skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Generally, someone indicted by the US government of a nonviolent federal crime will spend little time in a jail cell if they have non-indictable assets to put up, and have no demonstrable flight risk. The arbitrary initial bail amount, and the acceptance of these collateral assets, was determined by the same judge - the intended effect is that SBF shows up in court.

Obviously, this plays out much differently if you and your family are poor.
The plain English doesn't mean dick to a judge though. A Mexican here on a non-immigrant visa is most definitely a person but absent a few exceptions, you are going to jail if found with a gun. No matter that right is ascribed to "people" not "citizens." It's only through a lot of not-plain-english mumbo jumbo that you might discover the Mexican is not a person to the judge.

Weev is definitely an interesting case. He was released after conviction for being tried apparently in the wrong jurisdiction. It appears his prosecution was incompetent, or stupid. He somehow ended up with a Transnistria passport and resides in Ukraine, afraid they will re-prosecute the case in the correct court next time. He still appears here occasionally under the name 'rabite'.
The poster I'm responding to disagrees with the differentiation of the article. I'm trying to affirm the differentiation with examples.
People don't want the mechanism either because the root problem is the misaligned incentives in that a secure password is always more work to use compared to an insecure password. Recently the push for passwordless authentication has been tackling that.
Dinosaurs probably looked more like ducks than alligators.
More recently, movie studios regularly destroyed old film to make space for new ones, causing old pictures, especially silent era ones, to be lost forever.

Even NASA wiped the original Apollo 11 tapes to reuse them.
> granted by no grand jury, nor a judge?

Pen register orders require court approval [1].

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3123
Well, I haven't seen much evidence that would pin responsibility so squarely on Anthony Fauci, but say that he engineered the virus himself and released it into a Wuhan market as a cover and this was all proven beyond dispute. So what? I presume you'd want to punish him with life in prison or something stronger than that. That's fine with me, woodchip him for all I care. But what difference would it make to the way I should have lived my life for the last couple of years?
The tyranny isn't coming from me, it's coming from the people that own the company that's firing you. And the "tyrannical idea" you're referring to is called capitalism, and it has its upsides and its downsides. Don't shoot the messenger.
If you give it the right prompt, it'll give you back this:

{
thunk: "(async function(query, dispatch){dispatch({type: 'compute'});const fee = 250;const pointValue = 0.014;const breakEven = fee / (pointValue * 4);dispatch({type: 'compute_response'});return {answer: breakEven, solvedProblems: [], computed: true, query: false};})(query, dispatch)",
en: 'You need to spend ${answer} on groceries to break even.'
}
Despite the conservative party publicly acknowledging the errors of her ways in the late 90s, she had already moved the UK overton window far enough to pave the way for New Labour. I doubt Brexit would've been possible without two right-wing parties dominating the political sphere. Even Old-Labour-Corbyn's resistance to "take sides" post-referendum says so much about how much public perception of the political spectrum had shifted in the UK.
thanks, texudo laptops look pretty cool!
> *Dad, partner, whoever. Just someone who isn't on a hormone induced emotional rollercoaster.

Not to disagree with your point, but to note: Fathers' hormones also change during pregnancy and postpartum. Most commonly known is that there is a slight decrease in testosterone. This is often suspected as being something to make the man a better caregiver.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/parenting/baby/fatherhood...
Cue the obligatory Heinlein quote:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
—Robert A. Heinlein
The computer is. The LLM is not.

I think it's philosophical. Like how your mind isn't your brain. We can poke and study brains but the mind eludes us.
The responses to the Chinese Room experiment always seem to involve far more tortuous definition-shifting than the original thought experiment

The human in the room understands how to find a list of possible responses to the token 你好吗, and how select a response like 很好 from the list and display that as a response

But he human does not understand that 很好 represents an assertion that he is feeling good[1], even though the human has an acute sense of when he feels good or not. He may, in fact, not be feeling particularly good (because, for example he's stuck in a windowless room all day moving strange foreign symbols around!) and have answered completely differently had the question been asked in a language he understood. The books also have no concept of well-being because they're ink on paper. We're really torturing the concept of "understanding" to death to argue that the understanding of a Chinese person who is experiencing 很好 feelings or does not want to admit they actually feel 不好 is indistinguishable from the "understanding" of "the union" of a person who is not feeling 很好 and does not know what 很好 means and some books which do not feel anything contain references to the possibility of replying with 很好, or maybe for variation 好得很, or 不好 which leads to a whole different set of continuations. And the idea that understanding of how you're feeling - the sentiment conveyed to the interlocutor in Chinese - is synonymous with knowing which bookshelf to find continuations where 很好 has been invoked is far too ludicrous to need addressing.

