skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The following are entirely preventable mistakes from my own wandering career:

> Programming using text editors with no knowledge of the code base was a big mistake, because it leads to other mistakes like trivial typos and trying to do refactoring using regular expressions.

Hear me out, but could it be that your mistake is actually using dynamically typed languages?
I think the mistake is actually conflating the use cases here. Google has a nice lucrative business model with search. AI offers new business models on top of that. Some of these are going to be extremely valuable to users. To the point where companies might charge users for that and get lots of users to pay up.

The mistake here is assuming the business models will stay the same (i.e. free usage supported by ads). I think that's a mistake.

The second mistake is assuming people use search engines to answer questions or generate content. They might. Or they might just be looking for a particular web page or article. The former is kind of a new use case and business model. The latter is what Google is already doing quite well.

If I were Google, I would make this a paid feature with an initially generous freemium layer to lure people in and try before they buy. That would allow them to control the pace of rolling this out and allow them to focus on not having to cripple the experience.

MS is doing this indirectly via office365 and teams, which are already paid features and by partnering with OpenAI. Bing is a relatively minor business for them at this point so they can experiment there without risking much. MS is not going to be able to absorb most of Googles users anytime soon. My guess is that even MS does not believe that is actually going to happen. What might happen is that a lot of early adopters will come along and then find their way to their paid products. From a revenue point of view that seems like a good plan to me.

The issue with Google is that right now they are just responding to what MS is doing. They don't seem to yet have a coherent strategy of their own beyond just coasting along on ad revenue.
that requires registration on AMO. I should not have to do that to install an extension that I WROTE
To balance things out, the opposite is the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

"I'm bad at this. Oh, but maybe it's the Impostor Syndrome and that means I'm actually good? Oh but then maybe that's the Dunning-Kruger Effect and I'm actually bad."

Repeat until both cancel out and your mind settles on some middle point, not worrying about "maybe I'm bad and nobody else knows", and not being overconfident.
Better to shun languages that implement "opt out" tracking.
Already tried that. Not worth it with the current token limitations.

But I'm currently tinkering with other applications of AI and MrScraper. Will ship something when I think it's reliable enough.
"Being a scientist, I had to check the math. Turns out it's even worse. You could have made $53,000 (£44,000) a day or $20 million per year since Jesus was born and still not make the profits Shell did in 2022." - Prof. Katharine Hayhoe, Climate Scientist, Chief Scientist @nature_org
, Prof @TexasTech
That incorrectly presumes that you[1] can make any law you want, have it enforced, and not piss off the vast majority of people or damage the fabric of free society.

You can't make any law you want, and keep a free society. You can't tell people they can't train neural nets with publicly available data. You can't tell people they can't run something like stable diffusion without getting output approved by some approved entity.

This is a line in the sand. If lawmakers are coerced into passing such laws, it will consolidate almost all future power (computing, language, speech, images, and video will all be heavily dependent on potentially copyrighted AI output) in the hands of government or corporate authority.

[1] for all the people complaining about this:

a) That's the collective "you", not the parent poster.

b) The majority of people are not involved in Congress's decision to pass or not pass legislation. What moves the needle is the representative's own intuition (often flawed), or relatively small groups of people who have been motivated to contact their legislators, or corporate lobbying.
You can't satisfy both sides by completely ignoring one side.

"What I do on my machine is none of your business, unless I decide it's your business" is a strong argument, presented multiple times in multiple places, and I haven't seen any rebuttal by any Go representative.

You can ignore the community and do whatever is good for business, but it's hypocritical to pretend you're a "community-driven" project if you do that.
Because everyone wants to optimize for highest incoming cash with the least amount of time spent? :)
Get Dungeon instead of Zork I-II-III, it's closer to the original concept.

https://ifdb.org/viewgame?id=4gxk83ja4twckm6j
I have done dating startups few times, even went on 1+ dates a day for six months and on each actively tried to understand how people date; in my experience, people are highly random, rarely reach anywhere near a significant sample, and tend to focus of characteristics of an individual instead of characteristics related to relationships.

If I was to do another social platform that supports dating, it would be one that’s friendly first, dating second. Reason being that in my experience people don’t understand that they wrongly focus on attributes of individual when looking for a relationship instead of looking at the individual’s relationship attributes.

Individuals attributes are things like: attractiveness, age, hobbies, finances, religion, race, profession, etc.

Relationship attributes are things like: communication, engagement, supportiveness, helpfulness, honesty, trustworthiness, kindness, empathy, compassion, availability, reliability, consistency, mindfulness, openness, receptiveness, contribution, etc.

