skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The fact that this is seriously discussed by people from the party in power would be concerning to me if I were American

Both parties have radical members. The whole reason the debt ceiling "crisis" keeps coming and going is because of a Congressional Republican faction, and the faction members are far more numerous than the number of Congressional Democrats seriously discussing use of the coin. The latter could probably be counted on one hand, if not one finger.

The coin always comes up because the topic gets amazing engagement for media outlets, and generally gets everybody excited for one reason or another--e.g. the sheer absurdity, or for the literati the technical minutiae. But it would never happen. More likely would be a default, but that's also not very probable as it only takes a handful of moderate Republicans (5 this go-round) to switch sides for a budget vote. That's why the markets don't care

This charade only happens so Republicans can show their base that they're serious about fiscal conservatism, and more specifically it's part of a very long-term strategy to undermine public support for Social Security. And any Democrats advocating for the coin are likewise doing so only to signal to their base (or readers) that they're serious about putting a stop to Republican obstructionism, which is a major topic and source of frustration within Democratic circles--impotence in the face of minority obstructionism.
How can they start over with a new profile? It seems to me they would have to either move or get a new business name? I’m not trying to bust your chops. I am genuinely interested in this whole thing.
Sure but if you can’t tolerate the added latency of a cold start, serverless might not be right for you.

Conversely, if you’re doing something like processing message queues and you don’t care about latency at all, serverless is perfect.
FWIW the courts have ruled in favor of non-citizens challenging states denying them the right to own firearms before, e.g.:

https://casetext.com/case/state-v-ibrahim

Granted, this is a Washington State court ruling on the basis of the WA state constitution (which has a stronger RKBA provision than the federal one). But there were similar rulings in other states, and if I remember correctly, at least one of them cited the federal constitution.

As far as the "exemptions" go, it might simply be that nobody ever challenged them before - I mean, as a non-immigrant alien who can get kicked out quite easily in any case, why would you go and antagonize the feds if you can just buy an Alaska hunting license online for $60 and make them happy that the requisite checkbox has a mark in it? But also, until Bruen, the courts tended to defer to various onerous licensing restrictions and requirements even for citizens.
Amazing! Thank you for taking the time to make this :)
Here is another way to show that the there are not meaningful differences in the position winrates.

# calculate cumulative black/white wins for each position
# ignoring current result
headers['cumul_white_points'] = headers.groupby('pos')['white_points'].cumsum().shift()
headers['cumul_black_points'] = headers.groupby('pos')['black_points'].cumsum().shift()
# calculate white's chance of winning given previous position results
headers['position_prior'] = (headers.cumul_white_points +1) / (headers.cumul_black_points + headers.cumul_white_points + 2)
# calulate difference in player ratings
headers['rating_difference'] = headers.WhiteElo - headers.BlackElo
headers[['white_points','position_prior','rating_difference']].corr()

- position_prior 0.000721
- rating_difference 0.401107
That’s quite the rose gold view.
Good point, I’ll think of adding that, thanks for the idea!
It's either wrong by some offset for everyone, or it's 5hrs behind the UK.
You can ask your phone's browser for the desktop site, which works, though it is clearly not optimized for mobile
Seems odd to even counter clickbait so surgically, when other rules against any editorializing would catch that anyway.
There seems to be a very strong argument that even if (big ‘if’) AI models infringe copyright it is a transformative fair use.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transf...
I can't help but feel like you're slightly anthropomorphising an algorithm. It's a really damn cool and powerful algorithm, don't get me wrong, but it's still not a person. At the end of the day, it's also not the algorithm "benefiting" from it, but the corporation using the algorithm.

It's also a bit hypocritical, because if you did the same thing to them as a human (in this example let's say be a Tesla copycat) you'd likely be sued into the ground because there's probably a patent somewhere in there.
Professional licensing gets you there with less overhead, no?
It probably should cover riots. Unless of course the riot is in support of [good thing]. Implicit to any definition of terrorism is the qualification that it doesn't count if it's done to support [thing you support]. Naturally.

As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Luis Suarez nets hat trick in debut win with Gremio
> TDD shines when refactoring a codebase. Treat it as a black box, document and validate the behavior, and start rebuilding the inside.

This looks to me like writing tests around code that didn't have any before. It is crucial for refactoring to have tests; moreover, I would say that refactoring is impossible without tests. But it is not TDD, it is just adding tests where it should be in the first place.

> when you’re cobbling together a project from scratch, iterating and hacking away until something decent works, writing test code to throw it all away seems like a waste

This is exactly what TDD is for: to thoroughly think over the architecture and implement it right from the first take, without throwing away a lot of code. This is exactly the problem of people like me or author of the post: we just love coding as the process. Attention deficit greatly adds to that, making good architecture an impossible feat. It is easier for us to rewrite everything from scratch several times.
The EU has a copyright exemption for noncommercial model training, and at least the UK is changing that to even allow commercial model training, without even an opt-out required. So it appears they legally have the right to use anything.

