skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have Brother HL-L2300D. I can print around 2500 pages from non-genuine toner.

Annoying is sleep mode that cannot be changed. Printer won't turn on when I send print task to it. I have to turn on printer manually every time before print.
If only browsers would support it.
My experience in some gamedev and embedded development circles is that there are several that will religiously argue against it, without ever having run a profiler to validate their perception of the world.
And, welllll… lol, that didn’t take long:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/30/spacex-age-d...

https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/z93nuu/exengine...
My great grandfather had a radio hidden under a pile of wood.

One time a bored German soldier threw pieces of wood at the wall and almost got to the radio. My great grandfather told him he had to stop because there was a sick old lady in the house and he did.

My grandmother was just a kid and used to be really scared that the Germans would find the radio and send her parents away to a concentration camp. I guess this is the reason all the tracking and surveillance on the internet was quite scary to her and made her rather wary of using it.
I’d be more sympathetic to this if the Spotify interface wasn’t just so terrible on all platforms. There’s not much innovation at Spotify, except perhaps in the legal department.
Or it's because Hal Finney was Satoshi, and he never took credit for it because he was scared people would harass him even more than they already did, and he died in 2014, so he won't be able to take credit for it any more.
Searle is proposing what he supposes to be a proof of a computer being unable to have mind in the same sense humans have mind, and thus human intelligence being something more than a "mere computation". While in fact his argument proves absolutely nothing, and I'm honestly surprised that anyone buys into this bullshit. Actually, I think that the question itself is meaningless, but it's besides the point what I think, I'll just try to explain where's the fallacy. And since his argument is "reductio ad absurdum" it's easiest to counter by assuming the opposite, and showing that there's nothing absurd about it, i.e. there's no self-contradiction here. Just keep in mind that I'm not trying to prove the opposite, I'm only assuming it for the sake of argument.

So, the opposite assumption is that there's nothing more to intelligence than a "mere computation", and all that stuff like inner dialog and "a sense of self" are just side-effects of it. That way, there's no difference between "strong AI" and "weak AI" in his terminology, no difference between "understanding" and "simulation of understanding". Then, of course, a digital computer has a mind and understands Chinese, and also the Chinese room has a mind and understands Chinese. But Searle doesn't understand Chinese and this is supposed to be a contradiction.

But there's no contradiction here, because Searle is not the Chinese room. He isn't the mind, in this model he is to Chinese room what electricity is to a digital computer, or what neurotransmitters are to human brain. So, yeah, electricity doesn't understand Chinese, serotonin doesn't understand Chinese, single human neuron doesn't understand Chinese, but Turing-test-passing computer, Chinese brain and Chinese room all do. Searle is just a detail in the Chinese room — tiny and insignificant compared to a book, containing a complete description of a program that speaks Chinese and is able to form coherent (and persistent!) opinions on every possible topic in the world.

So, the fallacy is equating Searle's role in the hypothetical Chinese room to the whole digital computer that speaks Chinese and passes Turing test with breeze.
Some CAs are limited in the way you describe. For instance, this just came up a few days ago: https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-polic...
Would giving people the ability to opt out of Apple's ultra-managed experience and take more control over their device harm your ability to continue to enjoy those benefits?

I heard an argument like this a lot at the start of discussions about whether we should be able to choose to WFH in the longer term. "I don't want to WFH because..." Ok, sure, but nobody is trying to force you to.

It might just be me, and I'll definitely fret about whether I'm being unreasonable for at least the next couple of hours, but this kinda frustrates me.

I'm supportive of your choice, but you already get to do the thing you want, and nobody is trying to take that away.

Expressing that you wouldn't behave any differently given more options is a distraction in a discussion about whether other people should be allowed to make a different choice.
> But like... none of that is related to the App Store lock in! It's also not related to the 30% cut.

It’s related to the “one app source”. See…

> no "don't install random binaries" stuff to be seen.

Because it was a lot smaller target than windows in terms of uses and impact. Maybe you forget, but there was certainly crapware that would bog your system down.

Meanwhile iOS is probably the single greatest target today. Statistically rich users, extremely important device to the user, and lots of users.

Regardless of your view on if apple should open it up, if it were to happen, it would instantly be a massive target. Companies would flee the 30% fee (@epic/fortnight) or the privacy policies (@meta) and maybe even employers buying some Oracle/SAP junk for their employees and quickly bring legitimacy to sideloading.

Everywhere would then fill with more of those “your Java is out of date plz download” sites, but instead it’d be apps. Now, for better or worse, no one has to question what they download (too much).