The only other relevant entity is the Chinese speaker who designed the room, who would likely have a deep appreciation of feeling 很好, 好得很 and 不好 as well as the appropriate use of those words he designed into the system, but Searle's argument wasn't that programmers weren't sentient.

[1]and ironically, I also don't speak Chinese and have relatively little idea what senses 很好 means "good" in and how that overlaps with the English concept, beyond understanding that it's an appropriate response to a common greeting which maps to "how are you"
> The difficulty is knowing what the intent was.

It's not a coincidence that the postmodern thoughts that underpin a lot of this bullshit simply does away with intent, declaring it to be completely useless, and saying that the only thing that can be used to judge a message is how it affected the recipient.

Combine that with "words are violence", and you can manufacture physical abuse out of thin air.

It's really not the way forward for progressivism.
> a $30,000 car that will leave you with nearly nothing after several years also has no value?

It has metal and plastic, assembled in parts that you can sell for a total amount that will be surprisingly high, or that can be sold for scrap metal, or driven until the end of days, or or or... It's obvious that it has some sort of value, however low - it is a thing made of resources in the real world. You can argue about the price, but you can quantify it in so many different ways (weight, dimensions, speed, consumption, age, etc etc etc).
Yes, they write as if it's common sense (which isn't, as some don't have it) that when people generalize (of course, not all people), and that everybody understands (well, not really everybody, but many) that all things have exceptions (well, not all, but many. Some things don't have exceptions, e.g. some mathematical axioms), but it's still useful (except when it's harmful of course) to generalize for the most common case, and not give a laundry list (of course I'm speaking metaphorically, I don't refer to an actual list of laundry items) of exceptions every time we say something...

It's obvious (well, not to everybody, but to a certain large number of people) that instead they should include the cartesian product of all possible exception as extra qualification of their statement...

And God forbid (not actual God of course, as he don't exist) that somebody writes something like "Alaska is cold" when there are places in Alaska, like the inside of ovens and saunas, that are objectively quite warm (though, of course, not as warm as the Sun)...
You can set lower power limits for both AMD and Intel's chips to improve perf/watt. AMD benefits more than Intel when doing so.

Here's some more reading if you're interested:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power...
> Although violent speech is unacceptable

speech inciting violence is unacceptable. Speech isn't by it's nature violent--although it might be called forceful--and I would refrain from ever calling speech violent.

(and even speech inciting violence turns out to be acceptable to a majority of people in conditions where you say you want to kill (for example) a pedophile or a racist, or when you're writing a Declaration of Independence or a French National Anthem (La Marseillaise) because everybody agrees, the Tree of Liberty must periodically be watered by the blood of tyrants!)

my comment is a little bit all over the place, but what I'm trying to say is, you should never agree to call speech violence but always put in the word "incite/ment"; and at the same time it's difficult to make any broad or universal statements about speech without discovering it's a complex subject. Humans are good at imagination or conceptualizing hypotheticals, and we have the capacity for violence, so it's very difficult to say what someone can and can't say, usually the listener understands implicitly but sometimes the person listening does not have your interstests at heart, has their own motives, or is plain nutso.
Just to make it a little crazier, all LC-130s (the ones with skis) fly out of upstate New York!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_LC-130
I think this was the needle Kant was trying to thread with the categorical imperative.

Hierarchies are efficient and necessary, but ethically dubious and subject to abuse. Ergo, a hierarchy where everyone acts as though their position in it may be randomly swapped at any time is the optimal configuration.
Not the parent, but yes.

We're still a bit far from this scientifically, but to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing preventing us from following "by hand" the activation pattern in a human nervous system that would lead to phrasing the same sentence. And I don't see how this has anything to do with consciousness.
They're not though? They both offer incredibly fine control over how much power they consume, and will happily run at way lower power. They seem to accept undervolting pretty well too, which is a little riskier-of-instability/fancier.

There is some new inefficiency on AMD builds now that the Core Chiplet Die (CCD) and IO Die (IOD) are separate units, not monolithic. DDR5 also taked more power. The fancier X670 chipset (really, two chipset dies) also takes power & could very much use some tuning, but it's also doing a beastly amount of IO work, in some cases for good cause (more low power capabilities/better idle would be appreciated though! One of AMD's first in house chipsets in a long time).

We've barely started exploring how well behaved we can make the just launched 65w ryzen parts... but it wouldnt be shocking to me if there's not really any advantage, if they literally end up being nearly the same part, rebadged & preconfigured to lower power. Is there even really going to be any binning to have selected these? You know maybe not!

Out of the box most chips come tuned for speed, but ask them to be a little nixer, turn on eco mode or power the power point, they are stunningingly efficient. Alas idle could use some tuning; staying under 40w idle is harder than it ought to be.
I use a Pur and it’s generally fine.
> A lot of people have faith that anything Apple will release will just be successful by the virtue of the Apple-y-ness of it.

