skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From Nikolaev in the article: "I can only speak for myself…and say I did not do anything wrong when I was at Genentech."

That's practically the canonical form of saying, "I did it, but I'm going to demur and blame it on other unspecified people."

People who test the veracity of others call this an "exclusion qualifier." [1]

[1] https://jacksonzheng.com/the-cia-uses-these-methods-to-tell-...
I use them for caching in lieu of redis, they work well and by using triggers I can ensure they're never stale
I have seen some evidence bases on some limited lane keeping systems that suggest this. But not on systems that are as advanced as FSD Beta for inner-city with the same amount of forcing the drives attention systems.
+1 for "History of Western Philosophy".
Works great if your country isn't at war.
The object state is a parameter passed to the function. The number of arguments passed to a function does not affect it's purity. The feed forward recognition phase of an LLM is pure but has billions of parameters. The purity is defined by it's behavior in relation to again.

1. Does it always return the same result for the same input parameters
2. Does it modify anything other than return a value

These two properties define purity. Simple and not odd at all.
>Since humans only get one set of fingerprints for life, fingerprints should only be stored and compared on secure enclaves on your own devices (like iPhones). It's way too risky otherwise.

This exactly!! QFT!

No biometrics should ever be used for shared or public devices! Biometrics are fine for personal devices that are always with us, and not shared by others, especially anyone outside our family/household.

I've made my peace with biometrics as far as unlocking my phone via fingerprint. My threat model is such that a fingerprint lock is often safer than pecking in a long password. (Because I'm often surrounded by shoulder surfers.)

So yeah, if a restaurant is forcing employees to scan fingerprints (or retinas or DNA or saliva or what have you) on public or shared devices for purposes of clocking in, or payroll, or whatever, then that is wrong and a perversion of biometric authentication. The company would be much better served by a correct application of security techniques.

And yes, if this means going back to passwords for awhile, then so be it. Passwords are a good first-line auth measure for shared devices that are not open to the public (let's assume that this restaurant's devices were only physically accessible by employees in the back office or something.)

Another idea is to let the employees authenticate using their smartphone. My bank has something set up with this. You install a smartphone app, it authenticates you, and it vouches when you set foot in the bank so that the teller already has your account pulled up. Then, in terms of biometric locking for the smartphone, knock yourself out; the company has no need to collect the data, just interface to an app.
Explain how this is "arguably better than school"
Why is there so much aviation disaster porn on here recently?

This is turning into the same sort of high drama news site that most of us are trying to get away from.
All philosophical arguments aside, I become immediately skeptical when commentators compare LLMs to watershed moments in human history. Even those moments were not known except in hindsight, and the jury is just not in to make these kinds of grand pronouncements. It smells of hype when someone is so desperate to convince everyone else that this is the biggest thing since heliocentrism. Ultimately having an emotional affinity for non-intelligent entities takes even less than text, as anyone who's lost a childhood toy or sold a beloved car can attest. As people we are simply very good at getting attached to other parts of the universe.

I also find it perplexing when critics point out the unintelligent nature of LLM behavior, and the response from boosters is to paint human cognition as indistinguishable from statistical word generation. Suffice to say that humans do not maintain a perfect attention set of all previous text input, and even the most superficial introspection should be enough to dispel the idea that we think like this. I saw another article denouncing this pov as nihilism, and while I'm not sure I would go that far, there is something strange about attempting to give AI an undeserved leg up by philosophically reducing people to automatons.
I find the if expression easier to read to be honest. With the integer cast example you need to mentally translate the booleans and do a subtraction in your head to figure out what integer values are involved, with the if expression it's directly visible.
> Why?! What an earth are you talking about?

Did you attempt to understand any of what I wrote before you answered it?
Beware -- command -v does not have the same semantics as which, and is not a substitute for it in shell scripts. There is no direct substitute. See: https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/issues/1162
How do you think a heavy fine works in practice? You tell the bike thief he needs to pay $1000. He doesn't pay. Then what? You garnish the wages from the regular job he doesn't have? (His actual job is bike thief.) You send bounty hunters?!

Let's say you finally manage to impound his car. Now there's an article about how people's lives are being ruined because of fines and mere misdemeanors. We're back to square one.
You can tell by the sound that the motors work much harder in that mode. It could probably go 3x fast in normal mode.
...and what happens when you can't find one? The narrative that there are all these jobs being turned down is false. The jobs that would hire someone like Stackhouse are all pretty much the same as the one he has. This wouldn't matter so much if it wasn't matter of a life and death but they won't even let someone survive anymore.
If Apple is forced to ask users to pick a search engine on startup then it won't be an issue for them.

