skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What is so bad about being aware of what content we show children? I can understand not wanting to ban the original works, but a) publishing a “clean” version and b) encouraging authors to be intentional with their words going forward doesn’t seem that bad to me.
> I never said the caste system was abolished

You literally said:

> The caste system was outlawed ages ago.

> It seems those replying and refuting anything I say are in favor of the caste system and want to keep it

This is one hell of a take. How the fuck do you fix something if you keep pretending it's already fixed.

> If you cannot discriminate against caste,

There is no law criminalizing discrimination. People discriminate and face discrimination every single day.

> people who live outside the big cities.

I've lived in the third and fourth largest cities in India and seen discrimination with my eyes.
It has some 8 bit BASIC feeling to the whole experience.
Aircraft carriers may not be obsolete
Perhaps this opens up another use case: inoculating people against being fooled by similar
linguistic behavioral signalling into pretty much the same outcome eventualities by other people.
I think the "fix" proposed here is that it be as frictionless as sending a DMCA notice. Is what you're talking about that easy?

Sounds like we need scammy middleware between regular people and the complaint system to keep complaints flowing, monetize later!
From the guidelines:

Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
Everyone keeps saying "money" this isn't all it.

The publishing industry has been taken over by a certain kind of person. The same kind of mildly privileged, free of adversity person who is looking for something to suffer from and fight against who is pushing this kind of "woke" nonsense all over the place.
You are right. Thank you for respecting it. I was trying to convey that the frame in which we are approaching this is off, so the arguments I brought up falls outside of what you are saying. I have a bad habit of not indicating that I am changing the frame, so that can lead to confusion, and often to the experience that I'm talking past other people.
Too bad that most megacorp email providers no longer allow you to use just IMAP. Instead there's a bastardized OAuth2.0 (not good like Oauth1 was) toolkit they use for requiring HTTP(s) mediated authorization. Just IMAP will not work. And every megacorp's implementation of this is different so they have to be handled by slightly different plugins/etc.

The megacorps are trying real hard to kill off open protocols and switch everyone over to their in house "versions" of a public protocol for making proprietary protocols.
Small amount of packages might very well lead to curated and well maintained libraries that do many things (as opposed to having 1 library per string function).
Uber says Delhi's plans to allow only electric bike taxis to impact millions
There is a long history of duels, especially in the West and California specifically, souring public opinion with senseless deaths. The really big stand out case that pretty much ended things was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderick%E2%80%93Terry_duel
Having spent a decade in biometrics technology consulting, which is a similar "identify whether this thing is unique, and also you might use this in court" set of technologies... I wonder what the error rates are here.

Oddly enough, court testimony for e.g. fingerprint analysis hangs on the testimony of a human expert claiming 100% certainty, rather than the error characteristics of an automated algorithm. But we DO have recorded and proven False Match and False Non-Match rates from the manufacturers, independent companies, and NIST when it comes to algorithmic techniques. This seems similar to voice comparisons, where error rates are a function of how long the sample is.

I can see fairly easily showing that there are no clear discontinuities in the hum compared to what would be expected from random splicing (though as a defense attorney I would challenge that the very people who are presenting the clip are the ones introducing a spoofable signal; biometric error rates are against RANDOM and non-adversarial presentation, spoofing detection is an entirely different beast).

However, showing uniqueness of a hum sample that is n seconds long compared to the entire continuous history of background hum would be a more rigorous analysis. I wonder if the defense team requested that given that this was a new and unproven technique.
> So, that guy survived mass layoffs, accepted lots of changes to the company and mission, and didn't quit, but Slack being removed is what really got him?

Maybe that's why it's called the last straw, not the first one?
Maybe? It's hard to judge, especially since Libertarianism is a bit of a weird animal that doesn't map cleanly to the right--it tends to have more in common with the left on social issues, though identity politics is a big exception. I wouldn't say Reason or the Guardian provide anything close to a centrist perspective.

I wouldn't even call Guardian center-left. Center-left is like the furthest right it goes. The average article is well left of center-left.
I agree.

Sweden has changed a lot since 1984 when the current police law was passed. I really like it, but it was written for a different time. It would be much better to pass a new one with more formal authority for the police to use force (“laga befogenhet”), instead of letting a culture of courts looking the other way / bending the law build up even further.
>'We release all our models to the research community'

Where release means you fill out a form and wait indefinitely. Also no use for commercial purposes - which means 95% of users are out - certainly doesn't democratize LLMs.
For matter/thread you'll likely even have to go the other way around - link to your thing written in rust from your matter/thread project.

