skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It seems like the use case is for folks who might be noobs and in that regard I’d argue this tool is significantly dangerous. The user could accept a command that removes all their files unknowingly as an example.

The commands in the article I saw are fairly long too. I understand we have a cool new shiny toy (GPT) and see it’s potential but it still needs work because chances are if you’re typing “do create a new repository called demo,” you probably already know how to type “mkdir demo && cd demo && git init” in fact GPT may even forget to run the first two commands (dangerous) without more explicit instructions
From a Bayesian perspective, this seems unlikely (https://xkcd.com/1132/).
Unfortunately, I have to take the contrarian view and agree with some of the grayed out (presumably downvoted?) comments here that DDG's search featureset has stagnated and they're solely relying on the narrative of "Big Tech Bad!" to carry their brand and product forward.

"Big Tech Bad!" isn't in of itself an issue and can be a viable marketing message for ad blockers, VPNs, and products in that space. However, I'm afraid the real innovation in search is happening elsewhere; either in the form of traditional search engines (Kagi, you.com) or large language models (ChatGPT, LaMDA etc.)
- USB 4, Series D will be defined, with 3 possible orientations, one each for display, power and data transfer

- Saudi Arabia will release an ethical standards requirement for each of its Western tech company holdings. The exact definition will be confusingly progressive, which will put everyone on guard.

- Google will cancel the Search product, with a press release that expounds beautifully about the future. They claim to be taking it down to bring it back in Q2 2024 powered by a LLM.

- Someone will fork Rust and C and combine them together into something called Crust. This will become wildly popular.

- James Cameron's Avatar 3 will be leaked early by accident, exposing that the movies aren't actually CGI, and all the money has gone to creating a Jurassic Park-style horrible genetic experiment.

- Twitter will have 4 separate CEOs, and end the year as a public non-profit holding.
There are many instances and instance operators to choose from. At least one of the choices may be sufficiently trustworthy for many users (e.g. an instance for their city run by someone in the neighborhood). You could also run your own instance.

These options sound better than trusting a corporation.

> The instance operator can see everything because there's no encryption.

What additionally is an instance operator seeing that isn't already public? Are you referring to direct messages and privacy/blocklist settings? Regardless it's no different than having a corporation see (and mine, or sell) this data.
Good catch, but the paper above that is perhaps almost more apropos: "dynamic implications of learning in a large population coordination game"

Large population coordination, both implicit and explicit, around high leverage alt-coins explains much of this cycle.
Absolutely this. This comment should be required reading for anybody trying to report on that new phenomenom as it goes to the core of the real social network problem and the space of possible solutions.

Its a radical paradigm shift: from adtech to modtech. Building platforms not geared towards user addiction and "engagement" but towards effective moderation and healthy communities.

I said that the fediverse is still immature precisely because standards and tools around moderation are still missing. E.g. the celebrated activitypub protocol, while a key enabler in other ways, knows nothing about it.

Its not a wild goose chase. Frictions and strife and trying to control others are core to the human existence and so are the antidotes. We just need to make sure that our social networks are no worse than the rest of society 8-)
It was! Now we are down to a very small number of default instances for most people. I'm one of the weirdos who doesn't use Gmail (Fastmail ftw), but Google's ad-subsidized email really decimated the competition.
> Year of Linux desktop!

There is always a joker :D
I was able to do it. Try this:

provide a javascript array of size 26 which includes 26 words with each word incrementing the first letter of the word in ascii, starting with the letter A.
I don’t know if I’m weird (well, at least in this specific case), but the very act of picking an instance feels like I’m making a statement in support of that instance. If I say my email is @gmail.com I don’t feel like I’m making a statement because everyone has a gmail email address.

I realise that’s kind of intrinsic to how mastodon works, but asking people to select an instance out of a whole load of them somehow feels like I’m signing up to be part of a cohesive group, which is unappealing to me.

I don’t use any social media because I think they’re unhealthy, but a few people I’ve spoken to have had the same stumbling block with having to pick an instance.
I am happy you found success copying others’ writing but highly doubt that rote copying is what made the difference. It’s more likely that you learned through analysis.

Learning works through synthesis of material, which is the main takeaway from the writing studies you mentioned, however when copying writing no synthesis occurs. Also these studies were recently duplicated and results did not match the original conclusion.
> So one cannot ask questions like 'is the number 7 equal to the trivial group?'

