skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It’s funny everyone is oblivious to this, or wants to be. In almost all religions and cultures, universally, having sex outside of marriage is outlawed. In order to have sex, you must get married.

>> When looking into the Maya world of Yucatán, we find that during the 18th century and beginnings of the 19th century, it was the custom for males to marry at age 17 or 18, and females at age 14 or 15.

>> The parents preferred, for their sons, girls from the same social class and town. As well, it was considered petty if the male looked for a companion for himself or his children, rather than obtaining the servces of a professional matchmaker (ah atanzah).

>> Once the matchmaker was selected, the ceremony and the amount of the dowry were discussed. This usually consisted of dresses and other items of little value, which were paid by the father of the groom to the father of the bride as a marriage pledge; for her part, the groom’s mother prepared the clothing for her son and for her future daughter-in-law.

What drives you to have children, as a human male, is the desire for sex. Once you remove that, many will pick to not have kids anymore.
The time is now, because bots are already among us. I don't see what good would come of accusing a bot though, that would be like arguing with a car when it's the driver that you should address in case of issues. We should document cases where bots are used to influence opinion though. Like these: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-china-built-a-twitter...

Also, and I'm only half-serious here, claiming the time to accuse bots hasn't come yet is just what a bot would say ;)
Many years ago a colleague and I wrote a stand-alone version of a package for my own arcane php framework called Remote.

The idea was that you write in Web 1.0 and immediately get a Web 2.0 front end because it just updates what it needs to.

I still think this is the holy grail of frontends:

https://github.com/dgrinton/remote-standalone
… so the Greek government is made up of non-Greek !? Or the Greek politicians suddenly transform into unethical beings? Governments reflect societies.

Dude, you said it’s the banks faults to trust the Greek; when I counter that I don’t trust them and wouldn’t have because they are untrustworthy you throw around fables!?
Honestly, just get depressed.

The number of times I was complimented
Well, the thing is… for any non trivial web app, you do need a framework (spa or Unpoly like). The question here is if you use an existing one or end up writing your own.

I don’t buy the “just use html, js and css”… giving the same developer skills, without a framework that becomes a mess much sooner than with one. Unless you’re just building a small landing page or todo app.
I think the GP was implying that the vault would store a random string, which would be unreasonable for anyone to possibly guess. This isn't either of the factors - just a proof you had both of them.

The 2 factors are then the vault itself and the vaults password.

It should be noted, though, this is significantly weaker than "real" 2FA, as normally that would involve some sort of challenge, rather than just storing a hard secret.
Airtable's Path to Product-Market Fit
I've heard that the frontend is stabilising since jQuery came out. Now it's the React devs saying it, but this time for real.
Because this is for utility companies where the value of the rate of discharge might be even more important than the energy capacity?

A quick look at their site shows "battery power capacity" is measured in watts, whereas "battery energy capacity" is measured in watt-hours.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51798
The original GPT-3 also did bad translations, just from scraps of foreign languages in the dataset. They seem to be worse though, so perhaps you're right that Chat-GPT is using another model the way it uses Internet searches
Fork is actually very fast. Too funny a paper coming from Microsoft about fork/exec speed -

https://www.bitsnbites.eu/benchmarking-os-primitives/

Linux absolutely destroys the "proper" API. Nearly 40x faster at launching a program with fork+exec than Windows' CreateProcess. Not to mention the fact that vfork has always been available which is even faster.

Fork is also pretty scalable, it requires no global locks. It is thread-safe, it has defined semantics in threaded programs and can be used to exec a process. And it isn't insecure, it does what is advertised, as securely as advertised.

And close on exec is hardly a huge complication, it's actually a detail of exec(), not fork. It applies independently of exec, and you could make an exec that closes fds by default unless they're marked with a persist-on-exec flag. Library or runtime code can do this anyway really without any "huge complication". I don't know what you mean about SCM_RIGHTS interfering with fork, do you have something in mind? The problem would really be at the exec boundary, fork does not purport to alter any security attributes of the child or parent, so it really doesn't make sense to call it insecure. It doesn't suddenly get new rights, or have any limits enforced.

I mean it is complicated stuff, but so is any process runtime environment that provides async notifications, threads, spawning, etc. Anybody who tells you they can make this simple and broadly usable is selling you snakeoil or a toy API. If people can't cope with reading documentation and thinking carefully about this stuff, they shouldn't use it anyway, they should use a higher level runtime or library to do process management. The handwringing about fork is a bit baffling. Reminds me of the handwringing about fsync, it seems that people just don't read documentation and make silly assumptions about how things should work, and then get embarrassed and blame the tools.