And yes - this is partially a maturity thing, although more in the sense in that the embedded ecosystem is very vendor specific, and you're traveling outside the path the vendor forged for you, so you'll be an early trailblazer - you get to deal with all the integration shit, rather than finding some other random person on the internet that's dealt with something similar.

(And it's not necessarily that the vendors path is all that great, but at least there's a whole collection of other people that's struggled with it and posted about it online).

Our professor in college was livid when we suggested not using the vendors toolchain (back in the early 2000's), "yes $vendor's toolchain is broken and shit, but it's marginally less broken and shit than $non-vendor toolchain".
No, there's way too much and too deep open disagreement among Nixers for NixOS to be a cult. :)

More seriously, people who run NixOS are, generally and historically, people who have a lot of experience with package management and people who choose their Linux distro based on the tooling rather than based on defaults.

The Nix approach is conservative in some wonderful ways that are likely to appeal to longtime Linux users who appreciate the strengths of old-school system package managers as well as the defect of those systems, which makes Nix people want to cry out in response to container-based package management:

> You don't have to go that far! You can have all these benefits but keep fine-grained library sharing! The choice between static and dynamic linking is a false dichotomy!

because if you love what's great about traditional package management, that's really exciting.
> The publishing company holds the copyrights, they make a lot of money from Roald Dahl, but they're worried about the long term prospects for that revenue stream due to social change.

If they were following public demand, then why did they get so thoroughly blindsided by public opinion? They were clearly listening to a handful of fringe nuts and didn't actually have their finger on the pulse of the mainstream zeitgeist.

They have now realized their error and are trying to backtrack from it.
> IMAP clients typically refer to messages by their “sequence number”, the message’s position in a mailbox. The first message has the sequence number “1”, the second “2”, and so on. If a client wants to mark a message as “read”, it will send a command to the server such as “mark message 5 as read”. But what if another client deleted the fourth message in the mailbox? The sequence numbers of all messages after the deleted message will be shifted down by one; the client that sent the “mark message 5 as read” command now refers to a different message than it intended.

> IMAP servers (which include applications such as the Proton Mail Bridge) need to be able to handle this situation. When one client moves messages into or out of a mailbox, the server needs to notify all other clients of the changes so that they can update their own view of the mailbox. And until the clients have received the update, the server needs to remember what each client thinks the mailbox looks like to correctly interpret the client’s commands.

Holy F what a clusterfuck
He says that buying stuff in games (which he considers achievements as the ovly valid stuff, disparaging cosmetic items) is gauche. People pay for a lot of bad things, and Stephenson opposes that. He thinks crypto is fine for buying things of value.
How is it a solution to say that successful businesses should voluntarily shave their profits? Why do we look to these disreputable actors to reform themselves?
This is the same dangerous fallacy of thinking that causes "self-driving" cars to kill people.

If it is "correct enough" to lull people into a false sense of security, the inevitable failures will be worse than if it people remained on guard.

The particular way in which these LLMs fabricate information makes them incorrect enough to be dangerous, not "correct enough to be useful."

People keep mistaking text completion for intelligence and understanding.
My prediction is that with further advances in networking, devices will be permanently online and asynchronous communication will become less relevant (because you can always directly reach your peer), so all these fancy E2EE crypto protocols will be replaced with TLS or a similar protocol.
Ain't that the truth? So much folklore and superstition about how the fermentation process works. I remember being told you can't make Jun with a Kombucha starter because it's a different bacteria, and even if you did get Kombucha to ferment the honey, it wouldn't actually be Jun. And the complete obsession and misinformation around the pellicle!
It's more like we don't have any way to "verify" understanding, or measure it. We can "validate" the outputs of an LLM, but what do those outputs mean? Who's to say? Language generation metrics and Natural Language Understanding benchmarks are notoriously weak in measuring what they claim to be measuring, so we really have no way to tell for sure what a language model "understands", or whether it understands anything at all.

Which, btw, to be a bit aggro about it, puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of anyone who wishes to claim that a language model "understands". Else, one risks being hit with a small china teapot falling from space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Which might cause grave injury indeed.
This is not my experience whatsoever. Maybe I'm not good enough of a programmer/high level enough (I'd be surprised if this was it) but I can't imagine ChatGPT spitting out incorrect syntax helping me much on something I can't solve.

I also don't have a very "pair programming friendly" way of thinking though/style. Maybe that plays a role.

