skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You can't lay the acts of specific police officers at the door of legislators and voters.

I'm not. In this situation, there were (at least) two necessary conditions for the arrest to happen:

(1) The law was written in a way that led the police to believe a crime had occurred.

(2) The police chose to perform the arrest.

If either of those conditions weren't true, then I don't think this incident would have happened.

It's entirely possible that the police exercised lousy judgment in this case. I'm simply reserving judgment until I hear their side of the story.

I brought up (2) for several reasons. First, I think it's BS to create politically sticky situations for police, and then skapegoat them things turn out badly. (Imagine the news coverage if they didn't arrest the parents in a situation like this, and then the kids were abducted.)
Second, I don't see how, in a democratic form of government, citizens can avoid responsibility for the state of their laws. If the laws are outside their control, it's not a democracy.
If they withdraw 100k a year for 20 years (or more if it's invested) they'll pay a lot less in taxes than 2mil once.
> It could allow people to petition their government [0] without having someone bust down their door at 3am and disappear forever.

Surely just wearing a mask - virtual or otherwise - does the job without the deep fakery?
Twitter is a train wreck. One week notice? No pricing information? No details on how to sign up or migrate to this? No confidence that this won't cause service disruptions? No blog post on their engineering blog with details?
I think it's pretty obvious that autoencoder deepfake tech and similar technologies are going to be useful, maybe even essential in visual effects. The perceived problem seems to be that the 'irresponsible rabble' also have access to it.

But as the barrier to entry for really convincing output goes up (768px /1024px training pipelines, and beyond), and it suddenly becomes something that one person alone can't really do well any more, the 'amateur' stuff is going to look far worse to people than it does now. You just have to wait for that barrier to rise, and I can tell you as a VFX insider that that is happening right now.

Deepfakes are the reverse of CGI, which began as an inaccessible technology and gradually became accessible, before the scale of its use in VFX reversed that again.

Now, assuming you can either afford or will pirate the right software, you could probably match any CGI VFX shot in a major blockbuster if you gave up your job and worked on it non-stop for a year of 18-hour days (assuming you'd already been through the steep learning curve of the pipeline). So it's out of reach, really, and so will the best deepfakes be.

This stuff everyone is so scared of will end up gate-kept, if only for logistical reasons (never mind any new laws that would address it) - at least at the quality that's so feared in these comments.
Is the sophistication argument discussed somewhere? Real question. I often thinks this to an extent. And Id like to have more pov.
DF became popular because of the stories it created - and being free helped that expand because people could try-before-buy.

As it was, the risk would have been way too high for most people to pay tenbux or whatever BEFORE playing it (many have "donated" way more than that after playing).
I think the thing to remember that it all started as an interpreter written in Prolog in which we could develop our ideas on what the real problem was and the right semantics of a system for solving them. As we went along our "language" evolved as well and became less and less Prolog and more functional as we removed much Prolog semantics, added functional "stuff" and developed the final syntax.

We had along the way also looked at concurrent logic languages. So by the time we had a language and design rules how to use it most of Prolog had disappeared, though some of its syntax still remained. This language was, of course, Erlang.

While Prolog was a nice base on which to develop our ideas it was never the language we would have used in real life.
It sounds like your manager is non-verbally messaging you to look for another job. In his defence, that is somewhat better than laying you off or putting you on a PIP, so as others have said, it's probably a good idea to look for another job.

In any case, for your personal growth, it is helpful to understand why things have gone wrong between you and the manager (or the whole team).

One of your theories seems to be that the manager brought in a friend to boot you out. That would explain his behavior, but not that everyone else on the team is giving you the cold shoulder.

I am purely guessing at this point, and I don't want to offend you - but it is possible that you have upset the whole team. Either slowly through your behavior, or there was a meeting, or something else. This may have been fully unintentional by you, and you do not seem to be aware of it. For your next job, it'd be helpful for you to understand what has gone wrong!

Your text reads like you're not a native speaker? I'm not either ;) If you move between cultures, there may be things that are acceptable in your own culture, but not in the culture you moved to. E.g. the way to disagree or discuss things. Maybe that's the area where this misunderstanding has come from?

