skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Hell they still technically support that crap that is VB6

Lot’s of companies - Microsoft included - are happy to support ancient crap if you pay them, and there’s stuff a lot more ancient than VB6 out there. The problem is more with free services - heaps of free services start out great, turn into crap over time, eventually get killed - which is true whether the vendor is Microsoft or Google or Yahoo or whoever. But, I don’t know why we should expect anything different-if you are getting it for free-or even really cheap-should you expect it to last?
Me too. Our responses are just framed differently around the same problem. Sorry I wasn’t able to make that more clear in my comment. Words are hard!
There’s already project that help with going beyond the context window limitation like https://github.com/jerryjliu/llama_index

They also just tweeted this to showcase how it can work with multimodal data too: https://twitter.com/gpt_index/status/1635668512822956032?s=4...
Yes, but their access is strictly controlled. There's a lot of regulation about this stuff
The depositors in SVB were not only not normal depositors, but should have know about the insurance cap and behaved accordingly. Instead, we've emptied the FDIC insurance fund on a bunch of people who should have known better, so if shit goes south, normal depositors are unlikely to get the same consideration.

So once again, different treatment for different people, stratified by social class.
right, it's private only if you control all the nodes (like in entreprise)
Sarcasm aside, this site actively resists becoming Reddit in many respects. It's in no way a replacement.
In college, one of my friends worked in an animal lab on campus.

There were something like 3,000 dogs... all in one building... all penned up from birth.

And upon hearing about the 3,000 dogs, I was like, "Can I see them?"

So she snuck me in.

And they were all bred to have some disorder, I don't remember what now, but like the article said... it was fatal.

And we got to the lab at like 9 PM and nobody else was there.

The dogs were all so happy to see us. God they seemed lonely. They were kept in these little like 10x14 pens, 2-3 dogs per pen. Some dogs were in cages.

But like... they were just dogs. Y'know? Most were just happy and looking to be pet, and it was overwhelming to be there.

I got to give some treats.

One of the pens had a dead dog in it, and my friend agonized over dealing with it or waiting until her shift officially started -- she didn't want to leave the dead dog in the pen, and she didn't want people to know she was sneaking her friends in to play with the dogs. So she decided to deal with the dog, and just tell her supervisor she came back for her wallet or something.

Anyway, for a kid 2,500 miles away from home... who missed his dogs... it was really nice to have an hour to play with puppies and young dogs.

As we were leaving she said that most of the dogs were euthanized at the 6-month mark to check for heart defects, or heart issues. Even the healthy dogs.

Fuck it was devastating to hear that.

I'm sure there's a reason and I'm sure we benefit somehow... and a dog who has never seen the sun, and will never see the sun, probably doesn't know what all they are missing... but they have to know, right? Like every living thing has to know they weren't made to sit in a little pen waiting to die.

I don't know, just felt like they should be outside, playing in a field, all that stuff... being mentally challenged and taught how to fetch and instead... they were bred just so their hearts would fail, or so they could be killed and dissected to see why their heart didn't fail.

Most people at the school didn't even know there was a dog lab like that on campus.

Easier not to think about this stuff.
> I would argue we treat pigs (which are comparable to dogs in terms of intelligence)

Closer to toddlers actually. I'm not a vegetarian or animals rights activist or anything but I'm kind of surprised people eat pigs with how smart they are.
I understand that, but also, the tesla has software configuration for e.g. how tight the steering is, so ostensibly it would be possible. But it does make sense that there would be no way for the steering column ECU's CAN messages to be blocked from reaching the steering ECU.
Redis 7 supports sharded pubsub.

Also, redis streams are excellent and perform really well for Kafka lite type use cases.
Making a monetization strategy without understanding the feature is just as useless. If it's new you have to build it in order to understand it. You need to invest some time into the features first. If it doesn't stick then discard it early or iterate on it and use the information gained on building better features.
They already said they weren’t, which is the right move.
What about going down though (reception/lobby)? Is it 1, 0, B, -1? I've traveled a lot and any of them can be correct.
Mario Fusco gave a talk showing how to implement monadic patterns in Java years ago.

I never found the talk online, but here's the speaker deck: https://speakerdeck.com/mariofusco/monadic-java
They can't be meaningfully separated because they're using the same phrase with almost, but not exactly, the same meaning. One version having a sanity check (don't repeat the actual same logic/information, at least not excessively; usually it's paired with the "Rule of Three" which is three repetitions then look for a refactor) and the other not (don't repeat anything that happens to look alike and don't actually think, follow this rule like it's written in stone). If these aren't distinguished, then you end up with everyone talking past each other both thinking the other is an idiot (rightly from both perspectives).

