skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I understand what you mean about looking beyond job sites. One problem with that though is that I'm not interested in extremely small startups, because I think they would be a terrible fit for me, so by the time an employer is large enough to be in my target market, people will have heard of them.

Another angle is looking for jobs at smaller employers in industries outside of tech. With that though, you have to first identify all these little companies, then dig down to their jobs page, and then maybe you find the jobs aren't remote, or don't match your skills, or maybe they don't list any tech jobs because those are all hired through an external recruiter. This is why job sites exist. I'm not sure how to look for these jobs specifically.

Also, if you like, see my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34111780 regarding my situation.
Why? I do that in CMake.

God awful ugly abomination of a language, but it does the work, and is almost universally supported.
Always wonder about this. Other than foundation of maths, the function abd calculus view … my wonder is about the data part of the maths. Not the process. Yes one can view matrix as a function but could it be data. One can real number line, complex or integer as data?
I don’t want a better search engine. I want answers. ChatGPT gives better answers.
What do you base this on? Customizable user-tailored ads through natural language would make even more money arguably and Google is uniquely positioned to do it.

Also consider that paying even a dollar a month for a service will result in the addressable market going down orders of magnitude. Apple is pretty much the only company in existence that is able to make people pay so much on luxuries like that.
You can't imagine a version of ChatGPT with ads?
Can you use a foreach loop?
The models are enhancing search
This study's sample size is 1,006 cases.

Houston, we have a problem.
On the contrary, being overly rational is an unatural and harmful state.

"We'll die anyway, so why not just kill myself now" is perfectly rational too.

"I should cheat everybody, including my own parents, spouse, and kids, if it benefits me materially and it's 100% certain I can get away with it", is perfectly rational also.

And there are many more failure modes of rationality-only based function, a lot of which totally hurt the person doing the rational-only thinking - and literature on the matter, both scientific and philosophical.

Complete rationality in all things, all the time, would result in a broken functioning and even mental illness.

That's why emotions were evolutionarily developed. They are a great shortcut/heuristic to prioritize things necessary for functioning/survival without full information. It too has failure modes, but 100% rationality would be as damaging as 100% emotional decision making.

But the thoughts above are about rationality in general.

In this specific case, "Fear of death" as a frequent/constant thought (as opposed to something helpful to avoid an accident, or an ocassional reflection on mortality) is hardly rational.

It amounts to:

"Let's have a dehabilitating -to the point that I have it constantly and need medication- fear of something inevitable, that will impact the functioning and enjoying of my actual life for no productive reason at all, as I'm going to die eventually anyway. In fact it even take me to an early grave, the very thing I want to avoid, due to anxiety induced physiological issues".

Does that sound rational?

It sure isn't by any utilitarian measure of rationality.

Einstein said (or they attributed to him, but it's a good quote anyway) "“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

Well, fearing death day after day, an act that will not change anything about the result, qualifies.
Simulation fail? I'm surprised they didn't know exactly how much power it would draw, that seems to be a standard thing in chip design suites. If a company like Synopsys blew it I'd expect some financial recovery actions.

That said, unprecedented? Pretty much every chip company I know of has made a chip that didn't meet thermals. The Pentium 5 was the poster child for a while of a reaching too far.
Project Harp: The Space Cannon
Out of curiosity, what are your “daily check in” podcasts?
I'm going to say its a 'code red' for informational uses of search, but not other use cases (finding specific things by category, attribute, name).

Asking questions, where you want to get information it's invaluable. You can have a dialogue and 90% of the time get accurate information, then ask follow on questions. Compare that with your average hunting for information over half a dozen disjoint, poorly written blog posts or stack overflow answers.

I've found it a game changer for deepening my knowledge of programming concepts, in a way that random Stackoverflow snippets, and half-answers on crap-sites won't come close to.
Save it to a "read it later" app. Forget all about it. Move on with life. When you need something, search for it. By that time, there will be a hundred other hits saying or doing the same thing. If you really want to remember something, write it down in a giant text file with a date stamp. You'll still forget it, but you'll more likely remember it exists later if you need it.