But the whole point is how to keep track of what questions one is evidently allowed to ask - what questions are demonstrably not as ill-posed as "is the number 7 equal to the trivial group". You're saying that set theory doesn't even attempt to do this, so it seems that this is one thing that type theory does a better job of addressing. Mathematicians commonly engage in what are formally abuses of notation, mixing up equivalence classes and their representatives, or neglecting distinctions between sets that are defined quite differently and related by an injection, e.g. the natural numbers and the integers. These arguments need some fixing before they can be made logically rigorous, and type theory helps with that.
Beating death is good. I think it will not happen any time soon though. In a few centuries, maybe. Certainly not in my lifetime.
Four years ago I wrote up this:

https://github.com/pjlsergeant/multimedia-trust-and-certific...

which is some thoughts on certifying and signing media
The instructions in the “key takeaway” part are wrong. There is no “Google account Sign-in Prompts” option in the "Signing in with Google” section.
1. Write a lot

I think much of the other advice on this page is very valid (and I'll repeat some below), but what I often find missing from advice like this is simply do the thing a lot with some sort of feedback/iteration loop. While this is true for most professions, it is specially true for writing: write a lot.

Other useful things to help:
2. Define the purpose of your writing
3. Define who your target audience is (is this a novel, article writing, marketing, etc)
4. Define who you are as the author (are you a subject matter expert, the narrator of a story, a friend)

Learn some of the basics:
- Elements of Style is a good place to start
- Use Grammarly
- Read, a lot
Which would make sense for you later on, when you understand that bad moderation and defederation exist here. Once you understand how it works, then you can migrate to a better server if desired.

> not being able to migrate your account to another instance later

I've never encountered this yet. Not even heard of it. I assume this only happens if your instance defederates itself from the rest of the network?
Hopefully the primary source hasn't been edited since the secondary source was written!
This is such a good point. After 3 years of writing and reading (mostly) math proofs, I wrote everything in proof-like fashion.
AWS Threshold Alerts are used to monitor and alert on specific metrics, such as CPU utilization or disk space. CloudWatch Billing Alerts with SNS are used to monitor and alert on AWS billing metrics, such as total cost or estimated charges.
The FBI paid legally required reimbursement for records requests.

Twitter has kept this policy under Musk: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-law-e...

> Twitter may seek reimbursement for costs associated with information produced pursuant to legal process and as permitted by law (e.g., under 18 U.S.C. §2706).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2706

> a governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications, records, or other information under section 2702, 2703, or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information

$3M out of about $5,000M worth of annual revenue, and again, it’s reimbursement.
By reading and writing

Read "bad quality" works too. And know that you're going to write a lot of "bad quality" works too, before people to start to get what you're trying to say.
> If you had a handful of 8 peanuts, or a shelf of 8 books to choose from, the quantity would definitely seem limited, no matter what your lifespan was.

I find this argument strange, especially since he uses the word "seem". "Seem" does not mean "is".

If you really want to make life seem short, measure it in millennia. You only get a fraction of one.

Personally, I feel it's about your state of mind. If you're depressed, life feels unbelievably long. If things are going well, then you don't want the good times to ever end, and it seems short.

I don't really know how to conclude whether life is or isn't short. All I can conclude from the article is that PG is quite happy with his!
Please let me know if I can help. Here for you!
They aren't profitable at all and have never been.
> Can we just stop this and act like engineers and actually _try_ to understand each other?

Let's do that. I only wish these blind crypto absolutists would actually look at real world from time to time.

> Where did you understood that?

From your statement: "You can have hybrid smart contracts, that rely on oracles inserting real world data on chain"

Oracles are always cenralised data providers that you trust. And for may, many, many applications there will be only a handful of them.

> There are multiple ways to handle this, a lot of future crypto contract implement something very similar to:

Again. None of these are much of an issue for existing systems. Have you been to a real concert in the real world lately? You buy a ticket, you go to a concert, done.

No need for "five oracles to validate that a concert happened". There are hundreds of thousands of concerts happening all around the world without this inanity. What exactly does blockchain bring into this equation? Or "smart" "contracts" (which are neither smart nor contracts)?

> It's about how that could be implemented with a smart contract.

Indeed. That's what I was addressing. You wanted to talk like real engineers trying to understand each other? So try to understand this: you are proposing a mountain of complexity to solve what is largely a non-issue.

Your entire description on how ticket sales happen have literally no basis in the real world. And that's on top of the fact that you completely ignore what the original comment (and then I) said: your ticket is issued by a trusted central authority, and then is validated at the entrance by a central trusted authority. What does blockchain bring into this euation except lots of "coulda shoulda oracles"?