If you could side-load then you’d soon almost be forced to side load and it would be heavily exploited.
The assertion that there are “not academically-inclined demographics” comes from those working to shut down gifted programs. Need we pull out the Smithsonian’s “whiteness” chart again?
Apple actively cripples Safari so that developers are forced to make apps for the App Store and give them a cut of all revenues. Safari is an extremely cynical product, much more than Chrome. Developers should not support Safari. Let the sites break.
Generally some folks will re-use the proprietary cartridge, but manually refill them. In the mid 2000s I used to do this with inkjet cartridges - you could remove some of the labels/wrapper on the cartridge to expose a port that was accessible via syringe, and refill the reservoirs with cheap ink.
The better approach is to let the leader decide. The classical approach was to let things stay and let people form their own opinion. Then big tech started to moderate content more strictly and in my opinion with political intend. I believe the classical approach worked better.
FTX could probably be sued in every jurisdiction where they had customers.
I think career ambition is somewhat mundane, and within the parameters that a given person can control, runs its useful course with limited categorically different positive lifestyle impact. Limited in the sense that often times you end up just working on different products, or moving into a higher level decision making role, or making more money to do more programming or sales or whatever. The parameters that one can control being the stuff outside of getting extremely lucky while more or less doing the stuff you'd be doing anyway. For example, I could set my sights very high and end up at Google working on whatever. I'll make more money, but it'll go right into my bank account or on some fancy product. It's certainly more glamorous I guess, maybe the code is trickier to write, or the outcome more interesting, and that's all great and something that might be worthwhile to shoot for, but it's not really that interesting or that unimaginable or that risky, except to one's personal life balance. I just have to work on particular skills and devote a certain amount of time, and then maybe I get it, or I don't. Same reason people working at Apple's new campus on whatever product probably don't think too much of it, they're just doing work day to day. It's compelling and it's ambitious if you're not already there, and interesting, but it doesn't cross my mind when thinking of the most ambitious people.

The most ambition I see, represents seeking a categorically unlikelihood, usually one that is rewarding in a wildly extreme or different way (which could be career oriented for sure), that is potentially life threatening or otherwise actually risky, in a categorically different discipline or environment, and repeatedly.

Admittedly many of the examples I can think of come out with with the possibility of professional notoriety, but it's not a fundamental component. A popular example would be Alex Honnold, but he'd still be missing horizontal leaps, which may still come. Someone else set their sights on becoming the best BMX rider, then bike company founder, and then quit to become a custom furniture designer; the first being extremely costly and risky in a number of ways, with rewards being ambiguous at best and with no linear trajectory, the second being more obvious but requiring different skills that you'd need to build from scratch, and the third being a fundamentally different thing that's rather unlikely for someone to become successful in starting from zero.

The most ambitious I know though have no clear career at all, and do that sort of stuff even though there's no obvious notoriety, tangible monetary reward, or glamour to be had. That, or the extreme unlikelihood in successfully getting out of extreme poverty with no connections or skills, and then trying to do it again with something unrelated.

I.E become extremely good at skateboarding -> then a pilot -> then a mountaineer, and all the while you're just doing some arbitrary thing for money.
If you'll allow me to demonstrate. If the admissions metrics associated with the former and the later both have racial implications. Deciding to favor one or the other will always pull in racial consequences.

Those making those decisions (eg: "we chose <X>, and the subsequent changes in admission metrics _despite_ the racial implications") should be at the bare minimum be confronted with critique directly stemming from the such decisions.
This is the reason I always suggest my relatives buy the latest iPhone SE. It'll be cheaper than a comparable Android device in the long run.

5 years of full updates, not just "important security updates", is a pretty good deal. And you can _still_ sell them for a hundred or so euros after the 5 years.
HoloISO: The unofficial Steam Deck experience on your PC
Picking the wrong goalposts: instead of asking "was it a crime" those downplaying ask "is it possible that he did not understand that it was a crime", as if that made a difference of tipping point scale. Is it possible that he did not understand? Certainly. And given the amount of self-respect depending on him not understanding perhaps even likely. Self-delusion is a powerful force. But it's the wrong question to ask of course.

On the other hand I haven't seen any media downplaying, here in Germany it's all haughty "Americans being Americans again" ("let's not talk about Wirecard for a few minutes, can we?") and what I read through the hn filter isn't downplaying either. Perhaps what you are perceiving is a subset of media motivated by the crypto angle?
It really isn't, though. It's great in theory but breaks down in practice because the average user has neither the patience nor knowledge to manually deal with that stuff, nor should we expect them to.
Still no standard to reliably detect when a virtual keyboard is covering half the viewport. And virtual keyboards have been around for much longer than dynamic toolbars on mobiles browsers!
The SEC might agree, but the EU thinks Apple's dominant market role is a plague too. And Google inside Android. ( Not that they love Twitter either)

Two wrongs do not make a right, this is understood. But, in the balance of power between app writers and Apple (and other store keepers) There is a tension, and regulatory oversight is needed in both.