Next step is to stop spending "a lot of time" looking at HN, Reddit, etc... These are life wasting activities that sap energy and lead to mild, undiagnosed psychosis in most people.
Looking at my own search results, the thing that jumps out to me the most is that my search queries are almost entirely topic based and chatGPT assumes I want to talk to it or give it instructions, which aren't really the same thing.

For example my searches are all shorthand: "terraria switch", "spouse", "vampire's kiss", "a way out", "broomball", "wes anderson".

Sure I could have asked ChatGPT "is terraria available for the nintendo switch?", "what is the definition of the word 'spouse'?", "what is the movie 'vampire's kiss' about?", "when was the game 'a way out' released?", "what is broomball, how does it work, and where is it played?", "what movies has wes anderson made?" -- but that's a whole lot more typing and google had the answers I needed directly in my face (or one click away in the case of broomball) without me even asking the actual question. I'm frequently amazed at Google's ability to know what I need without me telling it much (I don't even bother to type anything correctly anymore since I know it can fix even incomprehensible spelling mistakes).
I had a ride in a Tesla for the first time the other day. Apart from the huge screen in the centre panel, it really did not feel like the luxury car it is portrayed as. Once the other big manufacturers are fully up to speed with production what really is the reason to buy a Tesla?
well put. and you want context, source, and different perspectives and forms of media for queries like "current fighting in bakhmut" or "cost of dental procedure" - the first answer is likely to be unsatisfying in some way. If it is, you're immediate wondering what the source is, and looking to add context by seeking other source. Not something that's going to be (as) easy with chatGPT. Google actually leads you to the source. That's one of the cool things about it. ChatGPT doesn't do that and seemingly never will.
FreshRSS for sync and on my computer, with NetNewsWire on my phone
I havnt purchased a book in 5 or more years now. I still buy dozens a year but they are audiobooks from audible now. I treat it the same way I do Steam for my video games. It is my one stop digital library of goods and if it doesn’t exist there it doesn’t exist and I move on to other options that are.
It's interesting that they talk about the challenge that ChatGPT presents to Google's ad-supported business model, when it would be easy to integrate advertising into a chat-based search/information engine.

Ads could either be alongside the response, or included in the response itself. For example, companies could pay to have their name mentioned (instead of competitors or generic alternatives) in relevant responses.
The situation at LastPass may be worse than they are letting on
It's part of the standard nomenclature, and has its origins in mountaineering - there's a point climbing a mountain where the altitude is thin enough that there's not enough atmospheric oxygen to sustain human life. The idea of an environment at the heights of a webpage that's inimical to "untrusted" life is a good analogy, in my opinion.

And it has the benefit of being dramatic and attention grabby!

*Edited for grammar and clarity
Depends on Boston's quanta. Though it is not possible to know Boston's position at any given moment, Boston's position can indeed be within 2.5m of itself
The tale of major incumbents' completely bungled OS/Platform projects of the 80s and 90s really is one of the great epics of the field.

A short - and playing it a little fast and loose for narrative like a Malcolm Gladwell piece - telling of the circumstances:

Apple failed utterly with Taligent, and Copland, and mismanaged A/UX into the ground, so it's the mid 90s and they're shipping a hyper-extended version of a one-off from 1984 that had to be hacked for even cooperative multitasking, looking around for a platform to jump on to. With IBM's help in two of those cases. They even, reportedly, batted around giving up and becoming a shell on top of NT or Solaris by porting Quickdraw during their flail in the early 90s. Then they bought NeXT, took one more (and it was at least the third after A/UX and the MAE product which was really more of an emulator, but so was Classic) pass at "Let's slap a Mac-like shell and compat layer on top of a UNIX and call it a day" and got successful selling mostly handheld appliances running basically that stack.