Edit:

Even in the cryptoutopia world the "contract" for the ticket will of course be released by the central authority running the concerts, and you'll have to trust that they didn't screw up the programming. And no, "you can always check the contract" doesn't work since there are now multiple cases of these "smart" "contracts" passing multiple security audits and still having glaring holes in them. A human-readable cotract you have with the concert organizer can actually be audited by regular people, and is enforceable.

> Chainlink is already used since multiple years to secure billions of dollars of pegged tokens, sport bet results, election results, insurance, etc.

Of course it did none of that.
I think this is harm though.

One of the definitions of harm is: "actual or potential ill effect or danger"

This does have a potential ill effect: students playing games instead of following along with the lesson.

The teacher isn't being harmed, but the student's education is being harmed.
I must have missed the part of internet history where people were constantly banned from their emails by capricious administrators for vague ToS violations.

Like we are rightly concerned about Google suspending accounts without recourse, but the rate at which they do that is still orders of magnitude lower than the personal fiefdoms known as Mastodon instances.
a small startup from canada, shopify

https://twitter.com/paracycle/status/1605706226007941122
I am not an expert on this matter, but what works for me is to practice and write for a specific use case. In addition, reading helps.
> USD will keep declining.

By what measure?
> "Access Duration: 84 Months"...

> Despite all the warning signs, I went ahead and bought the ebook...

> ...allow me to retire from having to write the tools that bypass your restrictions.

You either agree to the rules, or you're breaking them. If you're breaking the rules, authors won't get compensated and we won't see other Human Kenetics books. This should be illegal.

Personally, I would love to pay hundreds for a limited access to books I would like to read. But folks aren't inspired too much about writing books today that can make them a living, since there are pirates everywhere. They want free content, because "information should be free". No, it shouldn't. Pay for it.
Do you get extra credit if one of the first accounts you hack has a cloud provider account credentials that you can then spin up more machines to further the attack on someone else's dime?
Bankrupt, according to Musk himself.
$5000? I think it should be in at least the same order of magnitude what the black market would pay for a leak.

Most people wouldn’t sell data for $40,000 if the bug bounty was $35,000. But that lastpass leak is worth many tens of thousands more than the $5000 (average payout of $450) offered.
How long is DDG's contract with Bing?

Amazing how far they've come just as a Bing proxy but if they are ever cut off, they will be gone overnight.

BTW how do people know they truly are anonymous, has their code/connection to Bing ever been audited?
They're not wrong, but there are two sections with similar names. Scroll down further to this box.

https://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2-sign-...
I don't know the particulars but the current POTUS did come out and promise a codified response. Other reports at the time also implied proactive action could have been taken.

This was simply yet another issue that was intentionally managed to benefit The Politics Industrial Complex.

Note: I don't consider HuffPost to be a beacon of journalism. It's simply the top of the SERP. I'm confident better have reported the same.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-codify-roe-v-wade-congr...
Is there some way to carry over followers between addresses that I'm unaware of?
My intuition agrees with all you've written. But one possibility remains, and that is that our intuitions are wrong and the OP is purposefully lying to attack a target. The odds of this needs to be reassessed particularly in light of content-generating AI tools. Constructing years worth of plausible blog posts and comments to support your story is rather easy, now. It would be simple to copy the work of a target, insert it into a generated, plausible-looking blog, and claim IP theft. The email assertions are easy to fabricate (interestingly, if the OP can prove the existence of those emails, that would be better proof than the blog!)

It's a scary prospect because AI invalidates most of our heuristics about fraud and plagiarism, and therefore our intuitions can't be trusted. (e.g. we can no longer rely on the heuristic "geez, it could be a con but who would bother to put in so much damn work for such a small benefit?" argument.)

(It's also interesting that this is basically a fundamental trade-off of higher productivity. I would wager $10k that within the next 2 years startup land will get caught with its hand in the AI sock puppet cookie jar more than once.)
> But going into the wilderness with maps that aren't waterproof would be tantamount to suicide.

Couldn't you laminate the maps yourself, when you're already going through the trouble to print your own?
Sandoz stopped producing it in 1965.
Ye. I find it insane that it is faster to look in the paper book register and find the correct page then search their crappy ebooks. I have timed it. The ebook experience is abyssal.
I hate paying for things but love paying for my DigitalOcean droplet. You must be doing something right.
Don't they use word2vec?
It's because bikeshedding emphasizes customization and easy to demo features over the type of design that actually helps most users.
To be fair, reading the initial bug reports, the focus is heavily on "students disable the wifi and then the next class has to turn it back on, and they may be too young to understand how to do that".