I dislike twitter, and dislike Musk, but it doesn't mean I am blind to apple's rent seeking. Why should they get 30% cut of inside app revenue? Why 1% or even 0.0001% why anything?
I just skimmed through your repo, and I loved the way that you used AoC as an opportunity to share many of the batteries that are included in the Python stdlib. In one particular case, I wanted to also share some more fun corners of the collections module / common algorithms and sent you a pull request.
Macs are a much smaller target though

iOS would instantly be the biggest target for crapware ever. Enough companies want out from under apple that you’d be almost forced to use sideloading to install mainstream apps (Facebook, Fortnite, Spotify, etc), so users would expose themselves to all sorts of scams very quickly.
Genomic signature of Fanconi anaemia DNA repair pathway deficiency in cancer
Very owner-class centric takes, but I guess I should've expected that... Gives 5 assertions why having a 4 day work week would essentially cost companies money without due consideration.
The current PKI is geared toward ease-of-use and adoption.

It can also be turned completely around: only trust a single root certificate. This design is often used in client authentication: each client need to get its certificate signed by the one single CA that's trusted by the server.
Scientists Simulate ‘Baby’ Wormhole
It isn't because those microcontrollers are not that smart about branch prediction and instruction ordering so the penalty is often bigger.
Same with reordering - might not matter that much on a big modern CPU but may matter way more on a device with a micro cache and very slow division for example.
This has been tried: https://www.theregister.com/2019/08/28/gimp_open_source_imag...
My first and last Epson (inkjet) ended its life on my balcony after I took to it with a cricket bat, Office Space style. Never again. Leaks, overpriced cartridges, crappy software.

Had a Brother laser since then (HL-3170CDW) no complaints, just works, toner lasts forever.
"you don't need the model to feel emotions, have genuine goals or anything other than being indistinguishable from a human being"

This is the point I am specifically disagreeing with. I think a language model that is just mocking human speech will not be able to accurately represent emotions and goals in a way that cannot be detected.

"If you build an agent that has and quote: 'genuine motivations and some concept of an internal experience' than you will fail the Turing test because the agent will probably recognize the fact it's not human"

I would expect it to know its not human, but it could agree to pretend to be one for the test. I think an agent with genuine experience would be better able to pretend its a human in the same way that a person lying about their goals and motivations can be more convincing than a language model. I can better make up a lie about a real person because I understand the nuance of human experience. For example language models can fail to learn arithmetic or basic physics. Things any 15 year old person with a basic education would know. We tend not to explain the most obvious facts in a physics textbook, like what water feels like on your fingers, so it may be possible to ask a language model questions about physics or human experience that are so ubiquitous they don't commonly get written down.

Of course you will say, an agent with no physical form or metal hands also will not know what water feels like on your fingers. But this only proves my point - at some point the machines lack certain aspects of basic human experience that cannot just be regurgitated from a text corpus. Anyone familiar with research in to flaws of state of the art language models could detect a large language model relatively quickly. I suppose I should retract my earlier claim that an agent with motivations could pass a turing test, because I suppose I just talked myself out of that too. Point is, its very hard to pass a turing test if the test is administered by an AI researcher, because they will know what to look for.

I guess that's the point of the Voight-Kampff test.
The browser knows. The browser interprets your CSS. The browser giveth, the browser taketh, you are not supposed to care. :)
I actually want a printer, but know this and have put off buying one for about a year now because I can’t be bothered to spend hours working which is the least shitty.
Private office is anti-social, yet nose cancelling headphones with a baseball cap is not?
The reason why Chinese room is a fallacy is because it's begging the question. It creates an elaborate metaphor for a computer only to exclaim that of course it's not intelligent, because that's obvious. If you don't start with a premise that "of course it's not intelligent", it's not at all obvious even for the analogy.
Maybe. For certain workloads, on certain hardware, especially in sequential-operation use-cases.

But not all workloads are the same, and as the linked content points out, OLAP <> OLTP. YMMV.
> they already have the money so they're now more incentivized to be critical of him in order to distance themselves from his wrongdoing

They're incentivized to not look as if they're willing to backstab donors the moment they fall from grace. Otherwise nobody (or at least no unscrupulously rich person) will donate money to them for political support in the future.
> As for services that 'demand' you install something, the option exists on Android and no one demands people install things on their Android devices. Why would iOS be different?

https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/mobile/android

1. It is used now.
2. Google is a lot less aggressive than apple (see meta vs ATT).
Bounds checks are the easiest type of code to branch predict. You just assume they never trigger, suddenly you have a 99.99% hit rate on them. When they trigger you don't care about the branch misprediction at all because the program is already busted and security is more important.
That's just escrow but worse, and could already be accomplished with a non-blockchain based escrow service. What exactly does crypto add here?
Probably for stuff they shouldn't be accessing. But also IIRC iOS doesn't support PWAs so installing any webapp they would provide in any meaningful way isn't possible there
In this instance the server is the browser of whoever started the session and the others are clients?

