skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Whitelists/allowlists are tricky, because they create a bias towards existing, larger players. If you're creating some new gadget, you now have to convince the browser makers to allow it through. And the browser makers need to come up with some way to have a level of confidence that requesters are not just trojan horse manufacturers. Or so lax on security that a rogue website can use your USB connection to reprogram the device's firmware to emulate an ethernet device that will MitM your network.

You can let the user accept new entries, but then you're back having to give random nontechnical people enough context and information to make the correct choice when a random website causes the permission dialog to appear. Empirically, that doesn't go too well.
Great guests and great interviews. Thanks Adam.
These are tools. Don't think of them as replacements, they aren't. But as tools that will help us be creative. As smart as these apps seem, they will still need a human to decide where and how to use them. They won't replace us but we need to adapt to a new reality.
OK, so your argument here is "it doesn't matter because the art being replaced by AI is cheap and/or mass-produced"? What happens once the quality of the network-generated art goes up and it's able to displace more expensive works? What is the basis for your argument that this is "less than 1%"?
I sometimes fear I shouldn’t play driving games too much, so that I don’t get desensitised against those intrusive thoughts I sometimes get on the road. I wonder how irrational that actually is, because it feels like pretty much the same thing as your idea. I mean it doesn’t seem far fetched that a very realistic VR driving simulation with subtly “easier” physics might make you a worse driver in reality. More closely related to the fear of heights, we also jump from greater heights in video games than we would in real life, and much more frequently. I practically never have a reason to jump down from anywhere, so I could imagine making some wrong estimations when, after years of doing it in VR, I’m somehow faced with a real-life situation.
Looks like a great product but you're using Facebook Remarketing and Google Ads. That makes me not want to use an app with potentially very personal information. Let's say I save 100s of articles about a specific health problem. Having any of that info going to Meta scares me.
I'm doubtful - There's a pretty big difference between writing a basic function and even a small program, and that's all I've seen out of these kinds of AIs thus far, and it still gets those wrong regularly because it doesn't really understand what it's doing - just mixing and matching its training set.

Roads are extremely regular, as things go, and as soon as you are off the beaten path with those AIs start having trouble too.

It seems that in general that the long tail will be problematic for a while yet.
> [the critics of brute force] said that ``brute force" search may have won this time, but it was not a general strategy, and anyway it was not how people played chess.

No expert in AI or chess, but I assume that this observation is wrong. Chess players do indeed construct moves based on a search of an interior mental library... a sort of pattern recognition. Any chess players here agree/disagree?

As an artist who is amazed at some of the AI art coming out, I can tell you that this is how painters make their paintings. AI is just emulating this. Of course there are differences: AI is not aware of culture, society, new technologies etc. etc. It is also in a closed loop of reference.

My colleagues and I are now envisioning a future where AI image rule the roost, but is calling upon the same 'bucket' of human-made existing art. Eventually AI will start using other AI art as reference, and will dissolve into a sort of 'Lorem ipsum' state: an impression of sense without sense. Indeed, it might be argued that to a degree this has already happened.
Whoa that's amazing.
This looks really great (I'm using the iOS app on an iPad).

I like reviewing long HN threads and would love to save them to read later. However, when I go to a saved thread in Readwise, it only renders the root comment (and none of the replies). I can't find a way to escape the styled view to get to the original. Am I perhaps just missing something or if not, consider it a suggestion!
Is the company public or organization give charitable stats? If so that puts a different spin on things.

If you don’t want any strings, then don’t ask for a handout from the taxpayers.
I quiz ChatGPT about math
It sounds like TikTok has the passive viewer aspect of TV, but with the always-on feedback loop of an app and a much wider library of content that is easier to create (no need for a studio and a channel willing to broadcast).
I'm not sure I would describe them as "barely-working". Have you used any of them lately? They work very well in my experience.

The improvement I think is you can jump to a different instance, and being all your followers and following with you. Whereas if you're the subject of an arbitrary decision by the Twitter overlord, all you can really do is post about it online and try to stir up enough bad PR for the company that they reverse their decision.
Nesting is a solution in search of a problem. Combining classes has worked fantastically for me over the last 15 years.
A brewer updating an ancient French beer for modern drinkers
Most of the suggestions in the article seem like sane things that most projects out there should have (not saying that the ones I have to help out with always do, but rather that I wish people cared enough about those), otherwise you're shipping what's essentially a black box, with relatively little insight into how well it works (or why it suddenly doesn't).