People arguing against the latter are making a sane and reasonable argument. And people arguing for the former are making a sane and reasonable argument. But if, in the same discussion, both senses are meant without qualification or clarification then only confusion will be found.
I think that would require a huge leap in the abilities of these models. Right now they can't know because afaik they're not working on a corpus of facts they're just coming up with what the response should look like regardless of the actual facts.

Maybe you could make a companion module that pre or post processes the GPT-* outputs to slot in facts using a less AI-y but more accurate knowledge graph system? There are things at google or something like Wolfram Alpha that could provide those inserts perhaps.

That's definitely been my big hang up about the usefulness of Bing Chat or ChatGPT for answering questions. If you actually care about the truth of what you're asking you have to go do a lot of the same searching you would have to do to look up the answer in the first place. At best it could provide an idea of what to search when you don't know the language to use to find something, which is often a roadblock for when I'm learning a new system or service.
Wiki also has a paragraph on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Transfer_Protocol#Simple_...
The blog had that question as the banner.

https://blogs.bing.com/getattachment/search/march_2023/Confi...
<< We are not forcing Putin into anything.

Hmm, how so?

I don't know about you, but if I was in his position I would be seeking allies that have a beef with US and, surprise, this is exactly what he did. So yeah, if he wants to survive politically ( and otherwise ) he is effectively forced by US ( and the generated coalition -- and we can discuss how willingly they went along to do that ) to seek those out.

What I would not do is roll over as a practical measure to keep my life ( based on still fairly recent history ), where there is a clear path to perceived completion of a goal.

So yeah. US is forcing Putin's hand in choosing allies ( and we could argue to what extent Orange Revolution changed his calculus ).

Now, we could talk about what that means in practice, but I assure you the logical conclusions are even worse, because it does mean undermining Russia's new bestest friends or at least making their lives difficult.

Regardless, that statement is factually plain wrong.

<< He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy.

Eh. No. If he did make up his mind, it was about 're-uniting' Russia. Where he miscalculated was that US would care (1) and (2) be able to convince Germany ( and other less willing allies ) to actually go along with attempt at alienate Russia on the global stage.

<< The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast.

Eh again. This is the same argumentation I saw leading to Iraq, Afghanistan ( recent examples only ) and now, surprise, Russia. I mean, it is a great plan if you can make it work, but what, exactly are you proposing here? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

<< Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset.

I don't want to assume again, so I would love to hear a little more than a sentence on this. I am familiar with this sentiment, but it is generously applied to just about any enemy of US ( and its variants also helpfully include ">they< only respect strength ( they referencing current enemy)" ).

<< There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over.

This is not a shot, but "should" is likely not a great political or rhetorical tool. I would personally recommend trying to place yourself in Russians position geopolitically. Right now, China is an allied power that is actively helping Russia, where US and western powers are actively working against it. The moment you do, you will understand that your suggestion, while it sounds reasonable in US, has a low penetration rate in Russia.. suggesting that this opinion that is intended for US's market of ideas..

<< This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions.

I will admit that don't know them both as well to offer a definitive statement here.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not all that impressed by "what is"/information retrieval tasks, is it any better at "thought" tasks like explanatory reasoning and ideogensis? For instance - "How might an agoraphobic kleptomaniac satisfy both of their desires simultaneously?"
Maybe God gave Moses specific guidance on elevator use on sabbaths, it just got lost in translation because Moses had no clue what God was talking about
Me too, though there's an uncanny valley hiding in the spectrum of responses from bing right now. That is, I'd ask it to summarize the difference in views from a novelist, a computer scientist, a media theorist, and a philosopher across more than a half decade and was shocked at how good the quick summary paragraphs were considering my question was something like "compare and contrast the beliefs and values of David Foster Wallace, Alan Kay, McLuhan, and Byung Chul-Han, respectively. Then I asked another question and bing went off the rails getting 3 paragraphs wrong and then going from English into Spanish for no apparent reason other than I presume its source material had parallel language issues. It was surprising how good bing's right answers were given how bad its wrong answers were, especially considering that it had caught the fact that while there's a lineage of ideas from early media critics to present, the tech had changed dramatically underneath those criticisms and bing was aware enough of that substrate to note it in a separate "meta" paragraph about that change of tech, for lack of a better term.
The biggest issue for a new grad or intern with going to a Big Tech company is the "Big Tech or Bust" attitude where they won't accept anything other than a job at one of those spots.
Not the person you originally asked, but I have the same rewriting habit.

Automated tests are essential for rewriting code. If I want to rewrite untested code I either add tests or don't rewrite it. The rewritten code also needs to be tested.