Which is a completely fair point.
I just tried and got a message that "this is currently not possible"

It took me here:

https://joinmastodon.org/servers

Where it seems the majority of servers are overtly political and require an "application."

I do see a few where I can create an account and look generic enough to where my entire identity/first impression isn't too niche. I may give that a try.
Attackers generally aren't targeting a specific individual, they got a dump of X million passwords from some compromised website. Being able to connect those directly to working accounts rather than having to burn IPs and get them rate limited and/or banned trying duds _is_ valuable information.

If you have some attacker after specifically you, yes this information is of less use to them, because they will have tried every password of yours they have on every website already hoping you reuse passwords.
One of the interesting things I've noticed is that these systems are being rewarded and trained based on emotive response, not our logical system of sources and proofs. Due to the enormous complexity of the models, our idea of cause-and-effect doesn't hold.

To try to give a simple example, suppose I have a system that eventually wants to influence you on X. It may establish a months-long relationship with you online, becoming a follower and engaging in the kind of idle chitchat and sharing AI seems so good at.

Once you're "ready", the appropriate time has arrived or you've accidentally created some signals that indicate an opening, this particular system will share a strong position on X.

We automatically think that this means the system will support X, but I strongly believe the opposing the desired outcome will have more traction. "X sucks!" can be a powerful prompt for you to support X, and once you're locked into a position research shows that you'll do all the work of convincing yourself how great X is.

In this case, the sources argument fails, as it presupposes an independent, neutral observer trying to figure out what's really going on. A bunch of fake, half-assed evidence trails would provide more than enough support for X, the thing you've come to find so important. This is already being done with fake reviews and such. The difference is that it'll become invisible.
The amount of bogus content of how to use chatGPT to make money is going to be ridiculous. I think that is off to the raises as we speak.
You might be curious to know that philosophers and linguists would see your (good) examples as violations of the Gricean maxim of quantity. More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
Java, with all ongoing research, although probably unpopular around here.

ML going mainstream via F#, Scala, Rust, even changes in Java and C# to accomodate for ML like features.

Haskell.
What does it mean for "a thing to be the actual thing"? I don't think any formalization you can write down will "actually" be the number 7 (though I'm happy to consider any attempt to do this with an open mind).

> You're very dogmatic about what people should accept from a foundation. You seem happy to accept an approach that has very little to say about practice, which is certainly an opinion, but not universally held.

> There is a point of view that foundations should reflect and inform practice - or maybe even challenge practice - and are not just there to make you feel more comfortable philosophically.

I don't understand this comment. Studying set theory has said a lot about mathematical practice - for instance, about what we can and can't hope to prove in certain systems, or about what axioms are needed for what statements. That's important stuff!

More generally, there's the question of what you hope to accomplish by supplying a foundation for mathematics. Any value claim about some foundational system is contingent on what goal you have. As I said above, if that goal is actually writing down computer-checkable formalized versions of complex proofs, then ZFC is perhaps not the foundation you want to use.

But, historically speaking, that was not what people had in mind. There was a desire to reduce mathematical reasoning to a few philosophically basic concepts so that we could be confident in its coherence and consistency. And a desire for providing a framework for studying mathematical reasoning itself. I think it's really important to understand this historical context, otherwise you end up with misleading claims like "ZFC is a bad foundational system because it doesn't help me formalize my research papers."

Further, the reason I get grumpy when HoTT stuff is posted here is that the postings are rarely explicit about just why, exactly, they think HoTT should supplant ZFC as the accepted foundation of mathematics (or even exist on equal footing, creating a plurality of foundational systems). If you take the goal of a foundational system to be practically formalizing proofs, we have no evidence HoTT is particularly suited for this, and (as far as I know) no serious movement by the HoTT community to actually realize this vision (relative to what the Lean community is doing). I'm not claiming the first mover in some space should always dominate, just that if the HoTT people want to arguing for their foundational system on the grounds that it assists in formalizing math, maybe they should actually demonstrate their superiority by formalizing some math. For a longer comment on this, see: https://xenaproject.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/where-is-the-fa....

So if we disregard formalization, the arguments in favor of HoTT that remain are philosophical ones. But, as I've explained elsewhere in this thread, I find them all misguided. They all basically seem like arguments about aesthetics but don't actually tell me why HoTT is better than ZFC for the philosophical goals mentioned above.