The relationship attributes apply platonic and non-platonic relationships — but are much better predictors of non-platonic relationship success long term than the individual attributes.
From what I've seen in the art world it is common practice to build on the work of others without attribution. Is this really all that different? That said, I think these tools still implicitly depend on people to pick out good images that resonate with people, as if people don't like the image it creates it won't get shared.
Not sure what he thinks but here's what I think. Although the verticality thing isn't bad in and of itself (it does look nice) it effectively gives you less space on the screen which encourages usage of space saving measures like one letter variable names and abbreviations. This makes it difficult to understand your intention and may make it difficult for someone else to take over your project.
These kinds of services will always be vulnerable. Especially now that the Twitter API is getting monetised.

I had the same goal: helping Twitter users transition to Mastodon. But I decided to go about it a different way: by getting Mastodon into Twitter user’s timeline. So I created a browser extension to do just that. It’s definitely not a perfect either, but I hope it will be a useful way for some to transition or at least get exposure to Mastodon.

The extension is here: https://chirper.picheta.me
I think we got something right here. Deep analysis tech journalism is back.

Great piece.
I mean, we had a SETI false alarm from the break room microwave door being opened without pressing the ‘stop’ button first…
Thanks for taking a look. We’ve found that most people who we show the page to have no idea what Gitpod or Github Codespaces is, so we decided to go with outlining the benefits first. But maybe we should put this line in the subheading.
You’ve summed up my issue with AI art. If no human was involved in creating the piece then as far as I’m concerned, it’s not art. It’s something but art it is not - and I’m not someone who is in to art at all, I just want to know that an actual person was trying to express an idea/opinion when making a piece.

Once I know a human didn’t make something my brain just looses interest. Telling if something was human or AI made us the trick.

To be clear, I’m only applying this thinking to art - if something is drawn or calculated by AI that solved a problem (circuit design, route planning etc) then I’m all for it.
It's organised but unconventional. Not hard to read. Incidentally, I've found that embedded stuff,which your fragment seems to be, tends to have the most examples of such unconventional styles, often written by EEs or specialists in other fields who learned programming as a side-endeavour. Zero indentation, and code that otherwise looks like English prose, is also surprisingly common there --- and yet they seem to have little trouble reading or writing such code. Here's a memorable example of that: https://rloewelectronics.com/
Neither Couch Surfer, nor Meetup are designed for dating — and in my experience anyone using them for dating has a negative impact on there intended use. In the case of Meetup, there are dating groups, but in my experience those are a waste of time.
Ok, but, that system - "how things are" - is exploitative in the extreme to both people and the planet. It's unsustainable, eldritch, profoundly unjust and corrupt.

Using "how things are" (fucked) as a justification to prevent discussion of "how things could be" (amazing) is fucked. I'm sick to the teeth of seeing it.
Everyone knows that the term machine learning doesn't actually have anything to do with human learning, right? It's just a set of words that were catchier than gradient descent or curve fitting.

Asserting legal rights based on a naming quirk seems pretty unfounded.

Let's try that statement again: 'It is the same as executing gradient descent over multiple artists works' That sounds a heck of a lot closer to running a Photoshop filter than learning anything now doesn't it.
Nordstream 2 was not delivering any gas at that point, Germany had refused the offer to open NS2 (after a series of comically timed "repairs" that just happened to require the new sanctions to be broken) and showed no signs of relenting. I think it is an enormous leap to assume that Germany would in this alternate reality inevitably relent and do what amounts to a pro-Russia stance in backpedalling and using NS2, that would not only fracture the country internally but would cause a foreign policy nightmare at the heart of the EU and NATO. As we have seen it was well within the world of possibilities to stand up LNG terminals for delivery by tanker, this would've been known to both Germany and the USA who would have been in discussion about this the entire time Nordstream was being discussed.

My position is: we just don't know yet, nothing is completely certain. I am surprised that people seem 100% convinced because they read an article by Hersh that paints a nice story and uses an as-yet unnamed source as proof and are prepared to take it all at face value. It may well turn out that the USA was responsible after all. But this recent article is, as it stands, no more than a story. It's still completely possible Nordstream 1/2 was blown by the Russians or the Ukrainians or the Brits or the Poles...

We don't know shit, let's not pretend we do.
Betteridge’s law of headlines.
MikroTik HAP Ax²
When you add a link to raindrop.io you can add it to any of your folders. Tags are yet another thing they support but I don’t use them extensively.
This is definitely the Marie Antoinette argument.

It doesn't matter what 'a lot of people think art is' it matters what artists think, and what our rights are.

I don't see how any corporation should be able to consume someone's copyrighted work without their permission and make something of it.

AI will be fantastic for doing 'art' but it won't be good for 'artists' trying to make a living.

If OpenAI wants to use some artists material they can pay for it.

Otherwise, use the stuff that's not protected, make their own art, etc..
We can change the licencing models used to release work into the public domain.

