skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Pull requests which have artificial requirements. Which, these days, may mean many things.

It's illusion that PR can usually be compact in terms of lines and files. That not only requires a good quality of code, which isn't ubiquitous, but also good understanding of code, which changes all the time with different opinions resulting in that code being modified. So PRs become rather large - and sometimes surprisingly missing useful things, because exact change isn't easy.

The PR which is hard to review may mean that the code isn't understood the same way by different people, and this is a signal that some discussion is needed. Unfortunately often that's not done, and after some efforts PR is pushed through, while misunderstandings grow.
What is the narrative you believe I am building out of thin air?

The thin-air narrative I destroyed was that democracy is inherently slow and wasteful. It's not, unless you are going to argue that democracy was somehow suspended, or that this project is still slow and wasteful due to democracy.
Maybe it only works in the US equity markets, but that's not "only works in the US" -- the S&P 500's companies are: not all based in the US, and in total derive only 75% of their revenues from outside the US.

For reference, the US share of world GDP is about 25%.

It would not surprise me at all if the most scalable, profitable, and growth-oriented companies ended up on the S&P 500 regardless of where in the world they started or where their revenues originate.

I'm not saying anything about interest rates -- your point there might be spot on -- but US stock markets have huge global exposure, and your implied assertion that there's some kind of "global" benchmark equity growth rate doesn't seem that sound.
Doesn't sound all that different from human comments, to be honest
It is objectively worse because with carvana you cannot physically walk in and talk to the same salesperson.

They send you into a revolving door of phone associates.

Like comcast, but for cars
The original wing walkers who defied death
Agreed. I chatted with it about the Chinese remainder theorem today and it gave me an example that didn't work and then insisted that 30 is not divisible by 2 when I questioned it. This was simple enough to spot but I was halfway through the example by the time I realized I couldn't trust it at all. Its confidence is annoying.
Has the usual cryptobabble like "If the coolest creators stop making cool stuff, interest in the NFT scene could dry up. That extreme scenario is unlikely..." but it is new to me that the royalties paid to creators when an NFT changes hands is optional instead of mandatory. That was one of the unique things about NFTs and if they can't do that... What's the point?
It's easier to keep the light switch on than to put in the wiring and sockets to begin with.

I'm sure there's a term for this type of bias but it's not the only type that's relevant to these discussions.
later explained that they've found a small number of people behind a large number of bot/troll accounts and the platform will be shutting down IP addresses of “known bad actors.”

'We took down a bot network everyone' is about a quarterly occurrence on large social media platforms, often following a period of poor PR outcomes. I'm still seeing lots of comment spam that shouldn't even exist considering how cheap it is to roughly calculate the Hamming distance. Like if someone tweeting the same comment to happening threads every 15-20 seconds, and the platform is still relying on manual reports to detect this, something is terribly wrong. To be clear, this problem predates Musk's ownership.
There is an xkcd comic about this (of course):

#810 Constructive: https://xkcd.com/810/
No thank you.

That would be a dystopian nightmare.
Damn you're right, I said it both ways around -- fixed
The success of Carmax has long been that they are just better on the buy side than anyone else. They are just a large used car dealer with excellent auction buying strategy. It makes sense to buy from Carmax but it doesn't make a ton of sense to sell there. You know they are trying to squeeze you on that side of the deal.

Carmax never loses money. Carvana has never earned a profit. It's sort of a big difference!
Yeah, that was the proverbial straw, but it's always been pretty clear that Musk is sketchy, and a con man.

But I do refer to Musk as "pedo guy" rather than by name most of the time.
> The Fed can only usefully affect the demand side.

The Fed's job is to control inflation. If supply decreases, the Fed has to see to it that demand does too.
To be clear it has serious downsides too, and is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
Assuming rational actors I can't see any reason to evade audits for years, even after litigation, unless the result of the audit would be bad.
While slowly turning the country into Bangladesh. Fantastic.
I don't hate that as a concept. Even if it's never implemented by HN, I don't see why it can't be done by individual users with a web extension.
My tip, move somewhere where the heat is dry in summer. Get a house with good AC and upp on a slope to avoid rain bombs and flash flooding.