Whenever possible, split up big, untestable rewrites into a series of smaller, testable rewrites. Let's say I want to rewrite component A with subcomponents B and C to use some new library Foo. I might first rewrite B to use Foo, then rewrite A (and A's tests!) to work with rewritten B. Then I rewrite C to use Foo, then rewrite A again to work with rewritten C. Then I finally go rewrite A to use Foo. This is more coding then doing the whole thing in one go (I rewrote A 3 times!), but it's a net time saver because when I make a mistake I can quickly find and fix it.

When I'm on the clock I rewrite code for practical reasons (maybe the current structure of the code can't support some new requirement, or technical debt has gotten high enough to make maintenance difficult, or whatever). This is rare-ish. Rewriting code, especially production code, is risky and time consuming and just generally not worth it.

Most of the time when I rewrite code I'm rewriting my own code, and I'm doing it for personal reasons. I like good code, I like reading it and I like writing it. To me code has aesthetic qualities, code can be beautiful and elegant. It's also educational. Imagine a writer that never edits their work; they're probably not a very good writer. It's also fun! I'm already familiar with the problem domain, so I can devote my entire focus to solving the problem instead of splitting my attention between solving the problem and figuring out wtf is going on.
You mean the Nintendo exclusive?
Surely someone who is talking about TLS knows enough about IT to understand the context of crypto is different than cryptocurrency?
The conclusion you should actually takeaway from this is that it was total mismanagement, and almost to be expected based on the fact that they hired > 20k people during the pandemic.

Step 1: Hire >20k people using cheap money
Step 2: Don't actually have them work on meaningful projects or revenue producing units
Step 3: Fed says free money is gone, whole mark goes down, stocks pull back, realize that none of those projects are doing anything or making money
Step 4: Lay them all off, claim that it's due to WFH not being effective, not for example the fact they were never working on products that make money or ones that even got to market.

Garbage in/Garbage out, but sure it is WFH and not the metaverse
I propose the following:
DRBL - Don't Repeat Business Logic

It's funny, because "dribble" or "drool" is the opposite of being dry ;)

Although it doesn't have as fun of a pronunciation in English, DRBR is probably a better acronym? Don't Repeat Business Requirements
So the more than 99% comes exactly where from? Some gut feeling?
I don’t understand why they couldn’t start building this route in Los Angeles instead of the middle of nowhere, and have something useful operating.
1. > adding a fresh layer of indirection on every single UI interaction.

Well, if it's a web app, getting the data from the server is inevitable. If it somehow can work without it, maybe it shouldn't be a web app? Or, as a last resort, it should be able to communicate the same way with the executable payload you served with the UI. If it's pure UI interaction you have the whole html+css at hand, it's huge and is rumored to be so capable, that people want to layout desktop UI's with it now.

2. > You know what I love as a user? When I have to wait for a network trip before the Button I clicked on does anything.

How can it do anything if it doesn't get a response from the server?

> But you can't seriously tell me that you want to use UIs that require constant network round trips.

Well, network roundtrips are often measured in ms, but a fat modern UI brings a netbook capable of compiling a kernel in less than half an hour to a crawl.

Don't get me wrong, I get some of your reasoning, but the issue is that functionality necessary for all these requirements you mention bleeds into basic hypertext model of the web and we get a byzantine chaos of today. So, we get blogs showing blank pages if JS is turned off, pages that won't show you the content unless you scroll and hover for a few seconds over each chunk of the page and all that insanity.

PS: It's easy to put people in boxes but it's never that simple.
I think there is plenty of room between "completely oblivious" and "emotionally attached enough to ruin results".
More likely than not while resources are constrained so tightly they aren't so interesting in intense use from a single person

Who is probably only interested in tweeting a screenshot that makes the service look bad.
Human teachers realising their mistakes and learning from it…
how long ago was it that you were in an average school?
It depends on which one you use for coding!
Euthanasia by "cervical dislocation" is killing animals by breaking their necks. It may very well be the most humane option, but nothing is gained by using jargon and obfuscation.
Language learning in general seems like something that should be on the way out. All technical building blocks for simultaneous translation exist and modern speech synthesis systems can even emulate the sound of your voice in the foreign language.

Eventually it might even be considered rude to bother people in foreign countries with your broken language skills, given that you could use a perfectly serviceable automatic translator instead and sound like something close to a native speaker.

(Edit: Note that I would also find this development sad, but such can be the dehumanizing impact of new and useful technology, especially AI. Not much you can do.)
First, allow me to address the bad-faith re-interpretation of my post. Where, exactly, do I claim it is US's fault?

I said the decision has had clear strategic consequence that effectively makes you think of WW2 and you have
to wilfully not want to see them to claim otherwise.

