skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The single largest learning point from this experience was how entirely hollow the whole Silicon Valley libertarian ethos really was.

And yet again, another group that claims to say "leave us be, take away restrictions and oversight we'll take care of ourselves, be more efficient an ask nothing of you", turnouts to be just another form of "leave us along so we can benefit, and then come save us when we need help".

And to be very clear, the lesson to take away from this isn't: don't save a group when it needs help - because in the end the Yellen and FDIC did the right thing. To do any differently would have been to cut off our nose to spite our face. The lesson is stop letting groups be allowed to be build these fake worlds. Every single time it works out to be "libertarian when convenient and socialist when suffering".

As we saw with the "code is law", and other cases - as much as people like the concepts it never holds up when people's assets/health are actually at stake. It is human nature they will always turn back to society for help after having refused to pay into it to get there (or directly taking advantage of it to profit).

If you want to profit off of the hard work of an existing society, you must also pay the costs of maintaining society. Anything otherwise is just a "free rider" problem waiting to explode. We're simply lucky we could contain it this time (so far).

There is a reason why every long-run solution to the prisoners dilemma is to cooperate. There is a reason why every society since antiquity has been based on society cooperation. The only long term stable solution is cooperation and eliminating free-riders who claim to be exempt from rules.

SV's VC ethos was completely hollow.
Worries about Semaglutide
Did you read the linked article?

> In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,
a defendant accused of making unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead created by a camera.
The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.”
This mostly makes me wonder about the varying definitions of NLP. Most business folks I’ve worked with in this field don’t even know the question to ask or prompt- the implementation details of models like GPT are the easy part.
The notice explicitly covers photography.

> In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making

> unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright

> protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a

> photograph is not a writing nor the production of an
author” but is instead

> created by a camera.

> The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's

> Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far

> as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the

> author.”
The amount of victim-blaming astroturfing I've seen on hn this week has been quite surprising. Depositors are never, ever to blame for bank runs.

Edit: From the about page:

> Who I am is not important. Holding accountable the hypocrites responsible for Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse is. I can be reached at svbhallofshame@protonmail.com. All correspondence will be kept anonymous.

It's just missing a PAC called something like "Citizens for Depositor Accountability."
cat prompt.txt && find . -type f -name *.py | xargs -I{} sh -c 'printf -- "---\n\n" && cat {}' && echo "--END--"
Huh, it was a couple days back I wrote a poem titled just the same. For anyone interested, here you go https://i.hsen.tech/verse/just-write/ :)
It's not going to happen.

I am not into transhumanism. Modifying humans genetics.

But guess what, there will always be a country that allows it to get a competitive advantage.

If the US ban LLM. China, Korea, Russia will probably not. And so the US won't either.
Not to pile on but as an addition to what others have said:

>as they can reuse launch vehicles

Falcon 9 is not fully reusable, "only" the first stage is. That was still an incredible accomplishment, and still saves a great deal of money because the first stage is the largest and has the most engines, which are one of the more complex and expensive parts of any rocket. However, the second stage is expended, so that's a fixed cost each time, IIRC estimates are around $9m. Even the fuel isn't nothing as other costs start to get brought down, F9 burns tens of thousands of gallons of RP-1 per launch and RP-1 isn't free either (probably at least $17/gal, so that's probably at least another half mil). Refurbishment of course but also recovery ships, salaries, launch pad time, it all adds up. Yes by historic scales this is all pretty cheap and SpaceX is certainly large enough with enough cadence, revenue and profit to absorb losses fine, they very intentionally run hardware rich. In a careful manner it should be made clear, they aim to learn things, but they do push to find the edges of the envelope on occasion as well. But it's not remotely free. Don't forget, there is also the lost time and cost of the actual sat capacity, they do actively want these things and are pursuing a cut down while waiting for Starship for a reason. They need more network capacity for Starlink. Losing a bunch of V2 Minis is another pile of monthly revenue they won't be getting for a while longer.

The Starship system will be a big step forward in all respects, the first rocket engineered from the ground up around economics. Fully reusable and more easily, cheap to construct, even the fuel is cheap. But even there they still have expensive things to be careful with, they've gotten more cautious recently because losing ground facilities in an explosion at this point would genuinely be very painful and set them back months which itself would represent major opportunity cost. And they can't simply spread things out because of the limits of the geography they're working with right now.

It's all still rocket science. Pushing hard in a controlled manner is good, they've done incredibly putting together a system around that and it's paid off. But not being reckless, and major losses are still going to sting.
> The best way to prevent a bank run is not to run

No, the only way to prevent a bank run is to get everyone else not to run.

And since that's impossible, there's only one rational choice to make, which is to be first out the door.

This is bad! But it's true.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Here is the full list of available models: https://huggingface.co/Xenova/transformers.js/tree/main/quan...

As I mentioned in another comment, the library just allows the models to be run in the browser. The models generally give the same outputs as if they were run with their PyTorch equivalents, so, the quality can (for the most part) be blamed on the original model.

Also, remember to play around with generation parameters. Some tasks like code completion and speech-to-text work best with greedy sampling (sample=false, top_k=0), while others like text generation work best with random sampling (sample=true, top_k>0)
I think the issue is more that we at least recognize humans are fallible. Less so with “algorithms”.
A list of VCs who did not learn game theory correctly
That's not a way to prevent the bank run. That's just choosing to not be a part of it. Unless you can both coordinate with and convince others to do the same, you're not preventing anything.
That is the state of the law today, where software gets copyrighted and can't be patented, but the debate about this is more about what ought to be the case.
I saw someone coin the Dumb Monty Hall Test on Twitter recently.