IBM failed utterly with their share of Taligent and the A/UX/AIX merger planning, and mismanaged OS/2 into the ground, until IBM, once of "IBM and the Seven Dwarves" dominance, became a midsize player in the PC market they created (more through incumbent effects than technical prowess), until they gave up and sold the businesses to a Chinese clone maker and retreated to high-end niche markets. (Their spun out printer division, the legacy of their once dominant typewriter business, would also later also be bought out by a Chinese cartridge cloner, so it's almost a theme for them.)

DEC dithered on ...literally everything because they didn't understand the world after minicomputers, so all their talent left as they crumbled (which is also a large part of how AMD64 happened, there is an awful lot of Alpha lineage in the K8 design). Eventually their corpse was consumed by a PC cloner, who were themselves consumed by HP.

The UNIX vendors were too busy infighting to get much done, and all the UNIX-brand-UNIX vendors license cost overhead was too high to put up credible consumer offerings anyway, until eventually a hobby project from some kid in Finland ate their entire software business while Intel (possibly accidentally, Itanium is the culmination of a series of failures - 432,860,960 - for them too) ratfucked their long term hardware projects to death.

...And so Microsoft, then famous for 8-bit BAISCs, slowly abandoning their own successful but mutant UNIX offering (Xenix), managing to sell Seattle Computer Products' DOS to IBM after Digital Research/Gary Kidall (CP/M) didn't want to deal with IBM, and the surprising success of their awful DOS shell, ran away with nearly the entire mainstream OS market for decades by gathering everyone competent from the VMS and OS/2 lineages (they put Dave Cutler and Moshe Dunie in charge) and having them write NT. Running mostly on Intel's inescapable accidental success extension-of-an-extension-of-an-extension legacy architecture.

It's a weird field we're in.
Same here, I remember putting so much effort into a course on Riemannian geometry and still not really fully grasping the content on an intuitive level. That was by far the hardest thing I've ever tried to learn.

The only areas in CS that come close to that in terms of difficulty are discrete math/algorithms related ones and the CS chairs that are involved in such research also tend more towards the applied side of those topics. Really theoretical discrete math stuff resides in math departments most of the time.

Still, having also taken some discrete math classes, in terms of difficulty those somewhat paled in comparison to differential geometry/topology/abstract algebra kind of stuff. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be to be doing research in those areas.
Are they at risk as long as they can replicate the competitor quickly? Plenty of companies don't invest in R&D to avoid cannibalizing existing business. Google does the R&D, but just does not deploy it to customers immediately.
There was an investigative article from years ago that I recall said exactly what you're describing, complete with images from the planes demoing the ability to track suspects. Wish I could remember a way to dig that up now.
> destroying the life of thousands of working class chumps

I have little sympathy for anyone who got burnt by playing in the crypto space.
I see. Probably thr main hope is stickyness in a startup that used them that gets growth in such a way that switching clouds is not worth it (client switching from Firebase to Google proper is probably acceptable as long as goodharts law is honoured so it doesn’t appear as a fail to
Google)

There are lots of operators in the “Vercel” club, providing good UX tools for hosting, CICD, databases etc. witch attract indie hackers. Makes me wonder if they will have the same issue.

It grates on me because I would enjoy creating another JAMstack tool for indies, but making a boring thing for some other industry is probably
more profitable. I guess that is the main issue at play. Business is work. Except occasionally when someone is lucky and the passion project does well.
Okay, but search != adtech, so they can produce good software outside of adtech.
If your ability to make money off something is based on a pump-and-dump (or more fittingly, dump-and-pump) scheme, then you are either committing securities fraud or ending up in a lengthy legal battle over securities fraud.
Agreed. When they wrote “missteps”, I figured that there were errors found in the GPU design. Instead, it seems like the design was fine, but had an unexpectedly high power draw. The GPU worked, it just needed more power than they expected.