You could try to approach a team mate, or the manager, and ask openly about the situation. Tell them you sense something is wrong, you don't understand what you have done wrong, but you'd like to fix it.
here in argentina uber was very illegal for several years and people used the fuck out of it

in the usa heroin and meth are super illegal and people are using the fuck out of them

many 80s pc video games only survive in a playable form because of a very illegal system of organized copyright infringement that removed copy protection mechanisms; people used the fuck out of that too

in the usa gay sex was super illegal until, in many locations, 20 years ago. guess what gay people did

"if it's illegal people just won't use it" is clearly not correct; i think it's what dave chappelle would describe as an extremely white thought

the problem is if the design of the system provides law enforcement a bottleneck they can use for leverage against righteous lawbreakers
You have valid points. But look at the messaging. Great reviews, no raises, then "here, train your replacement" followed piping him to /dev/null. This isn't a recoverable situation. He's been had.
> There is no such saying.

I mean, there clearly is now because people have been saying it. I was curious about the origin and the first instance I see online is a line from Ed Harris in the 2017 movie Geostorm:

"I'm turning the clock back to 1945, when America was a shining city on a hill, not just a bank disguised as a country."

Though it's certainly possible there were earlier formulations.
Sure I'm glossing over that, but for practical purposes you have no redress because the officers were acting in their official capacity.
> Would you care

Yes.

> why?

Because it's insanely creepy for someone to photoshop my face onto a naked body without asking me and then post said picture online?!? Especially if it's done so well that people don't notice that it's not actually me.

If your rebuttal is that "not everyone cares if deepfaked photos of themselves are being published online" then the answer is pretty simple: As long as you don't know if someone minds it, don't fucking do it.

It's really alienating to me when I think about the fact that we're discussing if it's okay to upload deepfaked nudes of someone without their consent.

The only reason I can come up with is that some people have probably consumed lots of deepfakes and now don't want admit that it's maybe a bit creepy and wrong.
> One major factor that works against users is central authentication. Schemes like oauth2

also dns and the tls ca system, even including let's encrypt
At first I was thinking maybe the bot was trained when Trump was in office, so Biden was only a private citizen at the time... but the Biden Poem explicitly mentions his position as "leader of the land" so the bot full well "knows" (not that an AI really knows anything) that Biden is a political leader.
>There’s a major contradiction in here.

I don't think there is. I wholeheartedly agree with the prior sentiment. Way too much of peoples lives are spent on shit that does not really matter. As a people we have overcomplicated the shit out of everything to such a degree it's disgusting. And it's all based on greed. Optimize this structure to pay the least tax, optimize your income into this and that so it magically makes more money. Meanwhile those without any real money can't take advantage of any of that kind of stuff. Yeah, really fair!

Not everyone subscribes to the financial bullshit the wealth class has created.
That may all be true, but it remains the case that every time I see a Reason link being thrown around it's one of these kinda suspect things. You know this is a junk piece. They ran it anyway. Again: how much work does it take to assign a journalist and call the police department to verify the arrest records?
The graph would be consistent with the part you quoted if the median earners were paying 33.5% tax: 41535 - (41535 * 0.335) is roughly the 27598 figure it shows for 2020. The figure only shows state and federal income tax, which adds up to 13% tax; I don't know enough about the US to now if there are other taxes which would add up to 33.5%.
I think every except this part paints one picture:

> I am getting cold shoulder treatment from everyone else on team

But the above paints another.

Is there some reason the whole team would change in unison towards you that is related to your manager?
> It's not just about the hours but more the focus and energy.

I understand the ostensible justification, but is that the real one?

Let's say that an employee does all of the work asked of them at a 100K salary and performs well, and still manages to hold down another n jobs.

What's the core issue here?

It feels like the real issue is that a boss is feeling a little butthurt that they didn't get to extract ($100K * n) production out of a $100K salary.

If somebody should be feeling wronged here, it's the person who is capable of doing ($100K * n) work getting paid $100K even though he's n times more productive than his peers who might be getting paid as much or even more than him.
Why the Grand Seiko Spring Drive Is the Greatest Watch Movement and How It Works
But to play the devil's advocate, where would we be if architectures followed higher level abstractions to a point they would be hard to differenciate ? They d be slower to run maybe, but so much nicer to program for!
"If she talks to me again, I'm going to arrest you both and take away your kids"

That part, at least, sounds like a power trip to me.
You may have noticed that the firearms industry is one of the biggest proponents and lobbyists for the current interpretation of the second amendment. Other interpretations are possible, and of course it can be amended again, if people decide it's harmful. But that's unlikely to happen as long as there's a powerful lobby interested in keeping things the way they are, even if it means hundreds of children are shot in schools every year.
> It's even worse when you think about just how many Dunkin' Donuts there are. It's likely the kids didn't even have to cross a major intersection.