If you make the right technology choices, most of those should also be pretty doable (not necessarily easy, but not overwhelmingly hard):

- enable some basic healthchecks through configuration value in Spring or whatever you're using
- then do curl requests against that (or even the HEALTHCHECK command with containers)
- have something standardized take care of application lifecycle (like systemd services or once again containers)
- add some instrumentation along the way with something like Sentry or Apache Skywalking
- integrate with OpenAPI through whatever framework you use (so you don't have to write everything manually, but can use codegen)
- don't be lazy and write tests for your code, at least the parts that are easy to test (e.g. business logic, not the low level JSON serialization)
- hopefully have a few Markdown files that describe your service

Of course, those aren't strictly necessary for things to run (hence a lot might be called day 2 concerns), which many will use as an excuse not to care about it, as long as they can get something shipped and it seems to work now. I've seen that more often than I'd like, given that I'm sometimes the person who gets called in to fix the eventual issues.

An excellent group of suggestions for developing applications in ways that can limit headaches is the 12 Factor App site, which can help you avoid some issues ahead of time (it covers configuration, ports, logs and other concerns): https://12factor.net/

Ideally, everyone who has the applicable skills or knowledge would collaborate and work together towards having their software both work now and also keep working, with insights into potential problems ahead of time. And if your technology stacks are sufficiently boring, there's no reason why a lot of that knowledge couldn't be encapsulated into a few concise Wiki pages, Markdown files, code snippets or project templates - so anyone who needs to ship a new service in your org can grab one of those and get up and running quickly and properly.
How many layers of soft links does it take before they can't detect you? If you linked to a Bloomberg article that linked to an elonjet, would that run afoul?
Such a creative application of SD to spectrograms!

...now do stock charts
I think the question that's not answered clearly is: why can Sass parse it, but browsers can't?

It says: "If they see a sequence like element:pseudo, they’ll parse the entire style rule as if it were a property: value declaration.", but why can't the parser be modified to work like Sass parser?

Maybe it's obvious for someone who has deep parser knowledge, but for someone who only has a superficial knowledge, this is not clear. If Sass can transform .sass into .css, what's stopping Chrome from embedding the full sass software and preprocessing all css files with it, *if really wanted too*? While not ideal for obvious reasons, what I mean is: it seems to definitely be possible to do. Does this all just boil down to "we don't want to have the work of rewritting the CSS parser"?
> someone who knows all the details about every piece of technology they use

> "how it works" in quotes

Well, see, I can reason about SQL semantics via knowledge of B-trees, and I can understand how there's a time vs space tradeoff made in SQL implementations around indexing - add indexes to save time, but they write to disk.

Didgets... I don't even know what it is. Do I query it with SQL? Does it only work from your UI DB browser? I could watch videos to find out but I find you a bit combative, so my desire to bridge the gap from my end is pretty low atm
Overseas Chinese is a thing
Boy do they need the ad revenue.
Right, thanks for the clarification!
Funkwhale – listen and share music and audio within a decentralised open network
I'm a bit confused about the constant mention of option 3 in this article, because it seems to match none of the actual options from the original poll. The original poll offered three options:

Option 1: @nest. Requires either starting a nested selector with &, or prefixing it with @nest if the & should not be at the start.

Option 2: @nest restricted. Always requires starting with @nest.

Option 3: Additional brackets to group nested selectors.

The "option 3" mentioned in this article matches none of those. It's like option 3 without the defining characteristic of the brackets, or option 1 without the required nesting indicator (but now with the restriction that the selector needs to start with a symbol).

None of these options are particularly great. The new "option 3" looks cleanest, but the symbol requirement is going to trip people up.
I think this bitter lesson needs to be taken for a several grains of salt.

Number one, the progress in a particular AI field tends to go, at first, from custom to more general algorithms, exactly as Professor Richard Sutton described. However, there is a second part to this progress, where, once we "understood" (which we never really do) the new level of general algorithms (say Transformers in NLP), we begin to put back in the all the things we learned before (say, from Linguistics experience, we put the bias towards compositionality and corresponding tree structures back into the Transformers).

Number two, the computationally scalable algorithms always win in the environments where you have unlimited access to the computation and the data, i.e. if you working for Google, Facebook, Alibaba, etc... In other companies, you have limited computational budget and limited data. You could end up putting back-in a lot of sophisticated inductive biases back into your DL algorithms.
A controversial decision to cut the value of power that homes export to the grid by up to 75% could kneecap the nation’s biggest rooftop-solar market, critics say.
You got it. "What an a-hole" only scores even more points.
>The biggest lesson that can be read from 70 years of AI research is that general methods that leverage computation are ultimately the most effective, and by a large margin. The ultimate reason for this is Moore's law, or rather its generalization of continued exponentially falling cost per unit of computation.

That doesn't sound right.

If there's an "ultimate reason" for computation AI success, is that the problem, of thought, signal processing, pattern matching etc, is not "rational" or based on semantic manipulation, but computational in its nature/substrate in humans too.

Computation being increasingly cheaper wouldn't guarantee a success in AI, if those problems weren't inherently solvable by mere throwing computation at them.