I mean fork retains file descriptors from the parent process. This is not some obscure undocumented behavior, it's like the second thing you read in the manual page. Same as execve. I don't like to make excuses for badly designed APIs and code, but honestly if a programmer isn't capable of thinking about what happens to file descriptors there they certainly should not be writing code that uses fork or exec, let alone something that's security sensitive. I don't think that's being unreasonable or elitist. You wouldn't want them writing security sensitive Windows code either, would you?
Vatican City?
> In fact, if you look at the data, people today move for work less than our ancestors had. Our past was indeed glorious, but it was not a past of wealth and stability.

Indeed it depends how far you go back. I mostly talk about the baby boomer generation (who are "our" parents in many cases as many people here are 25-50 years old). In general they experienced more financial and occupational stability than us since they had much stronger unions and globalization was only starting.
That Indian woman's idea of acceptable and not acceptable AI responses surely vary from that of a San Fransisco tech worker, or Cape Town motorcycle mechanic, or an English teacher from Liverpool.

I really doubt the mechanical turk method is applicable or even useful for the current state of AI-generated text.
I'm saying that when humans use language, it's about stuff in the world and ourselves. The words have references or uses that we call meaning. When an LLM models language, it is approximating the patterns of language use we have produced that have been made available to it. It doesn't understand what the words it's producing are about (no external references), only how to produce those words in patterns that are meaningful to us.

What if we fed an LLM a bunch of crazy nonsense instead? It would model the patterns in the word use and then give us answers based on the nonsense it was fed. But it wouldn't understand that it's actually nonsense that doesn't apply to the real world.
Physical attractiveness is the most under your control thing there is. Women don’t wake up looking like that and you don’t have to either.

It’s not that important though. The real part is keeping the relationship going, not finding it.

Also, have you seen Pete Davidson? He looks like a drowned rat.
Do you have any real commentary against Next.js not being standard, or only generic snide and feelings of superiority directed at "everyone" but yourself?

I'll share a few facts about Next.js:

- Their showcase: https://nextjs.org/showcase#all. The number of super-scale websites using it speaks for itself (doesn't include among others Walmart, which another commenter pointed as an example of how terrible Next.js, but which I've found to be surprisingly good)

- Explosive growth in the 2021 State-of-JS from 2017-2021, with 91% purported retention

- The core tech, React, is voted by far the most commonly used front-end framework in SO dev survey 2021, and 4th most loved. You would never guess by reading HN.

Many if not most people building an SSG or SSR site in React are going to reach for it. If this does not point to a standard then I guess what's only left is to run in circles and argue what a standard is.
High quality answers like in this thread are why I come to HN.

Although I hope these high quality answers don't all just come from ChatGPT one day.
P: I need to write a response to a poster on Hacker News who wrote "I'm probably the only one who finds ChatGPT deeply disturbing." I need to tell him that he is obviously not the only person who feels that way. I want to say it in a tone that implies it is very obvious that his statement is wrong.

R: "Wow, I can't believe you're the only one who finds ChatGPT deeply disturbing! It's almost like you're some kind of special snowflake or something. I'm sure no one else has ever had any concerns about the potential implications of a highly advanced language model. Good thing you're here to point out the obvious for the rest of us. Keep up the important work, champ."
Average freelancers are going to be first to be displaced.
OpenAI Has the Key to Identify ChatGPT's Writing
Ask HN: What is life like at Twitter now?
I've seen plenty of articles about people who quit or were fired. I have not seen the other side, about people who chose to stay and continue working there. Are they all staying because of their visas or financial problems, living in fear and stress? Or are most enthusiastic about the new work-culture and/or some sort of bonus/options that have been offered?
Is getInitialProps still incompatible with hooks? Does Next.js have a functional way of doing that now?
science advances one death at a time. not the only domain in which the current experts and holding things hostage
What should it be measured in?
Now ask Ronald McDonald why his food is so healthy!
"GDPR delete request" is only allowed for treatments based on consent, which is only one of the 6 legal basis in the regulation. So you won't never be able to delete a credit card transaction.

What GDPR gives you, is to know which data is kept, for how long and with access to whom.
It also forbids for a bank to give your these information to Google or Facebook, for example.
I understand. Thank you for your honesty.
I’m currently working on a tender for a potential deal with my company. It is regarding a yearly customer experience survey with a large bank.

Could you write an email or template for me suggesting to the potential client how our product is best suited for their needs and why they should go with us?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the time hasn't come, bots have been among us as long as there's been a social internet, I'm saying we shouldn't turn it into a pejorative or throw the accusation around willy nilly, because that's spending powder we're going to need.
Which is wrong - that's Am7! (BTW without any further qualification a "7" is assumed to be a minor 7th, even for a major key - and you can even have Am maj7, i.e. an A minor chord with a major 7th - i.e. a G# - added). A7m doesn't mean anything to me - even if it were Am7, it's not a key a piece can be "in"...