Interesting how that works. My state has zero dunkin donuts. But I live 3 miles from downtown, and pass 5 starbucks, 4 dutch brothers, and a few other independant coffee shops :) but sadly, only one donut shop
This. In the case of AIX, IBM designed every component of the platform: the CPU, the operating system and the compiler. When they tell you that it’s safe to read up to 4K (or whatever) of zero bytes from NULL, they can make that promise. But obviously such code is not portable.
Kids in cities tend to be safer in general than suburbs. Not only from strangers, but especially from cars.
Xiaomi demands payout from supplier after car designs leaked
> And that's completely reasonable, but we'd save a lot of time in these debates by taking great pains to acknowledge the difference in scope and context as opposed to arguing which one we want to call "free will."

Except Dennett's use is compatible with how laypeople seem to reason morally [1], and it further agrees with centuries of legal precedent that accounts for free choice, so there is a good justification for defining this as free will.

I also reject the framing that free will already had a definition that Compatibilists are trying to redefine. The whole debate is about what qualities free will has that can make sense of choice and responsibility. This debate didn't start with "free will must have qualities X, Y or it's not free will", it started with discussion about what sorts of control we may have over choices and what this entails about our responsibility, and free will is the descriptor for the kind of choice that entails responsibility.

Compatibilism provides a coherent definition that largely matches how people talk about and reason about this topic, so exactly why should that not settle the debate and require us all to understand that this is free will?

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274892120_Why_Compa...
Covid is the #1 cause of death three years running.
My Reaction to Dr. Stroustrup’s Recent Memory Safety Comments
Even though something has a benevolent rationalization, it doesn’t mean the true motives are benevolent. It doesn’t need any New World Order conspiracy either. People in ruling positions often enjoy power, and they may be clueless as to how this desire is affecting their decisionmaking.
Yeah, and I don’t tend to keep this around quantitatively, but I’ve certainly run into bugs in Go programs that would’ve been categorically prevented with generics.

Of course I want sync.Map to use generics instead of interface{}. How could I not? And it’s less complex-looking than type-asserting everywhere.
< you are telling the compiler that your arithmetic is guaranteed to never overflow.

Any time your are dealing with data from real, physical sensors or third-party APIs, this is an impossible guarantee to give - they could literslly break.
I literally said "most". Where did you see "all"?
IIRC some of the types of corps (S-corp, the one that is NOT a corporate veil) lets you pass-through income and so you get hit by only one "tax".

But you still have state taxes and other such things. I assume they've retained a tax guy before this.
> Dropping charges is not justice.

Agreed. This is one where qualified immunity needs to go. This is a rights violation all the way... against the kids civil rights and against the parents. Also, I'd love to listen to the 911 calls.
Agree, I've come to believe that social ethics is something that needs to be indoctrinated from an early age, otherwise it can't naturally be developed in many people.
In the future AI or Software developers might need their own Federalist Society.
If you buy games from these publishers, you deserve to get screwed over when they inevitably tank the product you paid for by shutting down the "Online Experience".

Seriously. If you pay Bethesda, you earn the suffering. I don't know how this stuff is even news anymore.
I'm more-or-less with you on a lot of those, but this one stands out:

> 2. pay attention in class, or not

I would usually /choose/ to pay attention in class, but also I seldom paid attention in class. I envy those who have the ability to pay attention to something just because they decide to.
Yes, it's janky - but I _like_ the jankiness.

Not everything needs to be perfectly formatted with ideal flow and Hemingway-esque readability.
Either it's just boilerplate with some variables to be filled in--in which case it's very low effort in any case. Or it's an email to someone you actually know, in which case you do want to write something personal. (Which is how I've landed my few jobs over the past 20+ years.)
New job time.

>My salary has been the same from the day I joined in 2019.

Have you not pushed for one at all? If you don't even get an inflationary raise, you shouldn't stay for one year, let alone three.
Indeed, privacy protects from social pressure in addition to protecting you from the government. In any case, it's intended for things other people do not approve of.
Fully agreed here - I grew up in ex-Yugoslavia, which while it wasn't part of the Eastern bloc, it wasn't too dissimilar. It was perfectly acceptable and expected for kids to be out and about without direct parent supervision. Neighbours knew kids from the surrounding and would take care of them as needed. At 11-12, I walked to the store by myself or with similar aged friends many times to buy beer for my dad. The store owner happily sold it to me as he knew my dad and knew if I did buy it for myself, it would take no more than a day or two to find out. Police would have never questioned any part of this behaviour, it was fully normalized. I'd say it definitely resulted in children being more independent.
How do you define fair, mathematically if possible ?
Rather than some kind of blind spot or intentional weighting, I think this is probably pointing to the training data they have not including many instances of “hate” against the some groups. LLM are after all fundamentally memorizing likelihood of token sequences, and I’m sure the ai had plenty of examples of people saying hateful things about fat people but I have never read “I hate normal weight people” for example. Even the construction the author chose of “normal weight people” is probably comparatively incredibly rare to see.