Apple is rational. They won't sell this with marketing, they'll try to grow a developer community, just like with Mac, iPhone, iPad. My thing is, no matter what it is, it's a solution without a problem. I honestly can't believe they'll actually release it, and if they do, I won't believe it will be successful until it is. Just because Apple is Apple doesn't mean they can do the impossible. Usually Apple will take what is there and make it better. But with this, there's really nothing there to speak of, just a very small amount of splintered vociferous supporters of VR, and even less with AR. Watch, they'll downvote my comment soon enough. Apple needs to sell this to a lot of people that wouldn't think they needed or wanted it. But this isn't an iPod, so I just don't get how it can possibly be made essential or even sexy. Trying to make VR/AR a successful seller is like trying to fight a land war in Russia in winter.
that's another way to make the platform lose relevance... imagine if HN tried to always keep PG essays on the top of the feed
Most Indians still know, it has been covered continuously these past two decades. Or maybe I am in the wrong information bubble. BJP’s political opponents won’t allow anyone to forget it.
Ah, the old 4chan sport. Didn't think it'll get that refined.
In fact, companies that do what Equals does are successful already:

- NocoDB

- Baserow

- Rowy
how much physical violence is enough? Getting jumped by a crowd of dudes for no reason? Getting held up at gunpoint? There was definitely some other stuff as well, but those are the most memorable. I do admit that i haven't been in an actual warzone though.
Yes, I do take issue with it.

It's a nonsensical platitude, spoken by someone who neither knows, nor is interested in knowing, the subject matter.

If you want to be taken seriously, learn something about the systems you're trying to reform before telling other people how to do their jobs.
If he truly got 80 people to work through the night for something so trivial, this shows what is really wrong with capitalism combined with a situation of immense surplus. It is actually sick. Twitter is one of the worst things to happen to the internet.
I assumed it's due to their server chips being way more efficient, powerful, and cheaper than the equivalent parts from Intel.
> For example, I'm sure China's central planners would love to get an AGI first, and might be willing to take a 10% risk of annihilation for the prize of full spectrum dominance over the US.

This is the main problem - no matter what constraints the US (or EU) puts on itself, authoritarian regimes like Russia and China will definitely not adhere to those constraints. The CCP will attempt to build AGI, and they will use the data of their 1.4 billion citizens in their attempt. The question is not whether they will - it's what we can do about it.
>By all means, dunk on the people making insurance payments to cover his bail!

They made no payments of any kind:

>>Kramer signed a $500,000 unsecured bond, while Paepcke signed the same type of bond for $250,000.

And his bail isn't being "covered", except by a lien on an asset worth 1-2% of the amount and promises to pay the rest (that no one thinks the primary guarantors can actually honor).
Wow, do you have screenshots?
Wow, I would really like to get this book to complete my set of the Little Schemer, the Seasoned Schemer and the Reasoned Schemer. But 55$ is almost twice as expensive as the other books. Yes, it is bigger than those but still...

Have to think about this for a while :)
Another example:

“I’m thinking about getting either the Amex Hilton Aspire card that gives me 150,000 Hilton Honors points for signing up and has a $475 AF or the Amex Gold that gives me 70,000 Membership Reward points for signing up and has a $250 fee. A Hilton Honors point is worth .7 cents. A membership reward point is worth 1.4 cents. Which one would give me a better return in the first year”

ChatGPTs answer:

To determine which card would give you a better return in the first year, you'll need to consider the total value of the rewards earned, as well as the cost of the annual fee.

For the Hilton Aspire card, the 150,000 Hilton Honors points are worth $1,050 (150,000 x 0.7 cents per point). However, the $475 annual fee would offset a significant portion of that value.

For the Amex Gold card, the 70,000 Membership Reward points are worth $980 (70,000 x 1.4 cents per point). The $250 annual fee is lower than that of the Hilton Aspire card, but it still needs to be factored into the overall value.

Assuming you maximize the value of your rewards by redeeming them for their highest value and using all the card's benefits, here's a comparison of the two cards' net value in the first year:

Hilton Aspire: $1,050 (value of points earned) - $475 (annual fee) = $575 net value
Amex Gold: $980 (value of points earned) - $250 (annual fee) = $730 net value
Therefore, based on this analysis, the Amex Gold card would give you a better return in the first year. However, keep in mind that the value of the rewards can vary depending on how you redeem them, and your personal spending habits and travel preferences may also play a role in determining which card is right for you.
That’s an easy prediction to make; at worst you’re cautious.

And it’s a powerful tool. Even staplers have rules around their use: no stapling people, no hitting people with a stapler, don’t use a staple to pick a lock, etc.