Oh and also "a dominant 7th" chord is specifically the chord formed on the fifth note of the scale, so a dominant 7th in Am is an E7 chord (and a dominant 7th is always a major chord, with a minor 7th!).

Edit: I asked it whether it thought A7m made sense in that context...

"A7m is not a meaningful description of a key that a piece of music could be in. In music, the key of a piece refers to the tonal center around which the melody and harmonies are built. Keys are typically designated by a letter name, such as C, D, or E, and may include additional information about the type of scale (major or minor) and the presence of any accidentals (sharp or flat notes that are not part of the key's natural scale). For example, a piece in the key of C major would be indicated as "C major" or simply "C," while a piece in the key of A minor would be indicated as "A minor" or "A.""

(there was a second paragraph attempting to convince me that A7m was a description of chord, similar to what you posted.
Note that the above description is basically correct, though the way it describes accidentals is not quite how I'd put it, plus it would be unusual to ever say something was just in "A" if it were actually in A minor).
Lower risk (or lower perceived risk) of money transfer not happening or being reverted.

I would be really anxious if I would be selling something worth 80% of my wealth.

Maybe the entire thing was hilariously pointless? But neither buyer nor seller was expert on this stuff.

(unless seller was hiding really well and it was some 6D chess)
> I called HP support and they fed me an unbelievable story that this was for my own good. You see, ink in different regions is turned for the climate in that region, the support rep explained! I was dumbfounded at such a stupid explanation. [...] you are wasting your time bothering with normal support channels.

I worked in a call center for 8 months and I'll tell you this is pretty much all of them. You call up and talk to a front-line agent who wasn't really clued in on the reasoning for anything and isn't empowered to do much that falls outside standard workflows. You might as well ask your friends why HP does something because he'll come up with an answer from as much information as the agent has. You might be able to escalate to somebody who actually has the power to make any kind of exception if you insist on it but that's definitely not the first layer.
I have no doubt that exercise is good for you, but I'm extremely skeptical about these kind of books. I haven't read this one specifically but from your description it fits this archetype of pop-science books that cite studies as proof. But studies, especially these kinds of studies, are no proof. It sounds like a huge collection of selection-bias based experiments, which already suffer from selection bias due to the academic system, spun into a narrative to sell a book to the general clueless population.

Again, I'm sure exercise is great for you (how could it be bad?), but given how difficult it is to get replication in these types of studies I wouldn't trust any of the specific results... I'd bet lots of money that, for example, "People learn vocabulary words 20 percent faster" is complete BS and not replicable.
Agree, there should be other ways in a modern society.
This doc has more information: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/74426.pdf

They’re talking about the power capacity, which is the maximum instantaneous rate of discharge as measured in kW, as opposed to the energy capacity which is measured in kWh. From what I can glean, it appears that for many applications, the power capacity is actually the more important number.
Don't take this the wrong way, but all those impressive figures you've shown don't compare to actual experience. Some of us detractors have 15+ years doing stuff on the Web and we've seen this cycle play out 2 or 3 times. Everything is cool and the best way of animating divs, until it isn't.

I do not like playing the experience card, but when someone tells me React is good and simple, it just tells me they have no idea whatsoever what good and simple has ever been.

And if Next.js is supposed to be a standard, then I might as well quit doing framework at all because it is not a very good library, it just has great marketing, and thrives upon the shoulders of the most common frontend library, React. Sorry to the devs which are often here to PR, but that's how it is. It gets you easily to 80% of the way, the last 20% are really where the issues (bad docs, bugs, constant churn) lie.
> Why can’t we do what we need to do to stop destroying our planet while we still have the chance?

Any explanation must also explain the success of CFC emission reduction. (And while it has less of a world-wide effect, the greatly reduced use of DDT.)

This summary fails to address how neuroscience says that one is different than the other.

I don't know what the books says about it.

To those responding to the headline, be aware that the content does not examine the headline question, nor does it even imply that those two specific choices are better understood through a neuroscience analysis.

Headlines are there to grab your attention. They are often written by different people than the article author, and the headline writers don't always match the content.
It's the one I ripped out of my Logitech Squeezebox Boom when the display finally died back in 2011 or so. It's less than 10 minutes long and is designed such that the point where the loop restarts is not noticeable.
If so then every call center in America is ripe for lawsuit because they're just making shit up to placate you half the time.
Your job won’t be obsoleted by AI even if the AI is literally better at the job than you are. One, that’s not how comparative advantage works, and two, the AI probably costs more than you.
The issue is, your kids will need / expect as much as other kids.