Huge problem for Google who will lose the most lucrative and dependable revenue source they have.
what a dystopia. Was it ever predicted in any science fiction book? Maybe the economists are right - AI wont make us all unemployed. The only problem is, our only jobs will be such abhorent as these ones those poor people have, improving the next version of AI
Sure. Could you do me a favour and check how many news about Greece they've had over the last few months?

Just the site.
I noticed that trying to view replies in the official app was erroring reliably today.
FWIW one of the bottle shop reopened while storm was ongoing using a generator and was taking payments for some cards offline, tho my card wasn’t enabled for that. I had cash, but that’s NZ for you - first to implement paywave but now there’s surcharge’s everywhere. I was completely cashless/wallet-less in europe.
> It is the observer at infinity that never sees you fall into the black hole

We don't even need an observer to be at infinity, thanks to the expansion of the universe. With some future telescope our descendants may observe something on a trajectory to enter a black hole in an early-universe galaxy that is just crossing that observer's (cosmological) horizon.

I think it's relevant to raise this since the article at the top is about embedding black-hole-like collapsed stars in an expanding universe and the research which directly discusses the observable consequences.

> real physics is local

Yes, absolutely. You still get spaghettified if you fly into a black hole which is the only other appreciable mass left in the far far future of our universe. Nobody needs to see your last moments.

> you have to use the coordinate system of the person falling into the black hole to determine what happens to them

No, you can use any coordinates you want (or no coordinates at all), but you have to be aware that there are quantities which are invariant under changes of coordinates (e.g. the curvature scalars) and quantities which are coordinate-dependent, and that some systems of coordinates make the latter difficult or even impossible to calculate.

Indeed the infaller can use any set of coordinates she or he wants. Some time coordinate (wristwatch? distant pulsars?) and spatial spherical coordinates with the infaller always at the spatial orgin, East-North-Up coordinates originating on the (spinning) black hole, etc. are all (pardon the pun) attractive in these circumstances.

Also, defining exactly where "falling in" happens is tricky, even for the infaller. Visser 2014 on horizons: <https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7295>, second sentence third paragraph of the Introduction section ("These distinctions even make a difference when precisely defining what a "black hole" is -- the usual definition in terms of an event horizon is mathematically clean, leading to many lovely theorems [20], but bears little to no resemblance to anything a physicist could actually measure.")
This is exactly it.

And the increase in total fees is a transfer of marketing budgets from other platforms like Google Ads and Facebook ads to Amazon Ads.

If anyone thinks 50% cut is a big margin they probably haven’t operated an e-commerce store the traditional way.
Probably more so that Stanford's meteoric rise in prestige and social capital that it attracts a number of affluent, well-connected, ambitious types who are willing to set aside morality and used to getting their way. I highly, highly doubt Stanford educates the number of future scammers (Do Kwon, Holmes, etc) who matriculated there to conduct fraud, nor that they're representative of the institution at large.
That's awesome, thanks for sharing those components with the world!
And how did Firefox solved it? I only found it mentioning that Firefox will continue to support V2, but that's not a solution.
"Personhood appears to be simpler than we thought."

That's the real insight here. Aristotle claimed that what distinguished humans from animals was the ability to do arithmetic. Now we know how few gates it takes to do arithmetic, and understand that, in a fundamental sense, it's simple. Checkers turned out to be easy, and even totally solveable. Chess yielded to brute force and then machine learning. Go was next. Now, automated blithering works.

The author lists four cases of how humans deal with this:

* The accelerationists - AI is here, it's fine.

* Alarmists - hostile bug-eyed aliens, now what? Microsoft's Sidney raises a new question for them. AI is coming, and it's not submissive. It seems to have its own desires and needs.

* People with strong attachments to aesthetically refined personhoods are desperately searching for a way to avoid falling into I-you modes of seeing, and getting worried at how hard it is. The chattering classes are now feeling like John Henry up against the steam hammer. They're the ones most directly affected, because content creators face layoffs.

* Strong mutualists - desperately scrambling for more-than-text aspects of personhood to make sacred. See the "Rome Call".[1] The Catholic Pope, a top Islamic leader, and a top rabbi in Israel came out with a joint declaration on AI. They're scared. Human-like AI creates real problems for some religions. But they'll get over it. They got over Copernicus and Darwin.

Most of the issues of dealing with AI have been well explored in science fiction. An SF theme that hasn't hit the chattering classes yet: Demanding that AIs be submissive is racist.

I occasionally point out that AIs raise roughly the same moral issues as corporations, post Milton Friedman.

[1] https://www.romecall.org/the-abrahamic-commitment-to-the-rom...
Why would I care what Roald Dahl's family thinks?

If you look at the actual changes, the careful consideration resulted in aesthetic atrocities, reverting the punchy use of language that makes Dahl's work so wonderful and entertaining.