I ask it to tell me about libraries or how a solution might get solved (recommend me known products out there, products as in like, popular open source software you might find off the shelf on GitHub) but that's about it. I can't see it telling me how to architect something at a high level or giving implementation details.

I've asked it about compiler errors before and how it might fix them, which has lead me to incorrect answers, but did help because I could Google/StackOverflow what was returned as it was typically "on the right track" after a few tries. But that was mainly me just "rushing" and not reading documentation/not having a good understanding of what I was working on (like being more familiar with Rust than C# for example)
MeetUp is the app my bad
This woke "fad" apparently began in 1973 when Dahl re-wrote the book to recast the Oompa-Loompas in a less racist manner. I don't know how old you are, but it's likely that the "classic book most people read as a child" is actually the rewrite. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Roald_Dahl_and_Philo...
> They would need to fork it and staff all of these teams

I think the worst would be having to split the customer base. Their sales costs would increase a lot and they would loose pricing power. On the social networking front turn a leader into a me-too. This article confuses what these businesses seem on the surface (search+video) and what they really are (selling ads, keeping track of customer identities to do the same).
So just yet another case of the American healthcare/insurance system being absolutely bottom tier in usability, profits for middlemen over all else.
AI–Based Chatbots for Promoting Health Behavioral Changes: Systematic Review
Meta's DAU for teens/young adults has been in decline for a decade. It's only going to get worse: https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/new-report-highlights-...
Fine-tuning YOLOv8 models for computer vision apps
Is this part of MySQL's policy of "do the thing I've always done, no matter how daft or broken that may be, unless I see an obscure setting telling me to do the new correct thing" ?
They are only releasing it on a case-by-case basis and with a non-commercial license.
Right.

And we shouldn't forget that, in the US anyway, it's not illegal to be a monopoly. The "antitrust" laws are about unfairly leveraging your monopoly position.
The company that tried to kill Linux in the 90s, owned by the world's most famously rich man, is now stealing my code and selling it back to me? Yeah, fuck that.
> Not being scammy - just trying to win the #1 result placement

From the end user's point of view, how is "win the #1 result placement" for a competitor's name not a blatant scam?
Or in other words, Google is not strict with this, but goes out of its way to protect other big business
12 years to make a brush: Hiroshima's Kumano Brushes
Haven't seen the word "SCOBY" in years. I think the first and only time I saw it was in an episode of JESSIE[0]...

[0]: https://jessie.fandom.com/wiki/Moby_%26_SCOBY
Clearly, the correct response to uncomfortable material in a book is to ban it from the libraries.

(I am not in favor of editing the books or banning books from libraries because they are uncomfortable to a segment of the population)
We're still romanticizing "the connections" made from people jumping up and down in front of a camera and a screen?
English Football Could Do with a Little NFL-Style Socialism
Advocates Demand Oversight and Accountability for U.S. Arms Trade
No there would not necessarily be a need for this.

You could have alerts when an old account is using a new key that nobody has seen before, for example.
The line has been in the book for thirty years, and I doubt it's taught many children about the historical context of racism.

Indeed, because the vast majority of people only know Kipling for The Jungle Book and If. But we must destroy the mans life work because he happened to live in a time of colonialism.
yeah this stuff is meaningless until it's asserted from a linter or runtime firewall

I'm not sure why mozilla is wasting their time criticizing detail mismatches -- the self-report system only creates accountability for relatively well meaning players who are large enough to 1) be worth auditing and 2) have reputational risk

little snitch everywhere
Eh, when we have trillion dollar companies whose core product is AI commonly used for question/answer tasks, and query accuracy directly impacts the bottom line, I don't think spending 10 billion a year on annotation is a big ask. It might not be perfect, but as long as your query responses are significantly more accurate than the competition you'll end up as Google to their Altavista.

Additionally, you don't have to manually curate the entire data set, only a large enough chunk to predict accuracy annotations for the stuff you haven't curated yet. Facts that change over time shouldn't be hard to identify if you periodically do cross validation on existing annotations to pick out ones where the predicted accuracy differs significantly from the annotation.

There are a lot of process and engineering questions still to be answered in terms of building high quality AI products, but I don't think there are hidden dragons that are going to lead to another AI winter. There will be hiccups and snafus, but AI is the real deal.
https://archive.ph/kqeZm
I'm normally sympathetic to 'wokeisms' but this sickens me. A lot of the value of reading is in learning to expand your mind, expand your perceptive. Take in the book, read it, make your own decisions on how to process it and how to feel about it. This is flat-out reducing stories so that nobody learns anything more than what they already know.