That doesn’t seem “unprecedented” to me.
Background on this publication: https://newlinesmag.com/argument/friends-in-strange-places/

"A bizarre alliance of anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, creationists and atrocity deniers spans — and blurs — left-right boundaries." There's a reason that nobody's ever heard of it.
> she gets to walk free

That still remains to be seen.
Even those who aren't informed enough to know better than to be taken advantage of?
Yes, the numeric language does numeric things. But these examples of closed form solutions ignore that numbers on computers are not the usual mathematical objects, rather having finite size and precision, and so it is hard to say immediately if these solutions using floating-point arithmetic provide the same precision. Of course the precision can be calculated and improved with analysis, still, but this falls under "it doesn't work but it's fast" territory (unless the limited precision is acceptable; I'd personally keep the result as a float then to expose that to the client of these functions).

I would be remiss not to mention the following story:

There is a story that Ken Iverson, the inventor of APL, was passing a terminal at which a Fortran programmer had just typed:

I = I+1

Ken paused for a moment, muttered “no it doesn’t”, and passed on.
"First to market"

You should know that ChatGPT isn't the "first". It is from OpenAI, who have multiple LLMs. And there are multiple competitors including Google and Facebook.

It is a very expensive market to compete in

Also, Google has already been using their LLM in their search, "in the market"
Astute point. The greatest risk is probably reputational from weird/gamed responses. DeepMind might be a great brand to trial this with.
> Even if Google can easily offer the same , and even superior functionality, it's much harder to cram ads into a chat conversation.

Just have it bias the recommendations, like spammers on Reddit do.
There is this weired thing, that when mudnane things happen, but Apple or Tesla is involved, they are suddenly unorecedented and newsworthy.
This is an arbitrary distinction in the first place. You can absolutely have a relational database that only allows 0 and 1 as valid values and requires you to build integers up yourself using relational techniques. The relational model itself doesn't care what "values" are.

In practice, simple value tuples make things much more convenient, and the edge cases are minimal. You don't have to allow full-fledged composition like nested tables etc.
They're now claiming no commercial paper. I'm not sure if that's more or less suspicious.
Alameda Executive Says She Is 'Truly Sorry' for Her Role in FTX Collapse
Contrary to what many say here, this is a real threat and Google are right to consider to move fast in that area.

There are a few technical improvements needed that can come in the next months where ChatGPT may be tuned to rewrite queries for old-fashioned search engine to get better results. This may solve the problem of giving attribution for its answers, while keeping the AI capabilities.

But where the product threat is that this may show up in bing search pretty quickly.
I hate seeing ads on newspapers I buy online subscriptions for (on their apps)
Calculus is significant more difficult and requires many Times more studying than algebra
are simple factual questions where Google makes money? I don't think so. I'm guessing they mostly make money when you're searching for goods and services.

I doubt Google makes you spend any more money than you were going to spend anyway. Likewise, chatgpt won't make you spend any less. For those times when you want to spend money, Google will continue to serve the purpose of helping you choose which thing to spend it on.
Yeah I was just checking up on it and it's not a legit journal. People can just read through the Journal"s home page and decide for themselves: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR
Not so much "excited" as "interested": it's 30 years old, and just ask yourself how many OSs and CPU architectures and development environments it has been ported across while retaining some degree of continuity.

I realize most folks on HN trend young and are always interested in the latest new hotness, but here's a tool I remember from when I first began using Macs (in the early 90s) and it's still with us and under active development, unlike the overwhelming majority of hobbyist software projects. There are lessons in here.
> Risk-averse to cannibalizing existing revenue

I think this is the big one. The other ones are dangerous, but I don't think they're an existential threat to google.

Not wanting to take a hit to existing revenue, however, is the same impulse that resulted in Kodak sitting on digital photography instead of becoming a pioneer in the field.
Can’t say families with large numbers of children are typically better at writing romance just because they’re having Christianity-approved sex after marriage for the purpose of procreation.