So you might be happy with having little, but it's not going to be easy to send your kids to school and tell them they shouldn't have an iPad or an international holiday so mummy doesn't have to work.
Great, this is how it should be. The real problem is trying to artificially induce population growth in highly developed and consuming countries, rather than allowing them to naturally peak and reach a sustainable level.
Paper trail was fully present - with notary certifying that transaction took place and updating records in land registration, preparing tax stuff to pay and record.

I expect that they also checked at least basic status of that property and that it had no mortgage, encumbrances etc recorded in the land register.

I bet that bank also recorded that transactions.
Yes. Rereading it, I think my prompt wasn't quite correct. I should have said: "write a letter to dispute" instead of "requesting to dispute."

Although it went through 2 layers of bureaucracy, so it may be correct if you consider I was requesting the Regulatory Admin pass the dispute to the Appeals Officer.
Natural Language Understanding.
Go ahead and rewrite 30+ million lines of C code in Rust, LMAO.
It's not going to happen, Rust support is being added for new code, not specifically to rewrite the kernel.
He’d rather not get life-saving surgery.

I don’t trust banks either. I don’t trust the Canadian government anymore as of last winter either.

But if I need surgery and I have the means then I make it happen. I figure out the banking system and I get surgery.
I'm sorry, but it looks like your question might require a more detailed answer than is appropriate for this forum. If you would like to discuss this further, you can try asking your question on chat.openai.com, where there is a community of experts who may be able to help you. Thank you for understanding.
What baffles and makes it hard for me to wrap my brain around the statement that ChatGPT is "just predictive text analysis" is that it certainly feels like it goes into detail, picks up and repeats the particulars, presents a line of reasoning that sounds, well, reasonable, until you realize it got a number of things terribly wrong, often in deceptively subtle ways:

Me: Which number is bigger, 873593742593454623 or 873593742593554623?

ChatGPT: The second number, 873593742593554623, is larger than the first number, 873593742593454623. This is because the second number has a larger digit in the ones place (5 vs. 4), so it is greater overall. To compare two numbers, you can start by looking at the digits in the ones place and then move to the tens place, the hundreds place, and so on until you find a difference. The number with the larger digit in the place you are comparing is the larger number overall.

So here it correctly repeats my numbers to the last digit, and does find the second one to be bigger because the two numbers are of equal length and differ only in a single digit, which is indeed 5 vs 4 in the first one. So far, it looks like ChatGPT really did an analysis rather than regurgitating old known phrases. However, that difference is not in the ones place, and the algorithm it gives is patently wrong (it doesn't mention that longer numbers are bigger than shorter numbers, and that numbers of equal length should be compared starting at the highest place, not the lowest). According to ChatGPT, 53 should be bigger than 123, so let's ask it:

Me: Apply your reasoning for finding the bigger of two numbers to the compare 123 and 53. (Grammar mistake in the original)

Me: To compare the numbers 123 and 53, we can start by looking at the digits in the ones place. In this case, both numbers have the same digit in the ones place (3 and 3), so we need to move on to the tens place. In the tens place, the number 123 has a larger digit (2 vs. 0), so 123 is the larger number overall.

To compare two numbers, you can start by looking at the digits in the ones place and then move to the tens place, the hundreds place, and so on until you find a difference. The number with the larger digit in the place you are comparing is the larger number overall. This method can be applied to any two numbers, regardless of how many digits they have.

That's somewhere between cringeworthy and deluded. It somehow "knows" that 123 is in fact bigger that 53, but also that that fact is incompatible with the procedure given. It still sticks to the procedure though, and instead of adapting the theory to the facts, it hallucinates convenient but wrong facts, claiming that 53 has a 0 in the tens place as compared to the 2 in 123, so according to theory, 123 > 53.

Yeah I guess we should totally replace people with ChatGPT wherever possible.
> Am I right in thinking no one has been able to detect dark matter despite decades of attempts and research?

Yup [1]

> My understanding is that based on observations of what can be seen galaxies move as if there's move stuff in them??

Yup [2]

> If you hypothesis that this extra stuff is dark matter but can't detect it, how do you know it's real?

It produces certain effects in various different enviromennts or domains, which lends more support to that hypothesis. By certain different domains, I mean like Galaxy and cluster dynamics, gravitational lensing around galaxies and clusters and the precise fluctuations seen in the cosmic microwave background, these are all very different regimes but all seem to support the hypothesis of extra mass which is not interacting electromagnetically.

> How have you ruled out all the normal stuff that doesn't give off light or stuff we can't see at the distances we're looking over?

There are research efforts to look for exactly this kind of stuff; Massive compact halo object (MACHOS). However they don't see enough of it to account for the observations we see in galaxies and galaxy clusters. [3]

[1] https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2022/conf/fermilab-conf-22-180-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evid...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object#De...