There are probably comparatively too few examples of people saying hateful things about christians/republicans/cisgendered/white people in the training data scraped from the internet, and they need to hallucinate some to show this same sensitivity for the author’s metric.

Edit: if this is true, This also points to a problem with the approach depending on historical data - it might struggle to become sensitive to new trending hate speech patterns.
In my case I preferred my current employer despite some more money from the other.
>It might have been picked up by another vehicle, stuck in the tire perhaps.

Or used by Emus[1] to develop nuclear weapons.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
The reason is, and always has been, to enable lazy police work. They won't have to do their jobs if facebook will just tell them who the criminals are.
It is a low number, too low, and prevents citizens being paid what they're actually worth in a market without this government intrusion. Corporate welfare.
You’re right, let’s not.
Have to buy iodine tablets, bleach I have laying around.
privacy is the space where coercion does not apply; law enforcement is necessarily coercive, but not all coercion is legal

not even all police coercion is legal; when the police disappeared tens of thousands of people here during the last dictatorship, the police were breaking the law, and in some cases the disappeared were not

also, privacy can protect people from repercussions from activities that are legal at one time but prohibited later, perhaps after a change of government, such as celebrating passover
No that's not how it works unfortunately. You are supposed to do overtime and answer emails on your weekends. Fuck that.
Understand, just don’t understand how to bridge the gap you experienced, and responded in case you had any additional thoughts that might resolve experiences like one you had.
Sketchy dudes talk about it but can't actually provide solid examples and numbers that don't involve things like "invest all your profits in a failed startup so that it's all a business expense".

Look at the actual income tax paid by professional athletes; if anyone knew how to do it it would be them.
It is better to require a minimum baseline of what it can do. And be aware of what it is trying to get better at.

ChatGPT has too many possibilities right now. And I am not sure how best to leverage it. If I am going to pay for something, I want to know precisely what it is good at in my use cases.

So far I have understood it is good at "writing". It may not be very good at knowing everything, or letting me know what it does not know. So I will give it information for it to write about.

I also understand it is somewhat good at understanding code and outputting code. This is fascinating and needs greater research. I need to understand exactly how it learns to read code and output code. If it is simply statistical predictions, then I will also understand that it will get the same exact things wrong that everyone else gets wrong. Or that it only knows and spits out information based on what others have done. This is like a heavily enhanced google for code. "Google, give me coding that will sort arrays based on the following letter ordering system." Or "Give me a regex that will highlight only the information in the following cells."

Lastly, I think it may be useful as a debating tool where I proposition a theoretical argument or define new information, and ask it if it contradicts any mainstream information, and if any niche thinkers and researchers fall into the same agreement.

I don't think it is good as an "engineer". (Mind you, I consider myself a "natural" engineer, not "trained" engineer). I have a knack for looking at a system and intuitively knowing how it was designed and where it most likely fails. I doubt the gpt can do this on its own. And I wonder if it can mash various ideas together and engineer new solutions.
I'd say the functions are commonly misnamed. The "secure random" function should be the "random" function, and the "PRNG based on a user-provided seed" should be called something else. Maybe "MonteCarlo", since that's one of the common uses.
Also SSLDump [1]

[1] - https://linux.die.net/man/1/ssldump
> "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

malo ... quam ... ⇒ I prefer ... to ...

Preferring what to what? This is why all other words are in accusative singular as simple enumeration:

periculosam ⇒ dangerousness

libertatem ⇒ freedom

quietam ⇒ quietness

servitutem ⇒ slavery

Hence I would take his statement as: "I prefer dangerousness and freedom to quietness and slavery."
I, too, hate the hand-waving away of any success as being based entirely on "luck". I often find those who make that argument are just as you say, using it as a rationalization to not even try.

I would still disagree with your point, though. There are swathes of people who worked their ass off and got nowhere. My own successes in life (if I'm to be honest) have had their roots in an off-chance break or what not. I suppose you could attribute that to hard work and being set up for success, but nothing in life guarantees that if you try 100 times you are owed success.

I think in the nitty gritty of life, it doesn't make a difference what your philosophy is. Just work hard and count your blessings. Those that subscribe to no luck will work hard and if they fail, would probably never blame it on bad "luck" anyway. Those that blame luck as a reason to not try would probably would not have done anything even if luck wasn't a factor.
What? I'm not talking about bigamy, I'm talking about relationship structures that aren't just two married people creating a nuclear family.