In order to do so, we need the conversation and we need to educate inorder to have the conversation in the first place.

Law is evolving.
Most of the list you mentioned will never move. They have millions of lives if hyper specialized code. What matters are greenfield projects.
One solution is to continuously record web history and then just search it. The advantage is:

1. you often don't know what resources you will really "value" in the future, so no more "to save or not to save, this is the question"

2. tagging, to be effective, requires discipline (thinking about then sticking to an agile system). So, we just replace it with search, preferably NLP/AI (so you don't have to remember the exact keywords)

Apps do exist, from the expensive [1] to the experimental [2].

[1] https://heyday.xyz/

[2] https://github.com/karlicoss/promnesia
There is far, far more reason to be worried about sources on the right than there is sources on the left. Right-aligned sources are much more likely to deny science, to skew information in a way that benefits corporate benefactors, and to contain bias against marginalized groups such as LGBTQ and even women.
I have many friends who are artists and illustrators.

They definitely disagree with your point of view.
Two potential counter-arguments:

1) When artists 'steal' from others, they generally build something 'new'. AI can't really create anything 'new'. Case in point: Umberto Eco's The Name Of The Rose steals the plot and outline from crime stories, steals the library idea from Borges, and steals the murderer's motive from Eco's medieval manuscript (forgot which one). Yet the outcome is something completely new. Same goes for hip-hop music; sampling is at its core, but the final music that comes out is nothing like what it samples, the samples are just a part of something new.

2) when artists steal from each other, it's generally poor artists ripping off other poor artists. No money can flow. When a million/billion-dollar company rips off poor artists to make more money via generative AI it's a different story. Money could flow but it doesn't.
This, I really don't get why people want to enforce uniformity, a room filled with people with exactly the same accent is a boring room. Most teams I've worked on slowly converge to a "house style" in any case, and if you're on the team, your personal preferences are a part of that. Not some committee.
Edit Dungeon/Zorks' Z-machine source code (zdungeon) to define new verbs.

http://www.penguincentral.com/retrocomputing/zdungeon/

Inform6+Inform6 lib:

http://jxself.org/git/inform
http://jxself.org/git/informlib

Inform's Begginer's Guide:

https://rinform.org/docs/IBG.pdf

The advanced one, for advanced Inform programmers:

https://inform-fiction.org/manual/DM4.pdf

EDIT: I found no source for the ZDungeon port of it,
but you can get the C version:

https://github.com/devshane/zork
I don't think people select Python for it's performance ;)

But the type-checking could be a command line parameter, used only during development.
The point for me is, how can you know if a human was involved?
> We the people

"We the people" means nothing. You are not in control.
The comment didn't take a position on whether or not it should be illegal, or whether or not it is exciting.
You think the current world isn't dysfunction or dystopian?
You just simply pin the DB on dedicated workers. No big deal.
If you write an 'algorithm' that copies someone's art and distributes it - then you are infringing. It doesn't matter if you 'automated it' and the word 'art' doesn't really apply so much either.
If it's only a date, you want someone attractive to have sex with. I don't see the difference.
I watched both interviews. Thanks for sharing.
And then they decide to add SAFe…
If you're learning from existing works at scale, aren't you less infringing than someone who only learns from a handful of existing works?
I was into Tcl (and Tk) in the mid 90's. There was a great database that I think had Tcl bindings called Qddb (quick and dirty database). I used these to hack together a few Web cgi-bin applications. One was a super fast library catalogue (something like 10 times quicker than the proprietary one I imported the catalogue data from). The other one I like to think as my "almost invented Facebook" moment. It was a template driven web application that allowed you to publish your profile page (and of course edit it in the browser) and also project pages. It got some use within the multinational resource company I was in as a way of improving collaboration in those early web days.
This sounds like a good argument for firecracker or some other micro hypervisor wrapper around your container to give you more control. You should never ever touch the host OS of a production system.
That’s the problem. We, the people, are not in control. We, the people, have given up control to bureaucrats who play god with permission. We, the people, make society function and our society will continue to function without the bureaucrats.

We, the people, should be demanding direct democracy.
I love how both sides in this debate immediately claim the other side is huge, faceless and corporate.

In truth both sides are a mix of both individuals and monied interests but this rhetorical tactic seems to be irresistible.
It’s a protection mechanism for ones ego. Because if you “don’t try” you always have an excuse for why you’re not doing as well as the “nerds” at school.

If you do “try” but you don’t get a top result, what would that say to a kids fragile ego ? They might think they’re not good at all.

By trying, you reveal your capabilities (as well as your limitations), and that can be terrifying for a kid with a fragile ego.

The correct mentality is to focus on the process, rather than the result.

The result doesn’t matter (especially for kids) as long as you focus on training and improving yourself.
> “We’re not litigating image by image, we’re litigating the whole technique behind the system.”