Fires, floods and extreme storms are one thing, but wet bulb temperature events are what really terrify me.
The GitHub repo: https://github.com/collin-burns/discovering_latent_knowledge
I didn’t know what a Baja California was until I moved to California. Seems like an honest mistake. Would have been helpful if they said “en route to San diego” afterwards
A Twitter bot that lists the latest talks and podcasts of startup legends
There was no place where I could keep track of all the latest videos and podcasts of my favorite startup folks and so I thought of creating a twitter bot that does that. All feedback is welcome.

Current people whose videos and podcasts that will be posted on the channel are as follows:
Elon Musk, Vitalik Buterin, Naval Ravikant, Paul Graham, Sam Altman, Marc Andreessen, Brian Armstrong, Chris Dixon, Balaji Srinivasan, Reid Hoffman, Ben Horowitz, Vinod Khosla, Mark Zuckerberg, Brian Chesky, Patrick Collison, Keith Rabois, Peter Thiel, Li Jin, Michael Seibel, Elad Gil, Paul Buchheit, Tony Xu, Avichal Garg, David Sacks, Vance Spencer, Jason Calicanis, David Friedberg, Palmer Luckey, Garry Tan, Suhail Doshi
Agreed. I am very bullish on this topic but the hype is fucking tedious, and much of it is lacking in quality. I make exceptions for people like goodside who are seriously exploring the technology and sharing their results. I play with GPT and image generators almost daily and am hugely enjoying it, but I don't think it's right to clutter up HN with every 5-minute wonder that I stumble across.
I'm not an US citizen. I can't call out US politicians on anything because I don't have a vote.
I think the issue is that ChatGPT can already generate better responses than I personally can. Like, a lot of the time I'll have an interesting perspective that I just can't be bothered articulating, whereas ChatGPT will formulate that for me.
As a language designer building a platform, the introduction, organization, and writing are inspiring me how to shape my book.
"Seems fast enough to me," when something is clearly slow.

So instead we're just not going to optimize anything, and every tool just gets slower and slower and slower.
The article seems to point to meetings being more frequent, shorter, and smaller as the basis for employees being more engaged. I just think meetings have gotten better. As far as employees being more engaged, I'm not so sure it's changed.
NIF will suck research dollars from programs more likely become powerplant platforms.

Click-bait wins. Not that it really matters, it will always be 30 years away.
Hold my Cristal
It is unworkable for Apple.

They are not going to be interested in offering something that is confusing for the majority of the people using the product.

If you want a dual-boot system buy a Mac.
So is the comment I was replying to.
Tracking of effects would be a big one; compare the number of sandbox escapes in Java to JavaScript to WebAssembly. It's much easier to secure a language without effects, and then slowly add the effects you can sandbox or control than to start with a large effectful language and try and slice bits of it off.
Same here. I don't need some silly scientific study to tell me what is best for my eyes. It is light mode, all the way.

It's ridiculous to think that all our eyes are the same, and that some study can determine what is best for everyone.

And it's not that I've only used light modes and don't know any better. Our eyes and preferences change over time.

I grew up on what might be called "light modes": Teletype paper with black print on yellowish paper, and then punch cards and 11x13 fanfold paper with the white and green alternating stripes.

Later I spent many years using "glass teletypes" and the IBM Monochrome Display, both with green-on-nothing. I guess you would call that a dark mode.

When I started using Windows in the mid-1980s, I adapted to "light mode", but I had to turn the background down to a medium gray because even on a high end CRT display of the day, the flicker was so awful and it was less noticeable with a subdued background.

Then high-quality LCD displays came along and the flicker went away. Around the same time, my eyes were changing. I developed astigmatism, and even with good single vision prescription lenses (a must!) I found that text was much easier to read in a light mode. Perhaps for the same reason that I now have more trouble driving at night than I used to.