Why should you want a model designed to know all human knowledge to know only public-domain knowledge?
> It seems the market isn't what you tink it is.

Then what is it?

I think that the market is an opportunity for companies to compete on features, price, service, and quality. Is that incorrect?

If Apple is not competing on features, then shouldn't the market provide an alternative company that does? Specifically, Apple requires a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality yet consumers do not like this. Other companies provide devices that do not require a network connection to its servers to used basic functionality, though possibly at a higher price (doubtful) or lower quality, or worse service. But the opportunity does exist.

I'm happy to hear where either my understanding is wrong, or where the market is failing.
I recall this being a term in paper-age SF, a fututristic trope of what mass entertainment might become. A “feely” was a sort of movie that involved touch. It was almost always described somewhat disapprovingly, as a sign of future decadence.
My solution to this problem has been … to stop using python as a universal tool for all things and instead use other tools purpose built for those purposes.

Unfortunately (or not) that basically means no more python. Because it is definitely a “Jack of all trades, master of none”.

Focusing on programming languages that just want to be programming languages and not also a system service makes life so much better. You end up using languages that produce self-contained, easily shippable binaries, or languages with easily embeddable runtimes, instead of trying to write code that has to somehow survive in a “diverse ecosystem”, which generally makes it overly bloated and brittle as it grows so many appendages to solve so many orthogonal incompatibilities it comes to resemble enterprise open source…
Closely related to this! Does anyone know of any good books that would build upon this knowledge as an introduction to integrating RF / the theory of RF circuits, antennae's etc?
Then that's a failure of this particular market, not markets in general, no?

Or do you dispute that a market-based economy is the proper form for designing, selling, and buying goods and services?
Hard times for the persons involved.

From technology point of view the few surviving .NET bindings to DirectX done by Microsoft own teams are now dead, thus re-enforcing the work from C++ teams.

Another example that technology many times dies not due to its technology capabilities, rather due to external factors.

Many XBox related studios were also affected by the layoffs.
I’d prefer a crazy aunt to a creepy uncle… but maybe let’s leave family out of it altogether.
Then a solenoid with a piece of membrane over it would also be solid state.

Why stop there, a servo with a piece of membrane would also be solid state.

Why stop there, a motor with a membrane..

This definition makes no sense to me.

The above are electromechanical parts. Piezos are somewhat an exception because electricity directly leads to a parts deformation without magnetic field moving a component of that part in an electric field. In fact a piezo is just one part with two contacts.
I'm anti intellectual property, but as long as people have to abide by it, I think AI has to, too. Being anti intellectual property doesn't mean I'm in favor of corporations stealing open source code, it means I want the law changed.
It's surprising that so many people on this site side with the Luddites

This is too reductive.

The back pressure ML is generating is at this point too strong for anything to make any difference.

This is wrong, regulation can make a difference.

Anyone who attempts to stop it will just be practicing self-sabotage.

This is a prospect worth evaluating organically. Learning the potential is much different from accepting self-fulfilling prophecies.
I'm no expert in this field, but as I understand it they trained a new GPT model from scratch to play Othello. So the prompts were simply the transcript of moves that came before.
I've certainly seen this argument before..

Yes, it's true that not all technology evolves as fast as predicted (by some, at some point), but first of all I still believe we will see self driving cars in the future and secondly, it's one anti-example in a forest of examples of tech that evolves beyond anyone's expectations. I don't find it very convincing.
thanks for sending your strawman in to do battle with his strawman.

you don't need permission to train on books, but you do need to buy the books or take them from the library one at a time.

"training" these machines so far is not like human learning as becomes apparent when they spit out source code that mirrors individual repositories. And you know that humans are required to both remix their own creations and follow copyright law at thbowe same time, and also adhere to the social and institutional stigmas against extensive uncreative cut and paste paraphrasals.

when training AIs on copyright law trains them in obeying copyright law, they'll be ready for the Turing test, or even to be called AIs.
I like that write up on [2]. I have not really been exposed to C in a very long time, and that has been quite informative.

I also like that Set of Unit Testing Rules. That is basically correct, external systems are a no-no on unit testing.