That is, it's not like we solve it with a brute force over a "proper semantic" approach because brute force got cheaper. It's more like the proper approach is more like our computation one, than a semantic one, and we wrongly assumed that this is not the case in the 70s and 80s, because we only considered the higher levels of conscious/semantic processing in our brains, and not the deep computational processing underneath them.

>They said that ``brute force" search may have won this time, but it was not a general strategy, and anyway it was not how people played chess.

I'd think that most chess playing in humans happens at an uncoscious level, after the player has "trained" their brain, than actual conscious semantic arguing about the next move. The conscious manipulation comes only after huge swaths of moves have been pruned through pattern matching/computation going on in the background.
Yeah, good point.

Now I'm wondering whether all this customer-hostile activity on the part of grocery stores actually ends up being net negative for the economy. It may be a negative-sum action they're taking, in purely easy-to-quantify economic terms, without even putting a value on wasting shoppers' time or whatever extra stress or irritation that causes. A few extra flu cases per week per store can cause a lot of harm in lost productivity and medical bills, and then, as you point out, there's the way they push junk food.
If anyone’s curious that isn’t actually true. Piglet is derived from pig by assigning the suffix of -let to imply it’s smaller.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/piglet
Whole rant... responding to the wrong comment.

Anyways. Could we re-create our programming tools? Eventually. So long as we have a computer and a whole lot of time. Bootstrapping a programming language to create an operating system's going to be a real bear though.

Now then, making those tools efficient (namely optimizing compilers) and safe is going to take a whole lot of time and brainpower.
I would argue compilers have a perfect “understanding” as the input:output is generally 1:1. One input almost always produces the same output. It’s just that the input is extremely limited by a set of predefined rules.

The same can’t be said about code generators like this that are producing millions of possibilites and using heuristics to guess which program will have the most success.
Not an idiom, it was an alternative to the "poke" https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/throw-a-shee...
Ah yes, entitlement all the way down. The American complains that only Americans should be hired despite same skill for cheaper elsewhere. After restricting to Americans, the SF dev complains the company hired a Denver dev who is cheaper for the same skill. Then in Denver, the dev complains they hired from Omaha. Screw the guy from Omaha!

Markets are global especially on the internet. If Facebook and Twitter don't compete on a global scale, TikTok will eat the lunch you believe you are entitled to.

The entire article discusses that immigration is needed and American's don't want those jobs. I don't need a team of the most skilled and experienced PhDs. A big portion of my team are just reliable people who can keep the lights on.
He's nothing but a petty tyrant. History teaches us what happens to tyrants.
Many of the artists I know personally are blue collar workers. One is a house painter, one an airport luggage handler, one works in a restaurant (which is perhaps working class rather than blue collar per se).

Honestly, I think “learn to code” is mostly used sarcastically?
There aren't any major US holidays in the first few months of the year (which is only 2 weeks away)
> Does having [...] Chichvarkin [...] in London hurt anyone?

Dirty bad evil russian money was invested into wine, driving up prices?
Great points. My ideal choice would be having both: visualization & rules as code. :-)

* Visualization gives a better overview.
* Rules as code allows more fine-tuning. E.g. explicitly allowing those few exceptions you mentioned in point 3.

To your points:
1. I absolutely agree. No dependency to Stripe also means no dependency to any of Stripe's subpackages. (The article should probably emphasize this more.)
2. This is a good point. The rules generated for Sourcery only check `import` and `from ... import` statements. Runtime imports are (for now) out of scope.
Patients Are Being Left High and Dry When Medical Implant Makers Implode
Minimal GIF Decoder
The UK does 1, 4 and 5.

Even as an adult, when I went to my doctor about haemorrhoids, she brought a nurse in the room for the examination.
And... let's see what's in store for Elon. He's at least seems to be a bit smarter to start with, but he's like the biggest glue manufacturer on earth beginning to get high on his own supply.
They could’ve eased off on the supergraph PR message just this once, but otherwise definitely one of the better ones I’ve read.
I don't know. Chess is aka "solved"(when compared to human performance) yet chess is still fun. Music, Art, Social interactions, and Sports will all be here long after the machines have taken the mundane tasks.
I think the reason this debate continues to rage on is that all of the options are worse than what is currently available with pre-processors.

If CSS can’t match or improve on the obvious syntax used by sass then they should not implement it.

All of these options are confusing. Nesting is not a requirement for CSS. Just let it go and if you want nesting use sass.
Yes. And even if it's not certain, it has a much greater chance of success than trying to impose worldwide consumption limits.
I guess there are no nightclubs at McMurdo. Because, fire code@!
The most credible theory at this point seems to be that it was indeed a CIA operation and that George Bush Sr. ran the field ops on it. Too many pieces of evidence don't make any sense if he wasn't involved in the planning and cleanup portion.