There is one bit of science to this: the light background causes your eyes' irises to stop down, and just as with a camera lens, this can result in a sharper image than a wide open aperture.

But again, my eyes are not your eyes, and I'm not disputing your preference for a dark mode.

I will say that one key to using a light mode successfully is to turn the brightness down. And maybe turn your room lighting up a bit. Someone else in the thread mentioned this, but a white background on your screen should be about the same brightness as a white sheet of paper in the same lighting conditions.
Mis-handling public communications about releases of significance.

Mis-handling of public communications on significant outages.
Binance is another fraudulent crypto company like any other in that space.
Ok let me be more explicit. This part

$1,000,000^(1/3) = $100,000^(1/3)(1 + r)

This simplifies to:

$100 = (1 + r)

makes absolutely no sense. The LHS should be not only unitless, but equal to the cube root of 10.
"x:=(y|2); y:=(7|8); (x|y)"

translates (roughly) to:

(x|y) is a cartesian product--the set of all ordered pairs (X,Y) such that X is in x and Y is in Y, in order.

x has 2 elements: X=y and X=2.

y has 2 elements: Y=7 and Y=8.

So the set of all ordered pairs is (X=Y, Y=7), (X=Y, Y=8), (X=2, Y=7), (X=2,Y=8).

Since X=Y in the first two pairs, replace it with the value of Y from that pair: (X=7,Y=7), (X=8,Y=8).
I'm guessing it will have a blacklist like an ad blocker.
Even dealers don't exactly do a deep inspection or they weren't last summer. Even with some very visible problems the trade-in was more than I expected. (And in the same neighborhood as Carmax.)
Most likely. They could add leap minutes, hours, or days instead. But they'll probably set UTC as a constant offset from TAI, and let the few uses that care about accurate solar time use UT1.
Pake – An Electron Alternative in Rust
Maybe one day we will use an AI to generate the legalese, and also use an AI to convert it back into a concise, readable form.
> 1. If you consider the loss of a phone number to be a more likely event than a forgotten password (non-obvious example - if you have no extra money to keep the phone number working).

That's silly. If you lost your phone number, why would you attempt to log into a service and have it text or call your lost phone number? The provider in question here (along with many others), Google, provides backup codes for this situation. Besides, if you are more likely to constantly lose phone numbers, it's best not to use those for authentication/authorization.

> 2. If some powerful contractors can capture the data coming to your phone.

That doesn't matter to 2-factor. That "powerful contractor" would be in possession of a time-bound pin that can only be used by the device and account that had just had the credentials entered. It is useless to anyone else.

> 3. Also, if there is some kind of banhammer (Google is famous for banning for no reason) in the "2-factor" and no banhammer in the 1-factor (Bitcoin has no third-parties who might steal or freeze your funds), then your chance of encountering a banhammer in your face is infinitely greater in the first case.

This also doesn't apply. Google provides backup codes that can be used in such a case. As do digital ocean and others...

> More than 1 factor creates more problems than usefullness tbh if you are enough responsible for never lose your credentials.

Except that isn't true. I noticed that you placed 2-factor in quotes, showing that you likely do not understand 2-factor is formed from any two out of the three possible security factors. There is also 1.5 factor authentication, which is acceptable to put in quotes, since it is pseudo-2factor.

What you know. What you have. What you are.

> (Bitcoin has no third-parties who might steal or freeze your funds)

I'm not sure your comment was serious... Bitcoin and the entire crypto ecosystem are full of third-parties who steal or freeze funds.
Low interest rates created a preference for subscription models over up-front sales. It may have felt like the transition to cloud software and subscription pricing was due to technology shifts or mobile phones, but it was probably driven by interest rates.

If higher interest rates stay around for the long term, it's quite possible that tech going forward will be a little more like the '90s: An up-front sticker price, plus an extra charge for support.
Ad funding (as a continuous revenue stream) may also get somewhat less powerful, but will still be a big deal.
Ask HN: Can anyone recall what the “funny AI” was?
A year or so back the state of the art allowed you to give prompts and it would write the funniest and most ridiculous stories that tended to be either drop dead funny or would veer suddenly into disturbing violence.