Usually, you deal with mocks through indirections, default arguments, and other stuff like that so you can exclusively test the logic of the function, which is more difficult in C, from what I've seen on your write up, than in other languages. But if you care about not having that on your code for performance reasons, then more likely than not, you will not be able to unit test. And that is fine. You have an integration test (because you are using outside systems). You can still do integration test first, as long as they help you on capturing the logic and flow. The issue is that they tend to be far more involved, and far more brittle (as they depend on those outside systems).
Sorry, I cannot answer. I am only a user.
Seconded. For intuitive learners out there - it won't teach you a bunch of math but it will get you enough of a framework to start seeing landmarks and self-directing to relevant subjects for later deeper dives. Just having the vocabulary helps a ton, and this book provides it. It could be read in 2 or 3 dedicated sessions, and comes with all sorts of interesting circuits to build up to really kickstart that intuition.
Chess960 is such an intriguing game. Thanks for sharing!
Correct, many literary works had famous authors but attribution has nothing to do with copy-rights. None of the authors of written texts, from greek tragedies, roman poets up to reprinted books had exclusive commercial rights to their writings, until the 16th cen.
Stripe Documentation (New Design)
One important point for the discussion is: one cannot (at least not currently) directly compare these AI models with the human mind. A human learns, can reason about the learned things and can use that ability to create completely new pieces of work. There is some clear intelligence and reasoning and personal creativity involved.

Now looking at the current state of AI models, they have shown to reproduce the training material in large verbatim pieces. On the other side, they lack any ability to reason about what they produce. Which for me is a big indicator, that they are clearly reproducing not producing on their own. Which creates the potential copyright issues. At minimum, the legality needs to be clearly specified, be it by court rulings or law changes.

Ironically, to some extend this has been a long time problem with human creations too. There are plenty of lawsuits about music pieces "borrowing" too much from older creations, and recently there is a growing cases uncovered, where expecial thesis papers contain too much unattributed content. Probably no new thing, just so much more easily discoverable thanks to modern text search tools.

So as a tl/dr: I don't think current AI models are comparable to human learning and the copyright questions around that need to be decided. If that means generally expanding fair use, having shorter copyright periods, I am all for it. But "AI" shouldn't be a tool for large tech companies to systematically evade license terms.
Radxa Rock 5A SBC – A Raspberry Pi 4 Lookalike with Up to 16GB RAM, RK3588S SoC
I already didn't know what a "Pulsating eclipsing binary AI" is, turns out it's a star, not an artificial intelligence.
> They’re stuck playing the nice(ish) neighbor

This is a big part of the reason they want to invade Taiwan. Taiwan is strategically located to make it a liability to PRC shipping, should neighboring powers / America ever decide to blockade the PRC. If the PRC takes Taiwan, they gain more breathing room to act aggressively against their other neighbors too.
It focused on using Unity, and MRTK is based on Win32 and Khronos XR standard.

The problem with Project Reunion (nowadays known as WinAppSDK + WinUI 3.0), is that it is clearly managed by people without big background on Microsoft UI stacks (watch a couple of community calls), and it is years away to achived parity to UWP, let alone what Windows Forms and WPF offer in API surface.
open@duckduckgo.com, maybe?

https://duckduckgo.com/press

They're not particularly forthcoming about ways to contact them, it would seem.
I first read that you were talking about the consumer as the one planning a break-in (for whom this would also be a useful service for sure)
> how about people running AI only feed them information that they legally have the right to use?

Well, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Do you, a human, have the right to look at copyrighted works and learn from them? Do you have the right to use AI to do the same?
Then you should just wait a while. After a couple of years the Code might aswell been written by someone else.
Yes, it's abusive, and with self defence that is the point: your attacker has deprived you of safety and of another immediate recourse, so you're forced to lower yourself to their level.

It doesn't make it good; it makes it necessary, and for that reason we often consider it legitimate.

If an adult tried to assault my son, and he hit back, I wouldn't consider it good, but I would be proud he felt able to defend himself against a violent attacker. Even if that attacker was a teacher.
> this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what types are. They're not, in general, subsets of some larger universe of values

Correct.

Actually there are even much more (infinite many?) types than values.
Any such topic would benefit greatly from adding the age of the children we talk about, because I feel many people talk about different topics and have misunderstandings because of that.

There is absolutely absolutely zero, nil reason to hit a small children (let’s say, below 8-10?), as they simply won’t understand the consequences and you are just assaulting the poor thing without any benefit. This is simply unforgivable and should be grounds to take away said child from the parents (depending on the degree), or press assault charges to non-parents.

What seems to be more commonly acceptable (and reason for disagreement) is a spank/slap for older children (e.g. teenagers), which is quite common in certain cultures. I’m not sure on the research on that, but it should be qualified because one is imo an absolutely evil view point, while I personally don’t agree with the second, it is at least open to discussion.
In English, animals are routinely referred to as "it", and they're obviously animate.

