not what I was saying in my text.

We are fully regulated by the CFTC. Our ethos has been do regulation from day 1 and we spent 3 years getting regulated before we launched a single product. Regulators are already caught up and are working with us constructively to expand this marketplace and asset class.
The movie Network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)) famously skewered TV culture and its effect on people.

It won several oscars, and is still referenced today.
Interestingly, Boeing had an indicator for an angle of attack sensor mismatch on the 737 Max, but it was an optional accessory.
For reference, Cahokia was roughly sited at present-day St. Louis.
I think you have to take the praise in perspective? Go into it with the idea that you want to do OOP, and CLOS is pretty amazing.

I agree with you, though, OOP should be something you reach for purposely, not as a default. And, unfortunately, the waters have been so muddied, that I couldn't tell you the best purposes to reach for it. About the best I can see is that it does lend itself well to metaphor, and people communicate almost exclusively in metaphors, when it comes to programming?
Not sure what you are referring to?

Yep he is different.

But I see the main difference as him having oodles of integrity and courage, in contrast to going for the quiet life in the middle of the herd.

A lot of the accusations that have been thrown at him frankly don't bear detailed examination - the whole assault thing, the idea that he put US operative lives at risk, the idea he was in cahoots with the Russians, the idea he was active in hacking rather than being a journalist receiving information from a source.

In my view, this is all mud thrown to dehumanise him, so nobody complains when he is effectively tortured and imprisoned for life for telling the uncomfortable truth.
Yeah… I’ve been the person that has to tell (metaphorical)you that I am checking your bag.

It really makes our job easier when you have a backup plan for your electronics because it avoids a lot of conflict. Also.. we totally understand it sucks when we take your bag to check it.
It's illegal to be poor in America. (tm)

Reminds me of a former Microsoft manager I met who said he fired people for not owning shoes. Real compassionate, that one.
It's worth mentioning that DMD is a reference compiler and not meant as a production tool. DMD is for fast compile time during dev cycles and testing new language features early.

You've got the LLVM and GCC compilers for production.

The problem with lack of debug info on Windows in D is solved by using LDC with LLDB/GDB to debug

You can also ask the compiler to emit CodeView debugging info if you want to stick with Microsoft stuff
A curated list of programming subreddits
So I use Imagus in Firefox. When playing older games hovering over some of the tiles ends up loading the full image. Doesn't do it on today's cat image.

Otherwise fun little game.
It's not supposed to spit out truth. Meta may have overhyped it but they were careful not to claim that it makes true claims, but that it compiles knowledge, and they had a disclaimer that it hallucinates fact. Anyone who has seen language models knows that if you ask it about space bears, it won't reply that there re no space bears, instead it will try to create a link between space and bears. It seems to me that people were deliberately using impossible inputs so that they can claim the model is dangerous for doign what a language model does. And their ultimate purpose was to defame the model and take it down. (And BTW we 've heard those "dangerousness" BS claims before)

The usefulness of the model was in under-researched fields and questions, where it can provide actually useful directions.
If you're for everyobody, then you're for nobody!
The last time something similar reached the front page ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32434934 ), one of the key ”features” was the total removal of Windows Update.

I can’t wait for the next wormable Windows exploit with all the un-upgradeable boxes out there
I think the problem in this comment, and the mistake many others make, is that they consider their viewpoint canonical, and everyone else's viewpoint wrong.

"Sympathetic" and "source of inequity" are subjective. Letting someone get extra points on their test because of their race is equitable to some, unequitable to others. Who decides?
Yeah, the point isn’t that they must have referendums every 7 years. It’s just that they can, provided they feel like it.
Plenty of jewish people all throughout history have been anti-semites. It's no different than the pastor who screams the evils of pedophiles while diddling altar boys or the republican congressman voting against gay rights while getting a handy in the airport bathroom.

Self-hate is a real thing.
We don't do sports
I think part of the issue is that AI can potentially mask the problem.
For companies, I think it should be part of the employee badge's cost. Just another peripheral.

I think it can indeed scale, people use USB drives a lot, think of it as another peripheral similar to mouse or keyboard. It is especially more attractive as a single factor auth when you go passwordless. It is a similar security model as physical keys and the cost is only ~1x more.
I somewhat doubt most people actually have the `"could this actually be true?"` phase. It seems most like... just your rational mind reminding you that whatever you set your priors, if you set it to exactly zero the Bayes' Theorem breaks down?