Is that AI still around, or has it lost its sense of humor?

ChatGPT doesn't seem very funny.
> the latest results are the most positive they’ve been in years

Emphasis mine. It doesn’t say anything about the trend. For all we know a whole batch of people giving a 0 star rating just left, and therefore this year is positive.

Anyway, I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but you need more information to make a judgement.
The fraudulent "study" where the authors pretended to get super lurid papers accepted into high-impact journals but actually got much more boring papers into coin-operated journals?

What's so weird about this is, you can look at some of the higher-impact journals they submitted to and see ridiculous-seeming papers. I don't know if they are ridiculous, any more than I know how to read a high-end economics paper, but they sure seem that way. Like, their original premise that journals will accept silly-seeming papers seems obvious.

But then they had to go lie about it? How weak is that?
If you think Binance is gonna fail, it would mean whole crypto market cap is going a lot lower.

I wouldn’t count on any exchange to be safe. Especially ones doing cross-asset margin loans.
I think the message was claiming something else, specifically that each classification was given a score of how confident the model was in the answer and the answers were given 99.9%+ in those cases.

See the app: https://huggingface.co/openai-detector/ - it gives a response as % chance it's genetic or chat bot.
>For decades its defence has been underpinned by America—leaving it in a supporting role even as war breaks out on its own borders. Economically it has piggybacked on innovation from elsewhere, keeping up with rivals, not forging ahead.

Blistering
I can't see how this was ever going to work forever given card processing, and the inevitable discrepancy between receipts in account demonstrated from cards, the card feed to the tax authorities, and the declared income. It was always going to come undone.

Or, is there some other side to this, such as a large cash input which permitted them to "wash" money into the system so they diverted things somehow?
Don't disagree with the sentiment that selling physical products is a lot more intensive than a SaaS app, but to this point, "people here report both carmax and carvana having severe business issues" is definitely due to the whiplash in the used car business due to COVID. That is, both new and used car prices skyrocketed due to supply chain issues, so CarMax and Carvana had to pay a ton for their inventory. Now car prices are "normalizing", so both of these companies have high priced inventory that they now need to sell in a low(er) priced market.
Thanks for the reminder. UCC recently introduced Article 12 which covers digital assets like CBDC and cryptocurrency via the category of CER (controllable electronic records). Article 12 says that custody/control of a private key plays a prominent role in seniority of claims against digital assets, including scenarios involving the purchase of possibly-stolen digital assets.

https://www.clearygottlieb.com//news-and-insights/publicatio...

> Article 12 – dealing directly with the acquisition and disposition of interests (including security interests) in “controllable electronic records,” which would include Bitcoin, Ether, and a variety of other digital assets. Under Article 12 and associated amendments to Article 9, a party may perfect a security interest in certain controllable electronic records by obtaining “control” of such records. In addition, Article 12 confers an attribute of negotiability on controllable electronic records – a good faith purchaser for value who obtains control (a “qualifying purchaser”) takes its interest free of conflicting property claims.
You wrote a diatribe that speaks to something that no one said or even implied.

Where did I even imply that I need a $5000 monitor to write code? I honestly don't buy that my comment gave you the impression that, if I'm not sitting in front of an XDR, I just what? Cross my arms and refuse to code?

My point is that the XDR was a good value for me. I wanted a screen with extremely high text clarity, there weren't many options in it's league, so I bought it once and enjoyed it almost every single day afterwards. People spend $5,000 in ways a hell of a lot worse than "tool that I use my entire workday"...

-

Honestly this feels like a strawman argument being used to buttress a not-very-strong argument against a company which, again, has produced multiple items that were easily the best value in mobile computing at launch.

The iPhone SE 3rd Gen is faster than unreleased phones and costs $425. Sure you can hop on Amazon and get a $100 phone that's going to stop getting security updates before you can sneeze, but if your goal is phone that will keep being updated, with great battery life, and one of the largest markets for replacement parts, it's an incredible value.