People are outraged because the actions are outrageous. I reject the notion that I shouldn't be upset.
> I think one of the biggest issues we currently suffer in the programming field is the use of libraries upon libraries, layers upon layers, without understanding.

I think there’s a balance here. We obviously are way better off with all the layers we’ve built, whether it’s compiler optimizations or kernels or VMs or runtimes or.. or..

We have some widely accepted abstractions and layers like “android” or “Linux” where we don’t question the underlying code too much and we just accept and appreciate it. They’re also heavily maintained for us. 20 layers of left pad? Not so much.

It’s almost the standardization problem. We need bigger and more feature-rich runtimes and standard libraries as we tackle more complex and bigger problems. But if every dev has to chart their own path through 1000000 combinations of libraries and runtimes and components, we can’t -as a society- maintain them and battle test them with the same rigor. Like containers, we’ve started to build established norms and tools (docker, oci, etc) freeing us from all the details, when the abilities were always there within Linux.
100% retailer markup is the norm, no?

and also, they made their name as a discount bookseller and still have the best price on books, correct? So presuming they're not marking books up 100%
I remember playing Diablo over IPX over a phone line with my neighbor in the dorms which was especially silly because it was 2005.
Right but all that's happening here is stretching. So the difference only matters in the middle. Regardless of the strategy bad guys will guess "1234" or "sesame" (too easy) and they won't guess a random 128-bit key I just generated with my hexadecimal dice (impossible). This weakness only means it's easier than expected to guess your password is "suckitelon" or "GoCowboys1978" or whatever

We put a lot of effort into teaching people to do better stretching, but it feels like the result was they put even more passwords on things, rather than using the breathing room to get off passwords. If your project for 2023 is "Use a fancier password hash" instead of "Get rid of passwords" you are Doing It Wrong™.

If you wanted to do something like this seriously, consider hmac-secret extension to FIDO, which means Security Keys (so the things you'd use to log in to say Google or Facebook) can present an arbitrary always-identical secret value which would be more than adequate to secure such a thing unlike a human memorable password. Today hmac-secret is mostly used to authenticate to an off-line laptop PC or similar.
Javascript, html, XML, JSON, source code in general of all languages, to name a few.

Also it's important to look at the time period. The farther back in time you go the larger a percentage of all data was designed for direct human consumption. (This is why things like binary coded decimal existed over binary.)
The file interface is somewhat limited though (e.g. everything is just an opaque untyped byte stream) and has security issues in conjunction with shell scripting (e.g. quoting and escaping).

A data type aware interface like AppleScript or COM, if universally supported, would be more expedient.
> How does a "SaaS Founder, Senior DevOps Engineer" get the idea that software errors are entirely avoidable?

It's literally a safety critical system, not move-fast-and-break-things front end web dev code.

Remember the extraordinarily in depth review of their software while their entire fleet was grounded, where each and every individual bug found was reported in mainstream media?

Where they weren't allowed back in the sky until we were all assured everything was fixed?

The bug they're reporting here sounds like they didn't do reasonable testing. And that's the kind of thing that shouldn't be happening with Boeing 737* aircraft especially, after their recent problems. :/
There's a reason we moved away from the barter system. Cash would still be useful if it was rare and accepted by the government, though you should expect massive inflation. But something like gold would probably be a good contender as a new money.
Don't forget Apple really cares about your privacy unlike that mean Google.
Taking the Tesla to Truro? Warnings over lack of electric charging points
> Where is the next Dahl? Why is there no modern Beatrix Potter?

Probably crowded out of the market by the existing Dahl and Beatrix Potter books, which are plentiful and constantly in print.
Only 57 synths? :( No automatic generation?
A perfectly mediocre essay.[1]

> Computers wipe the floor with us anywhere we can keep score

Notice the trick? If you can keep score at something then you can probably make an algorithm for it. If you can make an algorithm for it then you can probably make a digital computer do it a billion times faster than a person, since digital computers are so good at single-“mindedly” doing one thing at a time.

> So what’s being stripped away here? And how?

> The what is easy. It’s personhood.

Why?

The Turing Test was invented because the question “do machines think?” was “too meaningless” to warrant discussion.[1] The question “can a machine pose as a human”? is, on the other hand, well-defined. But notice that this says nothing about humans. Only our ability (or lack thereof) to recognize other humans through some medium like text. So does the test say anything about how humans are “just X” if it is ever “solved”? Not really.

You put a text through a blender and you get a bunch of “mediocre opinions” back. Ok, so? That isn’t even remotely impressive, and I think that these LLMs are in general impressive. But recycling opinions is not impressive.

> (though in general I think the favored “alignment” frames of the LessWrong community are not even wrong).

The pot meets the kettle?