Sounds crazy reading the above, but as skeptical as I've been over the years of every theory, this is the closest to the truth based on the evidence that we have.
:) it has been a long slog, but I'm glad that it's getting a more positive reception now, and I really appreciate your well wishes
No. Most artists by quantity don't do live performances. And live performances are a lot of work for not a lot of money, unless you're Taylor Swift or one of her peers. Ticket sales end up getting split about 20 different ways.

For example, Miracle of Sound doesn't do live performances, because his music is all electronic and created by one person.

Plus, I can take my music and do "live" performances of it too. I can also hire folks (say, DJ's) to do these "live" performances on my behalf.
If you're thinking of trying Mastodon, I would recommend joining an interest-specific or locality-specific server rather than one of the general purpose servers, because the local community is likely to be stronger and more engaged. You can always jump ship later if you find it's not your thing

Some examples:

- https://fosstodon.org for FOSS
- https://infosec.exchange for infosec
- https://sfba.social for the bay area

There's a map of locality-specific instances here: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/mastodon-near-me_828094
> The lipid nanoparticle itself is basically a cell wall and it fuses with your cell wall and deploys its payload.

The LNPs are most certainly active in the quantities used:

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20221109/Empty-lipid-nanop...

(Also, you don’t have cell walls.)

> This is exactly what we want to see happen, and you're going to get CD8+ T-cells from the virus as well (and if you don't, then you're going to get very extremely ill).

No. What you want to see is protection from the virus, hopefully prevention of infection entirely, hopefully long lasting, hopefully in a form that the virus can’t easily evolve its way out of. And you want this with as little in the way of side effects as practical.

You might think this would happen with an appropriate antibody response or an appropriate CD8+ response or some combination or something else. That’s a hypothesis that may or may not be correct.

But saying that you want your T cells attacking your muscle cells after a vaccine seems absurd. Maybe you can tolerate that (as people apparently can), but I can’t imagine it’s desirable. As far as I can tell, the actual desired means to get CD8+ T cells is for antigen-presenting cells to present pieces of the protein in question attached to MHC1 on their surface, along with the appropriate signals to nearby T cells to encourage them to develop into the right kind of T cell. Your muscle cells are not those antigen presenting cells!

> And at this point we do have a really massive amount of data on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines … Other vaccines perform worse.

I’m a fan of Covid vaccines too, but this feels like drinking the Kool-Aid. The chickenpox vaccine is effective. The measles vaccine is effective. The tetanus vaccine is pretty effective.

The current crop of monovalent Covid mRNA were highly effective from a week or so after the second dose out to quite a few months against variants closely enough related to the original. [0] Otherwise they are, frankly, far from highly effective. The bivalent vaccines, as far as I can tell, look decent in terms of immunogenicity, but haven’t really been studied well for efficacy against actual infection.

So maybe these mRNA vaccines achieve a form of minimalism, and maybe they’re better than other Covid vaccines, but on the scale of vaccines overall, they’re not great.

[0] Compare to the chickenpox vaccine. In actual randomized trials, they were nearly completely effective even in patients exposed to chickenpox a few days before vaccination. The two-dose series appears to protect recipients for life, or at least decades, strongly enough that epidemic chickenpox is gone in the US. And that continues to work despite chickenpox surely being reintroduced by visitors from abroad on a regular basis and from older infectious shingles patients. That is an effective vaccine.
My goto B&W film is Arista Edu 200 in 100’ rolls because it is cheap.

Movie moguls aside, projecting 35mm movie film at home is impractical because there never was much of a consumer market for projectors or cameras because 35mm movies are at an industrial scale. The projectors are big loud bright and hot.

16mm film would be about the limit for a hobbyist, and it is good enough for a feature film (but not a studio blockbuster). It’s about 1/4 the size of 35mm.

Also worth knowing that 35mm movie film requires bespoke processing due to the remjet layer to prevent halation and static charge buildup. And processing 16mm movie film is not cheap.
Wow - that reply is prophetic.

> Uh oh — ban in 3... 2... :grimace:
Solving for Blockchain's Critical Security Flaw
> Sure, but how much of the total work time in software development is writing relatively straightforward, boilerplate type code that could reasonably be copied from the top answer from stackoverflow with variable names changed?

It may be a significant chunk of the butt-in-seat-time under our archaic 40hour/week paradigm, but it's not a significant chunk of the programmer's actual mental effort. You're not going to be able to get people to work 5x more intensely by automating the boring stuff, that was never the limiting factor.
Pattern recognition and brute force search are not the same thing. Deep Blue was literally trying every possible move many moves deep, with some heuristics to avoid wasting time on obviously bad options. Humans definitely don't do that.