His Tuon/Mat writing was pretty cheesy. Less weird about women than RJ obviously, but in the opposite direction, so it didn’t quite fit.

(And the Thom rescuing Moiraine plot wasn’t good, undercooked and too short. My guess was it was an early beta RJ wrote, but he just kept it when RJ would’ve rewritten it.)
Yep, as I described in another comment I just don't like to exploit that, but it's more of a personal preference. It's cool by me if others choose to.
Perhaps it used a new unproven process, making power dissipation difficult to predict?
The Strategic Fat Stockpile
Reaction: The problem is neither automation per se, nor heavy reliance upon automation. The problem is 666-layers-of-intricately-interlinked-shit automation, which no mere human pilot has any chance in hell of understanding the behavior of, in real time, when it is really critical that he do so.

Idea: Add a few "Robocide" buttons to the cockpit. If pressed, they deliver a figurative bullet to the brains of the autopilot, dropping the plane into a far simpler "full manual flying mode". Pilots regularly train in doing that, and flying the plane when suddenly dropped to manual.
Producing good software is not the problem. Producing a good profitable product that won’t be cancelled is.
Supposedly…
I don’t. There’s more new content of a high quality every day that I just enjoy the flow of the river.
I also have Meade LX200 EMC. Can you shortly tell how you managed to use Optic Track with it? Also how do you solve the focus issue of moving objects? I'd be happy to track and provide information from the the valley area.
I have never read them but I don't have run-ins with moderation because anything an emotionally healthy person would do is legal on HN.
I did not know we now have journals with fancy sounding names for anti-vax community. Some of the top articles:

1) Health versus Disorder, Disease, and Death: Unvaccinated Persons Are Incommensurably Healthier than Vaccinated

2) Playing Russian Roulette with Every COVID-19 Injection: The Deadly Global Game

3) Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them
At this point I believe chat gpt is more sentient than some of the people I work with.
Lib25519: A microlibrary for the X25519 encryption and Ed25519 signature systems
This article might be a bit hyperbolic, but I’m ready for some new challengers to Google, to say nothing of certain other giants. Search has become so compromised between SEO optimization and more and more actual human content stuck behind no-crawl sites that for me it only serves value when I know exactly what I am looking for.

I worry that things like a productized ChatGPT would be quite opaque (what is the foundation of trust for any given answer if it is interpreted from multiple sources). At least Google is clear in attribution, though that is no guarantee or quality. But hopefully that is an exciting challenge to the next generation.
chatGPT is simply a GPT model fine-tuned in an instruction oriented way to align with human-rated helpfulness, truthfulness, and harmlessness as a reward signal. The diagram on the chatGPT blogpost is literally the same diagram in the March 2022 paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.02155.pdf

So it seems like Google could easily replicate this technology, but its difficult to deploy in the real world without brand damage.
In the case of a large company like Google, "immediately" can take years.
I know that 300k is a lot of folks, but isn't that just a fraction of a percent of California's population? Is this an alarming trend or just something that happens to states on occasion?
The lead author is a dentist, using an uncommon (obsolete) technique, with the conclusion that there were funny-looking blobs whose identity is entirely unknown.

Not medicine, definitely not technology. Just a bunch of ducking anti-vaxers.
The problem is that it doesn't work reliably when a fullscreen game that is currently using the screen exclusively for itself suddenly crashes.
Some people don't use a mac so airdrop is not an option.

With Gigabit internet iCloud can be faster than USB 2.0
It's not just about UX. This might be Kodak moment for Google if OpenAI makes a business that makes 5 billion a year and is valued at 100B it's a big win for them. But if google has to cannibalise 50 Billion a year profit cash cow to take a lead in a business that nets them 5 billion instead of 50 that's a big problem.
I can't imagine a ChatGPT based ad product that can compete with Google at the moment. Google search lives in billions of heads rent free. Success will happen niche by niche rather than "beating Google search".