So, at most it could be said that "it" doesn't normally refer to persons... but even that's not true if you include sci-fi in your definition of "English language". When dealing with topics such as non-standard biological sex and/or gender fluidity, older sci-fi works would often use "it" for such people without any implication of non-personhood.
(1) and (3), yes. (2) is not about process authentication but about using authenticated encryption that detects tampering.

More broadly, there needs to be a threat model that states what your attacker is capable of.

Even more broadly, I get the impression you’re not an experienced cryptography engineer and you didn’t work with one. Learning is great, but this is not presented with any warnings, which is irresponsible.
Interesting that it only effects transactions under 100K. I guess they do not want to upset you if you can move amounts larger than that around.
> but the speed of light has stayed the same for more than 10 years now.

Don't worry, i bet that in the next time we will read on HN about revolutionary methods to increase the speed of light, just like those articles about fusion, charging or batteries. /s
To me that doesn’t come off as intense at all, it’s just correctly reducing this down to the real underlying problem. Vital social tools that we use to live our lives are being operated by shady corporations for profit and not the greater good.
Also as a newcomer to Next.js, you start off, the tutorial seems great, then midway they announce they are switching to a new system and it's hard to be bothered after that.
I started out by pointing out that in English that cancer tends to mean something clearly bad with a special meaning. You invited yourself in to discuss otherwise. I guess replying to you meant inviting more of your posting, my bad.

Edit: also lol not a single example of anything I’ve asked for. Thank you for the unprompted trivia bit!

edit 2: Not all swiss cheese is the same! In fact there are many alpine and subalpine varieties made there in various forms! There are exactly zero casual examples of “cancer on society” from posters that have been asked about it though. Welcome to QI!
I play Othello. In most situations i can give you detailed reasons why i choose to make a particular move.
It sounds like your country is the weird one. Try burning the complete works of Disney onto stacks of DVDs, then go down to your high street and hand them out. See how long you get away with that for.
> but what the customers of AI people want isn't available under those terms.

What the customers of AI want is accurate predictions of the models, and they can get that even if everyone demanding to get removed from the training set would be removed.

The makers of generative AI could remove every living artist who wants to from the dataset, the model would still develop a general solution of color theory, composition, almost every artstyle in existence, ... because fact of the matter is, there is just that much data out there. Our species collectively has spend DECADES recording, storing and categorizing everything and the proverbial kitchen sink. There are god-knows-how-many petabytes of data available in images alone, so even if just 1% of that could be used to train generative models, it would still be more than adequate.

And soon after that, there is an explosion of new generated art, filtered through the aesthetic sense of millions of humans, that can just be fed back into the models, to make them better.

The end result is the same: High-quality image generation on a scale hitherto unseen, running even on consumer grade hardware. And what lawsuits will be filed then?
Cryptography Engineering was great for its time but has been outdated for years, which in cryptography doesn’t mean “lacks fancy new stuff” but “we learned the hard way to do things differently”. Serious Cryptography and Real World Cryptography are commonly mentioned as successors.
Who's damaged? The suits have to prove that the heart of the work is being reproduced, and that this is damaging in some way. Currently AI generated images cannot be registered for copyright, so those images cannot even be protected and exclusively sold. Regardless the heart of the work isn't reproduced, it's a transformative work, which means it's protected by fair use.

If its an image editor everyone is calm, but call it AI everyone loses their minds.
Yet another software opinion article preaching mediocrity. Imagine a carpenter that only uses a hammer because learning other tools is too hard for them, and he'd have to bring his colleagues up to speed, and ah forget it we can use nails instead of screws anyway.

"Oh! Drain pipe for the faucet? I know, I'll just use leftover air vent ducts, that's what I'm already familiar with anyway!" (Using nails to join everything of course, how's that for a leaky abstraction?)

As he proclaims the "first sprint" done he walks up to you, demanding a 100K/year salary. When you decline, because the house is falling apart, he angrily mutters something about how "tech debt" is wrecking this industry (he's blaming the failure on you for not giving enough time to address it) and that he was thinking about finding another job anyway, since he was already working for you close to a year now.
I'm not aware of any pre-existing open-source model that selectively edits images (leaving some parts untouched) based on instructions. This new method is much better than the image2image that shipped with the original stable diffusion. I'm looking at the InvokeAI docs right now and don't see anything like this feature. We previously had smart-masks, but InstructPix2Pix mostly does away with the need for those as well.

If I am mistaken please provide links to these prior features.
Windows is already Mixed and Virtual reality so those teams were ... redundant. /s
I don't know about the US but in Europe many cities/communes will list registered businesses in the area, usually these are manually curated lists. so while you don't necessarily get ratings/reviews (which I have basically stopped trusting altogether), you'll get legitimate.