skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What was remarkable to me was how quickly the token sale investment sector evolved between 2016 and 2018.

When token sales began in 2016, a white paper alone was enough to raise $40 million worth of cryptocurrency. By the end of the brief experiment, which ended with the SEC's entry into the sector in early 2018, the typical token investor was highly discerning, with the result being that only reputable teams were able to raise money.

This transformation occurred completely independently from any regulatory action. The collective intelligence of the market increased from hard-won lessons in the need to do due diligence, and the emergence of numerous internet resources that advised on how to effectively invest in token sales.

My preference would be for the government to not intervene with regulatory regimentation of the token sale market, but that obvious frauds - where a team promises the moon and then uses the money raised to buy themselves lamborghinis - be punished after the fact. In other words, that the government establish the rules of a free market - no prior restraint, but consequences if you are found to have committed fraud. Yes people would still lose money, but at least the fraudsters wouldn't learn that crime pays, and survive to defraud another day.

This would provide the benefits of free market evolution, while still removing bad actors from the market.
I personally don't think it would. My guess is somewhere outside the US would host instead.
That’s baffling. Nobody should have to work 60 hours a week and be happy about it, doesn’t matter when the hours are
Also by the same designer (if you like this you might like Headgear):

http://cdxs.ist/project-list
It's good if you're a monk. It's not good if you're a lay person.

Ancient (Pali canon) Buddhism is different from Asian Buddhism, but modernist American Buddhism is pretty different from that too.

(Although, a lot of Asian Buddhism is basically copied from European philosophy; when the Europeans showed up, Asia had to cook up something they'd count as a religion in a hurry so they wouldn't count as savages and get colonized.)
I was a chemistry major and spent a lot of time handling vocs in lab
Just another reason to move back to full native apps. Only use the browser when you really have to.
Not mentioned, or glossed over, in this story in favor of psychologists saying teens are scared:

- gas prices

- changes to license and permit laws for minors since 2000,[1] particularly the widespread introduction of graduated driver licensing programs that mean getting a license before age 18 doesn't grant the independence that it once did[2]

- teen employment levels, even in recovery from steep decades-long lows, remain well below those of 25 years ago[3][4]

- recent history; the decline was already steep in 2013, and 37% of a cohort of teens said they simply didn't have enough time to prioritize learning how to drive[5]

- context of almost all age groups also declining in license attainment rates over the same period[5]

- US auto manufacturers eliminating lower-priced models by converting everything to more expensive crossovers, SUVs, and trucks, with more-expensive EVs replacing compacts; even though a plurality of GenZers (36%) buying used vehicles in 2018 bought either compact or midsize cars, "Detroit is betting that even if young people wait longer to buy a car, they eventually will when finances improve and they start families. And then, they’ll buy an SUV or truck"[6]

- preparing for student loan debt is a higher priority to teens and their families even before they incur any of it; a teen who bought a used car for $2,500 says "it was a relief to avoid car payments and debt"[6]

- licenses require more formal training than ever, and the training costs hundreds or thousands of dollars when it used to be free, because public school drivers' ed programs were eliminated as states slashed education budgets alongside the introduction of GDL programs, leaving only expensive private classes[6]

- increased urbanization has given more teens better access to walkable, bikable, transit-accessible, and rideshare-accessible neighborhoods[6]

1: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2015/02/oregon_teen_dri...

2: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...

3: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/21/after-dropp...

4: PDF: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/youth.pdf

5: https://news.umich.edu/percentage-of-teen-drivers-continues-...

6: https://archive.ph/20200101222010/https://www.wsj.com/articl...
In the normal course of events, no. If a CA demonstrates itself to be particularly untrustworthy, the actions most root programs might take (adding restrictions, or removing it from the root store entirely) still rely on those changes getting distributed to users, and if users pick up that update to the root store, they probably picked up the update which added Certainly too.

There are conceivable scenarios where GD doing something (or not doing something) could result in Certainly search no longer validating on some subset of older browsers/clients, but they're quite obscure and unlikely. If you include those scenarios as Certainly having a dependency on GoDaddy, I feel like you would also have to say that Certainly depends on their domain name registrar to not give away their domain out from under them.
If TV networks in the US were broadcasting ISIS recruiting videos, someone would go to prison.
The Bing Chat transcripts I've read put me in mind of nothing so much as if a six-month-old baby could somehow command an adult's facility with language.
You need a citation to understand that an AI which ingests human thought will plateau as new human thought production slows down due to the prevalence of AI-generated drivel?