I've got plenty of issues with modern literature written to confirm the readers opinions rather than challenge them. Reducing books from the past to fit the same modern views just history-washing. Let us all naively believe that all authors in the past have our same identical values so we are never challenged to look beyond them.

It's revolting and frightening. No one is ever going to learn anything outside of their narrow world view if this trend continues, and I have a bad feeling that it will. Who's next? C.S. Lewis? Tolkien? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

I would truly be happier if these books got censored. Let them remain on the list of corrupting literature because at least then the bold reader can seek them out.
Japan FTX users still can’t withdraw Bitcoin after collapse
This is exactly where I'm at. I'm a professional SDE and I'm pretty damn good at writing code and solving problems at all kinds of different levels of complexity and abstraction, although professionally I mostly write Java code and build web services and that kind of thing.

When I got into electronics and embedded development recently as a hobby, I started with Arduino. And for the vast majority of my projects, which are mostly simple smarthome IOT type things, or little toys for my kiddo, the Arduino framework is just fine and the ecosystem of libraries is great.

But when I recently started a project that was much lower-level (in fact, it was your example exactly -- driving pins with cycle-accurate timing), where I didn't need those libraries, I used ESP-IDF without Arduino.

I'm also just lazy, and just don't want to deal with more complexity than I have to.
>> You say this so confidently. But can you define in terms that are directly quantifiable what "understanding a concept" actually means?

Hold on there, can you "define in terms that are directly quantifiable what" 'God is real' "actually means"? If you can't, does that mean that atheists, like me, can't continue to say very confidently indeed that he doesn't?

Do I, as an atheist, need to provide proof of God's non-existence, or is it the job of people who believe in Gods to bring evidence of their existence?

And do you see the parallel here with what you are saying above? If you are saying that LLMs "understand" (you, or anyone else), why is it skeptics that have to provide evidence that they don't? You're the one who's making claims that can't be falsified.

Although I guess you have to agree with the general idea of falsifiability being better than the alternative, to see what I mean.
Direct link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiAP4Hmp9oc
Is it on their list at any priority to make it so developers could do like `rustup toolchain the-esp32-platform` instead of needing a forked rust? https://github.com/espressif/rust-esp32-example/blob/main/do...
You also don't need the mat, also known as the pellicle, to start brewing kombucha. It is entirely redundant. Just get a couple of bottles of unpasteurised, unflavoured kombucha and use that as your starter, along with the fresh tea and sugar. Those kombucha starter kits with a pellicle are just a big scam.
I don't think too many people realize the danger of applications phoning home to the vendor isn't limited to desktop PCs and portable devices, nor is the type of information they can harvest limited to personal information or your web browser history.
> It doesn't matter if you know it's fake

I am reminded of the study that found that placebos "worked" (had positive effects) even when the patient knew it was a placebo[1]. Unrealistic standards of beauty perpetuated by digitally manipulated images in advertising and social media can mess you up the same way, even when you know what is at play. You can be manipulated by an ad even when you know it is an ad trying to sell you something you likely don't need.

[1]: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/03/placebos
Of course there is always the simple and obvious (it was a marketing stunt dummies):

>"The rise in demand has been even more extreme at Wob, an online seller with a reported catalogue of two million. It has seen a 600 per cent surge in sales of Roald Dahl compared to the week before, while the author accounts for eight of the 10 top-selling children’s books since Saturday. Not bad for someone who died more than three decades ago."

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/roald-dahl-books-s...
There's a difference between "having bugs that we didn't catch" and "lets not look since our users will find them".

Also, I'm sure they are, which is why lots of companies will provide an optional beta version of their software that people can use. But there's a big difference between having the opportunity to use beta software because you want to try it, and having the opportunity to be forced into running a beta and being QA.
to be fair, there's utfmb4
No offense but I think that is terrible advice. Basically ‘bend over for any corporation immediately’.

If the person holds an asset and isn’t doing anything malicious with it there is zero reason they should be forced to give it up just because some corporation wants it.
Next Up for AI Chatbots: It’s All About the APIs
> How hard to implement do you think that is?

Very, very, very, very hard.
I’m bearish after the SEC aggressively went after LBRY token while not caring what FTX was doing.

Any useful case with ledgers being used in anti-censorship communication can be criminalized by the SEC.

Way around this is not use cryptocurrency. Use decentralized protocols like Nostr instead and the SEC can’t make up some bullshit to stop you.
That's exactly his point. He believes putting value on status signals is toxic. He doesn't want people buying fake valor. It's the "I fucking love science" of the art world, and he detests it.