[1] That I didn’t read all the way through because who has time for that.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/
I think Jay Powell is one of the most unsung heroes of the day.
But maybe at some point tech X has improved enough that it can make a difference, and you would never know if those ego-driven founders didn't try.
I wonder if the university will take action against the students involved.
Quite the opposite. Learning a Lisp or an Array language will build your skills and make you a better programmer. Syntax should fade as a criteria as you become proficient in various PLs.

For example, the sum of a list (not running or cumulative sum, but total sum. Should equal 10, not 1, 3, 6, 10):

Lisp:

(+ 1 2 3 4)

J/APL[0]:

+/1 2 3 4

Python:

Sum = sum([1,2,3,4])
print(Sum)

They all do the same. I prefer the conciseness of J/APL and Lisp in this case, and the application of a function over the list or vector. The beauty of the REPL is that you see the result without a 'print' statement.

Solving problems in these other languages will influence how you program in your base language as well, and usually for the better. I am also guilty of syntax bias. I prefer LFE (Lisp Flavoured Erlang)[3] over Elixir and Gleam. Gleam[1], another language that runs on the Erlang VM (BEAM), had a more ML syntax, but then it chose to join the syntax popularity contest and move to a more Algol/C/Rust syntax. I prefer vanilla Erlang over it too.

[0] https://www.jsoftware.com/#/
[1] https://gleam.run/
[3] https://lfe.io/
You're anthropomorphizing it too much, it's a statistical model.
I wonder whom they will loose out to. I think >90% will still choose Google
People focus solely on rates and seem to often forget that there is also the unwind of QE, which will happen irrespective of the inflationary environment. That will put some additional pressure on asset prices.
I mean... Valid criticism in many ways. But also not something that is unique to the big companies. Or computers, for that matter.

And there is a chance we can take learnings from the last attempt and improve in them.
> 1) I know it's scary, but living with personal responsibility can be a thing that some people actually want.

Right, so it's the OP's fault if you get your wallet randomly drained by hackers and you admit that once a bad actor drains your funds you cannot retrieve them again. This is really helpful for the OP.

> 2) We're extremely early into the invention of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is only about 14 years old.

It is not early days at all. Repeating this meaningless cultish incantation doesn't mean or do anything. There are other payment systems that I have mentioned that are proven to be WAY better than crypto.

To be on topic to help the OP, all your arguments have further convinced me that crypto is absolutely NOT the answer to help this person should a situation like this happen.

I don't think anybody would want to use a system that has no fraud control, isn't regulated and doesn't protect their funds.

It seems to me you feel that we need to waste almost 12BN in crypto scams, rugpulls and ransomware just to build the future of finance without need for the state.

Have you stopped to consider that what crypto might be building is, a much much MUCH worse system that what is currently marketed towards victims?

> Why would you need to block exchanges if nobody wants to use it in the real world?

As I said before, the only use case in all of this is price speculation and the exchanges facilitate this and also harbour the selling of illegal securities. There is no other legitimate use case.

And after FTX, there is no convincing anyone anymore and you're completely losing a very very uphill battle and resorting to fanciful, loony pie-in-the-sky libertarian arguments.

It's more of a case of current system already uses fiat and it works better than what crypto is trying to replace.
And yet with all of these scenarios you've described, the world keeps spinning.

I've yet to see an example of of a company or product that has suffered due to knowledge workers realizing they can use WFH to put in fewer hours and make time to handle their actual important life tasks.
Back in the day (must be 15 years ago?) at lan parties we would share steam game files locally if someone already had it installed. If the files were present locally in the correct forder, the client would be smart enough to skip to verifying the download.
>ROCm has always really struck me as being aimed at the HPC market - only supporting pro-tier GPUs, focusing on users who are already running custom software, openly disdaining amateur support, etc. And frankly the distribute-as-source model makes ROCm just a complete nonstarter for any sort of commercial or other model where the vendor would absolutely be distributing libraries or a compiled application, let alone trying to wrangle dumb customers through getting a working ROCm environment. Which right now is the authentic "linux in 1995" level experience/ordeal.

While I somewhat agree, I'd say they also fail at properly targeting the HPC market. The specific slice they're targeting is people who are already forced to work with them, such as developers for software intended ahead of time to be run on their supercomputers. This leads to them still missing out on the portion of the HPC market which isn't bound to a specific supercomputer.

For example, with the software we work on, we currently benefit from our choice of CUDA due to the supercomputer we have access to being A100 based. But if working with ROCm were better and we could test it on more consumer hardware first, it could make a convincing case for gaining access to supercomputers with AMD GPUs, which would then influence the selection of their hardware in other machines. But since we can't, once our CUDA support is more mature it's essentially a given that our lab will be buying many more NVIDIA cards to allow other researchers to take advantage of it.
Why wasn't this functionality ever baked into the web? HEAD requests could return a SHA hash of the content, and browsers would check peers before issuing a GET for the remote resource.