Oh yes, "let's sue AI-anything", no time to sue one by one. Wildcard attack, not against any specific work, but against the algorithm itself. If they wanted that, they should have patented image diffusion.

And when they want to copyright their own styles, the same thing. They want a style to work like a trademark, to block any future work from using it. Another attempt to make copyright more powerful, making current holders have an advantage over newcomers.

Basically they would like copyright to get trademark and patent powers, to cover any future reimplementation or style variation. But AI isn't coming just for art, and diffusion models are useful for many other things. They are not the one and only voice that matters.
Imagine someone saying the objective truth, regardless of what tortured implications someone wrings from it.

For example, the Wikipedia article on a different colonial empire, the Umayyad caliphate, is positively aglow with all the good it did (in addition to enslaving some of its subjects): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus
In the cloud, volumes are just disks. They are attached to the instance were your pod get scheduled. You can in gke choose the disk type (IOPS).

If configured like a daemonset, you are garanteed to always match disk to pod instance ordinal (postgres-0 get disk 0, postgres-1 get disk 1).

So basically a way to run multiple postgres instances.

But the devil is in the details.
Yeah, I'm not sure if rooftop can quite cut it for Saskatchewan like it can for Australia for instance.

I've got one family member in Saskatchewan with rooftop solar looking at numbers similar to you. Another has 40 acres and a honey operation so just has ground mounted solar and often zeroes his electricity bill even during winter months, although he's still using gas for heating. Just got a heat pump water heater, so he's heading in that direction.

Saskatchewan has lots of land, so we we can do it collectively even if we can't do it ourselves just with roof tops.
You have to go on having lots and lots of ideas.
It already can be used for development, IDEs such as PyCharm perform quite effective live type checking based on type hints.
Why is it some of the worlds greatest achievers say something like: "everything I've done was built on those who came before, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants", and others say: "I and I alone made the entirety of this"?

And which is closer to the truth?
Don't think of this in terms of just art. In fact art is probably a confusing example since the creative process is a bit obscure.
Think of creating any immaterial object of value to you or others. A recipe book, a coding blog, a graphic novel, whatever.

Are you really going to go through the pains of creating that and putting it out there, if on the next day some AI startup is going to train its models on it and offer something seemingly different, but ultimately equivalent, commercially?

We're running into a huge problem for creators here, and it'll have to be solved with new laws around training models on original content some way or the other.

If we want to still have a creative industry going forward, that is.
I fail to see how that last sentence makes it sound like a photoshop filter. Do you mean if you can express it as an algorithm it cannot be compared to human learning?

What if we can reduce human learning to making predictions based on training data? Then it's not human learning anymore but more like a photoshop filter?

"Everyone knows that the term machine learning doesn't actually have anything to do with human learning, right?"
Do you have sources for that? They're not equal but I see a lot of parallels.
> That incorrectly presumes that you can make any law you want, have it enforced, and not piss off the vast majority of people

OPs "we" _is_ the vast majority of people. You are answering as if OP said "I".

Of course OPs implementation is complicated, but they are not presuming you can make any law you want.
Thank you, didm't know about this episode.

The site of the people that found the remains of the plane is online and has a nice old-times look (with frames):

https://www.thexhunters.com/

https://www.thexhunters.com/xpeditions/f6f-5k_accident.html

https://www.thexhunters.com/xpeditions/f6f-5k_hunt.html
Do you believe he would have clicked on the thread and made a comment if he wouldn't have a position?
Microservices from the Trenches
I started programming something in Python for the first time ever, a few weeks ago. (In the PyCharm IDE.)

I was somewhat afraid of the enforced indentation and newline policy, but I must say I love it, at least so far. Consistent and unified code style reduces my cognitive workload and lets
me concentrate on the business logic of the classes I am working on.

When everyone has their own style, as was the case in all my previous projects (C++, C, Java, PHP), the extra friction costs some non-trivial amount of energy and time of everyone involved.

Of course there is more than just formatting to a "programming style", but still.
the problem is not type hinting. the problem is people trying to use a single function for any type. as can be seen in the article, that is extremely difficult and error prone. so just dont do that:

def slow_add(a: int, b: int) -> int:
def slow_add_float(a: float, b: float) -> float:

OK its not as elegant or pretty, but its really clear what is going on. the problems described in the article crop up because people are trying to have the interpreter intuit what the programmer is wanting, when what the programmer is wanting might be ill defined or simply invalid.
Why not ask artists themselves, why every friggin article avoids artists? Give a microphone to artists and ask their opinion. Is that so hard?
"Code style" is about more than formatting, and this article isn't identifying "good programmers," it finds a rather weak correlation with people who are good at doing programming contests--the two are not necessarily the same.