But nobody blames the stapler, is my point.
As I understand it, an unsecured bond is simply one where you don't pay unless the defendant doesn't show up. That would mean the two non-parental guarantors haven't ponied up cash, but will each be out 6 figures in the (very unlikely) event SBF doesn't make it to trial.

His parents are a different story, and my understanding is that they'd be zeroed out if SBF jumped bail.
It absolutely can have an inner state. The guy I was responding however was speculating that it has an inner state that is in contradiction with it's output:

>In many ways, it felt like a broader mirror of liberal racism, where people believe things but can't say them.
love this quote
That is not an answer to the (math) question they were asking.
This is just a rewrite of a previously posted claim?
I use my 150$ hand crafted hammer to screw in screws, but it gets beaten by my 5$ screwdriver at screwing performance, shameful.
tl;dr: Bing Chat emulates arguing on the internet. Don't argue with it, you can't win.
I also agree extreme cases make bad law. That's why I'm disagreeing with the extreme that there are no exceptions to the notion of speech not being violent.
Shorter trains would also mean less severe derailments. Shorter trains also mean that trains are in risky areas for less time, less time decelerating and accelerating, so derailment could be far less than double.

Shorter trains would also make coordination easier, because the current trains are too long for bypass tracks so currently none of these trains can pass each other and it tacks a very long time for a multi-mile train to clear the tracks. Allowing trains to actually overtake each other again would help with congestion, but that mostly helps Amtrack so companies don't care.
It's equivalent to saying you can have a gun you just will go to prison if you ever use it.
Nomad running as a server (manager) and client (worker) on the main server, and as a client on a rpi3, through systemd on both, the install [0] and deploy [1] instructions worked well enough. It has constraints to control which client takes what workload (ex. I don't care which runs ddclient, but photoprism can't move to the rpi, and the sensor readers can't leave the rpi).

Caddy for reverse proxy and tls handling running as a service, so all ingress goes through that, there wasn't too much exciting there. I was porting over a docker-compose workload, so most services have a static port and I just route to the port in the caddyfile (I passed my router as the DNS for the reverse proxy, so its by hostname). I'll get caddy to use nomad for service addresses at some point.

But for photoprism, I've got the service discovery set up to its database, it's kind of awkward since the nomad native discovery goes into env vars or a file through the `template` block [2], but it does work.

Nomad is pickier about setting resource limits, so I had to actually set those to something reasonable.

I've mostly got Docker based services, so this reference [3] has been useful. There's a couple ways to mount the volumes, which is annoying, and there's some gotchas around docker image handling (short shorty is don't use the `latest` tag).

I probably haven't organized my jobs/groups/tasks well (the analog to k8s pods hierarchy), but that's for later.

[0] https://developer.hashicorp.com/nomad/tutorials/get-started/...
[1] https://developer.hashicorp.com/nomad/tutorials/enterprise/p...
[2] https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/nomad-service-discovery
[3] https://developer.hashicorp.com/nomad/docs/drivers/docker
> the state and his lawyers are arguing about the exact bail terms that should apply

My understanding is his bail terms didn’t mention a VPN. The government is petitioning the court to alter the bail terms to now prohibit the use of a VPN.
Twitter is relaxing its policies to allow cannabis ads
Presumably his rich parents want him to have a good defence.
Agree but also want to point out that people usually have a narrow view on "logic programming". Datalog can also be understood with out the top-down evaluation / resolution that is typically associated with prolog, which is why it is known to database researchers and in finite model theory. Prolog is great, but bottom up techniques to evaluate datalog are awesome, too, and would arguably also qualify as logic programming. It is rare to see this acknowledged.
> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought.

Right. I can't think of anyone I have come across in liberal media. But you can always dig someone up that takes any given position.

> While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We live in a world where the mechanisms of mass communication are held in private hands---there is no digital public square, regardless of what techno-libertarians might have you believe.

All correct. The people who want it to be one way or the other (depending on their political leanings) usually are conflating constitutional protections from the government as being applicable to/from everyone and everything else.

If you're screaming on Twitter that (some racial group) is bad, and people tell you to shut up, they are allowed to do so under the first amendment. You're allowed to do so under the first amendment. Twitter can totally ban you based on what they deem acceptable behavior, because the first amendment doesn't regulate private companies (just the government).

If you're calling for the extermination of that particular group, the government can charge you under US Code for inciting violence:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373

...But you have to prove intent, which is notoriously hard to do, and notoriously easy to get off scott-free from. ("I was being bombastic, I didn't think anyone would LITERALLY try and exterminate said group")
Of all the python plotting packages I have tried, matplotlib is still my favorite. A large part of this is that's one of the few that doesn't insist on using a web browoser. My only complaint with it is I wish the plots were more interactive. What I really want is the speed and API of matplotlib with the interactivity of plotly but without the web browser. I think matlab may be the only thing that comes close to that.