I get that some people think history started yesterday. It did not.

Eh, and that is before we get to the more amusing part that include vagaries of international law. I don't want to sound too cynical, but annexation is apparently only wrong when done by Russia[1]. I guess it all depends on who is doing the annexing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation
Why would GPT-25 be able to do much more? It’s just able to match more patterns no ?
You earlier described working at a "FANG:ish" company, do you actually work in M-FAANG? Where I work you get nowhere without convincing XF partners to do work for your area of responsibility, and if you come across as an asshole, they will find a reason to not do it. Assholes get held back in promos and this is clearly communicated in reviews.
It seems like they used some unknown images in the livestream, see replies to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35157940

However, I still think they should not have used images from the internet/training set in their paper. And to be safe, neither should they use “generated” images.

I am looking forward to taking photos of some paintings by friends and seeing if ChatGPT can describe them!
or forcing Chrome on Chromebook users
I agree with your assessment. OP is aligned with Korzybski, even though he says he’s disagreeing.
Bing Chat is more useful in many cases because it provides references that connect to it’s responses. I don’t like the mobile UI and that it doesn’t save your chats for you. Maybe I should try the web interface.
Does it like to gamble?
Most graphical tools with WYSIWYG miss version control and the ability to show diffs between versions. But this is very important for debugging web apps and also for collaboration between developers. Also if the logic is more complex than a simple If-Else, you can express that much shorter and more efficient with text instead of a graphical representation of some tree.

But note there is one area where GUIa are used for coding: game development. But Unreal 5, Unity etc. don't exactly have a simple GUI.
It's presented as a feature when GPT provides a correct answer.

It's presented as a limitation when GPT provides an incorrect answer.

Both of these behaviors are literally the same. We are sorting them into the subjective categories of "right" and "wrong" after the fact.

GPT is fundamentally incapable of modeling that difference. A "right answer" is every bit as valid as a "wrong answer". The two are equivalent in what GPT is modeling.

Lies are a valid feature of language. They are shaped the same as truths.

The only way to resolve this problem is brute force: provide every unique construction of a question, and the corresponding correct answer to that construction.
Hive ransomware group was behind 2021 cyberattack on Newfoundland health systems
Well the whole point is that it can’t.
Yep, just tested it - Bing chat gave the correct answer, ChatGPT (basic free model) gave the wrong answer (that they weigh the same).
HTMX is not for highly interactive UIs where most user actions are local, it has its use case.
AWS SNS + SQS Fanout works pretty well and not too complicated.
Man you must be so good and interesting enough that you live rent free in peoples head. I can only dream of being that important to someone's life stranger or otherwise. As it stands, the best I could muster up is people tend to block me over time(I can't prove it but I can see patterns in reduced responses & upvote/downvote counts). Both on Reddit and in real life.
Yeah that's not why we hate them
Compared to contemporary AR glasses ($2k+), these Nreal Airs are fairly cost effective at $379. We plan to support lots more glasses as they come out, especially ones with waveguide technology that doesn't require the shared lenses.
> Cherry picking data and sources don't really convince anyone

No data and no sources don't either.

> you also missed that I earlier said that small scale farming and hobbyists are not scalable

I may have, and I don't agree. Take those vast grazing areas and crop land for production of the animal feed and there would be plenty of land for both new forests and new small scale farms doing the farming the right way (fruits, vegetables, small fields with plenty of trees in between, ponds and a lot of biodiversity).

> Large scale factory farms

We don't really need those. We have them now, and it may look now like its the only thing that could support our civilization, but that's the big ag propaganda talking - there are many other systems of farming we could switch to.

It may look very different, but the effectivity may/would be many times higher than it's now - it would need new machinery and it's knowledge intensive, but it was proven it can be done (see syntropic agriculture, food forests, agroforestry, permaculture atc.).

Some changes are needed on political & economic level, but agriculture production is a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries, so there's that.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu...
I imagine those dollars from papa Nadella are buying LOTS of capacity as we speak.
This is kind of why I created https://lowbackgroundsteel.ai.
I am not sure I agree, but if that is the case, then slowly boiling the frog is the wrong strategy to begin with. If that is true, then one big move and a show of force is the appropriate one.

I think there is a clear misunderstanding of today's world order combined with a recognition that there is, clearly based on what is happening, a space to test its boundaries ( metaphorically and literally ).

<< It will cost us one way or the other.

Full agreement. What is the lesser or at least more acceptable cost from US perspective?
The solution is the free market. People don't have to drive. It's a super low barrier to entry position and therefore is ultracompetitive. Drivers wouldn't drive if they wanted benefits. They would work elsewhere.
Gotta pay back M$