Apple has just killed it with vertical integration. Their margins on that iPhone SE are probably insane, yet as a user you're still getting something faster than $1000 competitors that will be longer-lived to boot.

Trying to wave their margins as proof they're just screwing everyone over just shows a complete lack of understanding for how their competitors operate.
Jumps / jitter while scrolling on Google Pixel 7 series
> If we reach the point where the humans simply can't do better, well, then it won't matter.

I disagree with this. The exact same comment written by a human is more valuable than one written by a bot.

For example imagine I relate something that actually happened to me vs a bot making up a story. Byte for byte identical stories. They could be realistic, and have several good lessons baked in. Yet one is more valuable, because it is true.
From the Bill Text, services must include:

> (E) Historical versions of the terms of service and change logs.

This alone is a big improvement.

https://trahan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/tldr_act.pdf

Edit: adds link
i’ve seen so many examples of this over the past few weeks. just thinking about how many people will just eat what it feeds them borders on terrifying.

in so many instances, it’s just wrong but continues on so confidently.

one of the things i find most interesting is that it has no idea when it’s wrong so it just keeps going. we already have a fairly significant growing problem of people who refuse to admit (even to themselves) what they don’t know, and now this will just exacerbate the problem.

it’s like the worst of debateBro culture has just been automated.
That seems right. “Processes” (which includes LinkedIn and Office) and “intelligent cloud” are the largest part of their operating income.[1] “More personal computing” (which includes Windows) was less than a third, only 27%, of their total last year:

(In millions, except percentages) 2021 2020 Percentage Change
Processes $ 24,351 $ 18,724 30%
Intelligent Cloud 26,126 18,324 43%
More Personal Computing 19,439 15,911 22%
Total $ 69,916 $ 52,959 32%

VS Code, GitHub, LinkedIn, and their pervasive telemetry are definitely part of a broader strategy.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar21/index.html
Perhaps best we grew out of the wing walking phase...
Charities aren't necessarily "charitable" - they can be political and affect businesses. And in the dodgiest situations, they can be something you financially benefit from.

Obviously the latter leans towards tax evasion, but that's exactly the point - stock buybacks aren't necessarily tax evasion but they can certainly assist in it.
I don't think there's any need to apologize, I just wanted to highlight the source.
Nevertheless we can easily point to the useful practical inventions of physics, chemistry, biology etc. So whether they are based on non-falsifiable assumptions is kind of an abstract philosophical point. And that is an interesting discussion but it does not follow that in the real world that hard sciences and social sciences are on equal footing.
Just one car auction company (a subsidiary of Cox) controls 80-90% of the market. If a dealer avoids junk, ungraded cars, then the quality is very standardized. As a result of a completely centralized pseudo-monopoly, actual acquisition cost is set to an extreme degree (car auction price ranges are so tight that top and bottom bids are usually within a hundred dollars of each other from very cheap to very expensive vehicles). In turn, this means that local pricing is going to be based on other stuff like time on lot (more time = more payments and interest), lot space cost, sales cost, etc)

Places like Carmax buy a car, mark it up $2k, and sell it making most of their money on financing and warranty/service stuff. They mark vehicles down something like $500 each month for two months then put it right back on the auction if it doesn't sell (so you'll generally get better deals from vehicles that have been on-lot a while). This is why they refuse to negotiate price.

You may get a slightly better price than the dealership, but not by much when you consider every single factor.

If you want the best possible deal, know the car you're looking for and offer a fixed finder's fee to a mom and pop used dealership to buy it for you. A lot of these smaller dealers will give you a good, fixed rate because it's guaranteed money to them without that normal overhead. It may not be strictly allowed (due to NDAs and such), but some may even allow you to help pick out the vehicle to bid on.
Pretty sure we'll just be able to ask ChatGPT how to build a fusion reactor. Let's get to work!!
Just set up your own charity that pays for your charity-related travel - it's not your fault that the charity focuses on work in a region where you happen to have a summer home. ;- )