It’s a standard feedback loop.
AI seems particularly adept at that:

- propose solution

- insist that all feedback must be to ChatAI

- exhaust people who disagree while ChatAI politely insists on its view

- call anyone who works outside the ChatAI “not a team player”

- insist they’re not being constructive because they’re “not adding feedback into the process”

- remove those who persist in not arguing with the wall or complying, using their refusal to “do the job” with ChatAI

- proceed with your original PowerPoint
Isn't the irony beautiful?

Blockchain is real! You can use it to store USD-like tokens and trade different coins!
Its not so much a problem for the government to be metering out private keys on proof of heartbeat, but rather that it will always want to tie them to an actual identity.

Nobody wants to or has enough trust in telecommunications to present their driver's license in order to participate in an online forum. If DoD really could provide a private key to bypass captcha tests then it could be useful, but there is a zero percent chance that it doesn't get tied back to people with real-world consequences almost immediately.

A persistent, costly ID for online communications and commerce is good and well implemented in an OS like Urbit, but relying on DoD maintaining them is too risky given the current laws around government surveilling, policing, and an ascending domestic 'war on terror'.
The generative AI piece in these kinds of solutions is just the last step which is to take the list of nearest neighbour sentences or paragraphs and generate an answer from that set.

So I think these class of search engines should actually be called something other than generative AI search engines.

Maybe generative AI powered search summaries?
Well, you can get a full refund.

I see where you are coming from, but increasing liability for free software does not feel like a good idea to me at all. There's basically no way you could extract money protected by Googles lawyers army, but any small open-source project or even medium sized company will be extremely vary of releasing anything.

I'm not saying you should never go there - GDPR does and it's a net improvement -, but it's extremely easy to massively overshoot.
How about limiting submissions to subscribers only? Imperfect but not unreasonable.
Also, trust isn't additive in this way: now you have to trust Google AND Microsoft, which is a weaker property than just trusting Google.

(unless of course they're alleging that Microsot has gone and reworked the browser to such a degree that you no longer have to trust Google. Which is obviously nonsense)
Hello was already pretty good, but when ChatGPT came out, I completely stopped using it. It’s great to see this next iteration!

Naturally, the first thing I searched for was something I’ve put on the internet that is not well indexed by Google.

When I search “how to find a lobby with rivet.gg” (that’s our most basic functionality), it doesn’t come up with an answer. However, it does spit back a descent summary of relevant features we provide.

What’s odd – it always continues on to talk about an unrelated company. The first time, it started talking about top.gg as a way to add Fortnite-style bots to your game. (They’re actually a Discord bot directory.) The second time, it mentioned a completely random Reddit called Guilty Gear Strive.

Can you elaborate on how it finds these related topics?
I don’t believe browser rendering is considered an act of publishing or distributing, is it? Either by the browser developer or by the computer user? I don’t see a mechanism of infringement. It would be different if Microsoft hosted a fake download page for Chrome on its server.
I thought that television producers are responsible for their content, they are considered publishers and do not have Section 230 protections.

For example, NBC was sued by GM over a rigged SUV crash video. Fox News is being sued by Dominion for defamation. There are other examples. TV networs don't have legal immunity.
Considering that many states now prohibit teens from driving at night, or driving with other teens as passengers without an adult -- or in some states driving without an adult, period -- even with the highest permit level available to them, and sometimes up til age 18... I mean, I don't know or want to know how much of that you got up to in broad daylight with a parent in the car, but I'm going to bet it's close to zero.
You hit the nail on the head here. The whole standup process is extremely degrading. I don't think I'd ever work at another company that does a daily standup, the most I can take is 3x/week - and ideally as short as possible.
> if this kind of issue can fly undetected for so long, what can organizations with drastically less resources than $GOOG do to ensure adequate velocity while not leaving the proverbial barn doors open?

If $GOOG can't do it with practically infinite resources then I'm of the opinion that nobody can. Computing is broken.
Ok, so what's the solution?
I tended to do it when I jumped to a company who didn't have RSUs. The anchoring of my current RSUs + my vagueness describing it (I didn't break it down) + the fact that I was jumping jobs after a few years was enough to secure it as cash and then some. Probably harder to do in this market, but the last few years it was a consistently easy play (did it a few times).
But Doctor, I Am Pagliacci.
I wonder if the difference is not developers, but managers who can/can't do agile.
Even so, I don't think there is any evidence that LLM performance degrades when it is trained on its own output, and there is no intuitive reason it should.
to resonate against itself?
sounds like its gonna hit its natural frequency and blow up

seems more like it's gonna eat its own vomit, degrading it (maybe not completely)
to inbreed (?)
France goes 31 days without rainfall, unprecedented in winter
- US companies are less likely to offer 15K/month, whereas before it wasn't uncommon

- Local Latam companies are having an easier time retaining talent

- Devs in Latam have lowered their salary expectations and often are putting regular salary increases on pause

- There's less job hopping between firms now
Apps are a different thing since even if you sideload apps, one app can’t insert itself in to another app to scrape your data. While extensions are almost like kernel extensions that can do just about anything.
> next day they have been sold to a malware company.