I was imagining a browser based Maptool.
https://www.rptools.net/toolbox/maptool/
The built-in password manager in Chrome. Nothing to install and works seamlessly across all devices.
Write a jabber client from scratch (Ruby)
Maybe there are well known attacks against this scheme. Let's try a naive one.

Conditions first: it's a 6 sides die. I need 1 to win, you need 2. The final number will be the hash of step 4 modulo 6.

Let's try a naive implementation with 1 byte long numbers, no random bits to fill out the unused 5 bits of that byte.

When I receive your hash I compare it with the only 6 possible hashes (micro rainbow table.) I know your number is 4. The possible pairs will be 14, 24, 34, 44, 54, 64 (how we mix the bits of those pairs is deterministic so let's do a simple n*10+m.) If the hash of one pair modulo 6 is 1, I'll give you the hash of the first number of that pair otherwise maybe you cheated and sent me a hash that will at least ensure that I don't win now ;-)

We can add random bits, a lot of them, with the idea of making sure that the time I must spend is a very long one and exceed a timeout. However I must know where your number is in those bits.

Let's say the number is at position 5 and you sent me the hash for 9999499999. I can try to be lucky and find your number by hashing random ones, then try to find a number with a digit <= 6 in its fifth position so that I win and send you that hash.

Occasionally I will be able to generate a good number for me, not all the times.

As a side note, a friend working with inmates told me that when they play backgammon they share the same dice because they don't trust the other player not to have loaded dice. Those dice become a trusted third party. If they are loaded, the distribution is the same for everybody.

Finally, is the random distribution of your method still uniform? I didn't reason about it.
That is assuming you're successful (or at least have a busy storage tier.)

I think the people who are doing this calculation wrong are mostly confusing and conflating those two outcomes. Just because your database servers are very busy, does not mean your product achieved some commercial success. You can't just pay extra for the full-service treatment and expect to receive a commensurate output in value,

(and the people who won't pay for a real person to own their databases full-time are likely in a circular Venn diagram with people who won't pay attention to optimizing their database queries, so your point can probably stand unmodified... except there is an important case where the PaaS provides value, and it's nearest to the starting point of practically everyone.)

If you look at every dollar spent on IT/databases as a sunk cost which cannot be recovered from future recurring expenses, it's very bleak indeed to put pennies on top of pennies and pile them higher every day... or you could pay attention to the signal that SaaS is providing every month (the bill for usage), and ramp up the attention paid to optimizing queries before it gets too late in terms of dollars and cents? The dollar impact of slow queries cannot be understated.

But some business ideas will also not ever make it that far. You could spend the money on DBA salary or DIY and never know how much it was really being wasted, comparatively, if you didn't ever get a handle on your own usage metrics.
Right now the market is decentralized to a decent degree. The core business of Maersk is operating ships, and managing their equipment (containers). Their core business traditionally was NOT the hinterland transports from and to the ports. So traditionally shippers had to arrange this themselves. Around the world the terminology is different, but this is known as merchant haulage, a CY-CY booking, or a port-port transportation.

Lots of communication needs to happen from shipping companies like Maersk to the party the shipper has contracted to pick up the container from the port (trucking companies, barge operators, train operators). One solution to this would have been a shared digital platform where the shipper could've granted access to the hinterland transporter to get updates about the container arrival, and to be able to cryptographically prove they are authorized to pick up the container. Whether this is an actual blockchain or something different also leveraging cryptography and distribution, I personally don't really care about. For the non-tech savvy people in the business, I'd call this 'blockchain' just to get it on the radar.

The other solution to this handover problem is trying to force shippers to book the hinterland transport included in the sea transport, so Maersk would arrange that bit. This is called carrier haulage, CFS-CFS, or door-door transportation. This approach seems to be what they have settled on, and all the major shipping companies are investing aggressively into the hinterland parts of their business.

Now imagine you're running a trucking company focused on ports (I think in the US this is called drayage). You've gone from 50 customers down to 3. At the same time major carriers are making record profits and have been explicitly exempted from the antitrust laws based on an argument of economies of scale in ocean shipping. Looking at it through this lens (pun intended), yeah, I'm a bit worried.

If you were a shipping company, would you go with the technical solution, or would you try to get more of the entire process under your control so you can just strong-arm the hinterland parties into doing "the correct thing" ?