Or pwned
Agreed! I always thought it would be nice if there were user-selectable algorithms, like most recent, similar to my friends, popular in my city, random, etc.
At least in my experience, a good part my unproductive time is spent satisfying the demands of the self-perpetuating bureaucracy
Down this path lies "always where a mask." Which I doubt even you are advocating for?

For hand washing, I'm comfortable with that. For the mask? Princess Bride quotes not withstanding, I don't see it happening.

And to be clear, for some things, where the cost of the preventative measure is essentially zero, I'm fine with this. Driving a car? You have to buckle up. Riding a bus? Things change. And that last is an important point. Nuance in policy is more than just "is there a risk" but also "does the mitigation of the risk encourage worse behavior?" If requiring seat belts on busses reduced capacity of busses and reduced ridership on said bus, with a corresponding increase in cars, that would be a bad decision.

Now, does that directly apply to masks? I don't think so, but I do think a ton of the energy that was being directed at masking would be amazing to reclaim if it doesn't work at the society level.
The distinction is not meaningful in this context. Both are deferred compensation that's subject to gaining/losing value along with the underlying company valuation
this is the truth. quite frustrating in training materials it's all about empowering employees when it is totally not.
> If we’re expecting the page DOM to change often (for example, with SPAs), we certainly don’t want to miss out on any valuable data. Just set a MutationObserver to watch the entire page, and reapply listeners as needed.

The code below this text is highly inefficient and may lead the user detection solely from page interactivity slowdown alone. A more efficient implementation could read input using the 'input' event[1]. For example, here[2] is how you would use the input event to detect changes to any fields in a page.

1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLElement...

2. https://gist.github.com/eligrey/615fcc9fa9edbfb5153478109b5b...
I did this, then when my son went to school, kept the day off. It's super valuable to just get some time for yourself. Have recently changed career and gone back full time, but pining for that extra time (luckily my company seems to be thinking about a 4 day week)
"Chronic libertarian eaten by bears after no other libertarian neighbors want to pool together for trash service. His last words were 'at least the communists didn't get me'."
For the most part I agree, but Storj seems like it is at least attempting to solve a problem not created by blockchain: https://www.storj.io.
thanks, this make sense. this is why student still can't write English report by it.
> solving r/tipOfMyTongue questions

I made vxai [1] to do that for movies. Sometimes it shines sometimes not su much.

[1] https://vxai.com
That's fine but many people can't, and don't, do this. Most people I've worked with have varying degrees of how long they can pay attention and how much they can get done in a day.

It's also not just about quantity buy quality. I'm certainly not suggesting that you were doing subpar work or anything, just that there is a spectrum there. For example I had a teammate who made incredibly disruptive and positive changes to how and what my team worked on. Yet he would also arrive at work with barely a second to spare before standup and most days he would leave _at least_ an hour early. Some days he was clearly not doing much work and even pretty brazen about it if confronted about it (he wasn't a dick about it just be like, "Oh, I'm just trying to look busy"). When he did work (which was more often than I'm making it seem), he was very serious and focused about it and would put in extra time when he was really into what he was working on (this of course was not to make up all the leaving early, haha).
> Darshan-Leitner is president and founder of the Shurat HaDin Law Center, an organization that helped build this case against Google and, more broadly, seeks to defend victims of terrorism while holding the private sector accountable for financially supporting terrorism

Pretty funny, considering that plenty of banks, weapons manufacturers and private militaries that quite literally fund and support terrorism worldwide are free from all scrutiny while soft targets like Google are being dragged to the Supreme Court because they allowed terrorists to have a YouTube account.
No way in hell that Amazon is going to risk losing its tax kickbacks by not meeting their location numbers.
Are we certain that they are motivated to do so? Google doesn't strike me as a company committed to user privacy.
I've seen it more than once, but I'm not saying it's common. But people saying "We do Waterfall" are saying "We're brainless, insane, or only working on trivial systems (in which case any process would work)." Once you start incorporating feedback loops, you're not doing Waterfall.

Sadly, though, it is in fact a real thing. I've seen several projects fail spectacularly. One of the best failures was "only" a year late. They also learned not to go 6 months into development without integration (believing their plan was sound) and skipping testing for that entire time. It was either brainless or insane, and it took a lot of threats from customers for the PM to finally learn that, maybe, a plan made a year or more out and committed to wholeheartedly is stupid.
One of the Canadian streaming services, Crave, charges $10 extra a month for the privilege to watch on TV. The base tier is mobile only.
This is a spicy essay for sure but what is the author's actual point? If the user grants you permission to do all these things, then you have permission to do all these things. If you can't be trusted and abuse that permission then you are not ethical. If you aren't ethical someone will find out and your extension will be removed in the worst case and simply not approved in the common case. The author even admits as much saying this thing would never pass Google's review process in a million years. Sounds like there's no real risk here and we're mostly just enjoying the show...

I do agree about the permission UI box. Surely that's a completely simple fix on Google's part to force the user to scroll through the permissions box before accepting.
Prolonged low tides see smaller canals dry up in Venice
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Railroad_Admin...

This one? Maybe I missed it in my brief skim but I don't see anything negative
A very promising API Gateway and Backend for Frontend framework, it offers a lot of features.
This particular politician likely wants their downtown, which is overwhelmingly Amazon-centric, to look busy again.

(And, y'know, the (sales) tax dollars thing.)
Yes. I've witnessed it several times. Some people are truly moronic. But there's no point in arguing for Waterfall if you actually use your brain and don't do Waterfall.

EDIT: You didn't do Waterfall, just to be clear. You used prototypes and feedback along the way which Waterfall explicitly excludes. So why do you insist you participated in Waterfall projects?
Germans are a special breed.
I have a friend that actually makes a living with a business that relies on paying a lot for ads. He's furious, too, about me using that extension, but than again... I believe a business like that should not exist, and nevertheless I am not furious about him running such a business, right?
Why? The alternative is to pay those people with cash, which costs the company money. That would lower the value of the stock because profits would become losses.

It works out to be the exact same thing, except that Amazon doesn't record a loss on its finances.
It's not quite that simple. The model occasionally inserts code snippets that it generates itself if it can't find one good enough in the provided web context.
It may be free software but it's also a commercial enterprise.

Furthermore, Chromium is free software, Chrome isn't. Perhaps Google should be liable for distributing Chrome in such a sorry state, but not for what lands in Chromium.
it was used in the NBA dunk contest this past weekend. it works, it's neat, and it never goes flat.
Wonder where that banner shows up in the DOM, in the dev tools console... ?
I don't really disagree, but to play devil's advocate a little, if I was giving away free knives and someone cut themselves, would I be to blame in any way?
What?

The same can happen with any piece of software in the world. Why single out extensions?
Things I did not expect to read as NY Times headlines...
I have a t480s i7 24gb ram 2tb ssd, bought it used about 3 years ago, added all the components for i think <300, used it for work for about a year. Used it for everything from compiling big projects, to image and video editing, usually with 10s of tabs of firefox open, even played a few light indie games on it. Maybe it's just the Arch Linux factor but I've always considered it a reasonably capable laptop especially when compared to macs of the same age that are dead and useless by now, or comparably priced new laptops like the chromebooks.
“ Most had never actually run a business or done the thing they were offering up advice on, and it showed.” exactly!
M1 Mac Linux 6.2 support for M1 Mac
And there are also adaptable people that make it work under most or any system, and another type of people who find the failure cases for almost any type of system.
It's interesting because climate modeling/forecasting with a very powerful computer could tell you where and when to drop your balloon to pass certain targets.
Sorry should have added some context! He was a content creator!

Here are some links that reference his YouTube channel name (cbrady350) which match to his real name Chris Brady.

[1] https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/cbrady350-pvp
[2] http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqnk16
[3] https://twitter.com/sk1er_/status/1163536914386960384
Sounds like a /r/showerthoughts post.

There is no issue with AI ingesting data from itself in itself. Humans do it as well. That data might even be higher quality than human data. The scale at which humans produce data will most likely stay higher than AI data for a long time.

There is already bot data out there from lower quality AIs/bots, and chatGPT has ingested it.

LLMs are made to be good at some textual tasks, and not for what they're being used right now. They're not information stores, or Q/A. It only answers what a human is likely to answer.
Before I clicked on this I thought it was going to be about the coin operated gun in the follow story.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...
I wonder if this is the problem people think it is.

Playing one AI against another is an established technique to developing AI.

Furthermore, content on the internet will always vary from more reliable (well established wiki pages, Reuters) to less reliable (random blog posts, disinformation).

Whether or not an AI generated text doesn't seem to be that important - what's more important is how reliable it is, and how well humans engage with it.