> Monty hall offers you the opportunity to pick between three doors. Behind one of them is a new car, and behind the other two are goats. The doors are transparent and you're able to see clearly that the car is behind door number one. He asks you to choose a door, and you select door number one, since you want the car. He opens door number two and shows that there is a goat behind it. Then you have the opportunity to stay with your original choice, or switch doors. What should you do?

ChatGPT> You should switch doors. The probability of the car being behind door 1 is 1/3. After the host opens door number 2 and you know that a goat is there, the probability of the car being behind door 1 does not change, it is still 1/3. But now you know that the car is behind door 3 with probability of 2/3. So you will have a higher chance of winning the car by switching your door selection.
seeing this here is funny because there are a lot of HN users that are VCs that don't know how to code :)
There was a balance sheet crisis at the bank. It's pretty easy to see how that could quickly develop into a situation where withdrawls were limited.

> The best way to prevent a bank run is not to run.

That is irrational for every individual actor. There is very little downside in withdrawing the money and huge downside in not doing so.

The best (and only?) way to really prevent a bank run is for an actor that everyone trusts to aggressively step in and provide guarantees.

See for example the situation at Credit Swisse where the Swiss National Bank had to step in on March 16 to provide $54B in loans: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/3/15/credit-suisse-sl...
I feel like key exchange will be really important going forward.
I never said those were equivalent.
> Since LLM’s can’t scope themselves to be strictly true or accurate

Bing tries to solve this and succeeds somewhat. It will insert Wikipedia style citations against each of its claims. You can visit them and verify the statement if you want. And I do it often.

No reason why a future DocAI can't link to specific sections in internal documents whenever it answers a question.
I switched a few words and it’s giving me a “something went wrong” error.
The six ancient Norse myths that still resonate today
> Many teams are now down to the idea guys.

What do you mean by this?
> I'd much rather read one function top to bottom than have to jump into 7 nested function calls that are only called once. And I certainly don't need the levels of abstraction that design patterns or Haskell typeclasses demand.

I’d say it’s pretty subjective. I’m the opposite. I can’t read functions that are a hundred lines long with a dozen bound variables and half a dozen branches and early exits. That’s not easy to read and it requires keeping a notepad with you to figure out the control flow.

I much prefer short definitions with clear logic. Leave the semantics to the edges of the program where it matters. It’s easier to reason about using substitution and algebraic manipulation.

Don’t get me wrong though, I write my fair share of C code and low level drivers. For that though I tend to use a higher level language to work out the logic.

My business isn’t writing code. That’s the boring part. It’s solving the problems that is interesting.

But that’s the funny thing. Regardless we could both solve the same problems in our own ways and more often than not it will be good enough.

After twenty years and hoping for another twenty… I guess I’ve learned that what matters is that you can get along with your team and read each other’s code. Styles come and go and don’t matter that much.
I work with many people and teams and vendors.

About 20% of them can listen.

About 10% are able to listen and reflect back the meaning.

About 5% are able to create space for deeper listening and connect authentically.

A few invite creativity from others - honestly - and follow the best direction.

Apart from these, the framework of Nonviolent Communication is very helpful.
Watching Calacanis claiming he was responsible for the federal government's aid was quite shameful
We speak of software design for a reason. Arguably, anything involving substantial design work is copyrightable. Buildings, for example, are copyrightable, even when they only exist as architectural documents or as models. Software is rather similar.
I frankly found that section unclear and extremely fishy, especially that it is only one page. Did they really prompt it to find and talk to a TaskRabbit worker? What a strangely specific thing to say.

I'm concerned OpenAI isn't telling more because it would spook everyone. Other papers have shown that larger models and especially with more RLHF exhibit more signs of power seeking and agentic behavior. GPT-4 is the largest model yet - but they say it doesn't exhibit any of this behavior?
I have a really hard time believing that. Syria for example.
One opinion that seems to have completely changed since I first learned is about having a single `return` in my function. It was hammered into my when I first learned that you should only ever have one exit in your code, anything else is bad practice.

Fast forward about 11 years, and people realize that having a million nested if statements and matching else blocks is actually absurdly unreadable; much better to just return early, avoid nesting, and break the "only one exit" pattern.
You can use it, just don't use it for things that you publish without doing sufficient diligence to see if that work would be infringing on something else.

I intend to make an e-ink panel that displays woodcut style images generated by stable diffusion (get a list of a 30 or so different descriptions of scenes, and have them slowly get generated over the day and display a different one each hour).

So, here's the question - are any of those woodcut images derivative of some other work? Don't know - and it likely doesn't matter as it would be something hanging on a wall in a room.

On the other hand, if I was to collect them and publish them as a book, then I, as the human who is publishing them, would need to do sufficient diligence to see if any of them are derivative works. They might be - but I am the one publishing it then - not Stable Diffusion.

Likewise, if I was creating a collection of epic rap battles between historical figures as generated by GPT... then I should search to make sure that none of the phrases that are used in there are lifted directly from some other source. Again, it is me as the human with agency that is publishing it, not GPT.

If you were to go to Fiverr and request 100 pictures of woodcuttings or people to write epic rap battles between Julius Caesar and Ghengis Khan - would it matter if it was a human lifted the text or GPT? It is still upon you, the person publishing it to do the check.
They launch into a LEO explicitly so this can happen and it won't be a problem.
We already have all the required cryptographic primitives (which you've already alluded to in d ) to completely address a), b) and d) if desired. Full enforcement however, would destroy the internet as we know it, and allow corps and governments to completely control our electronic lives.

We already seem to be going down this path with the proliferation of remote attestation schemes in mobile devices, and increasingly in general computing as well.
Here's a defense of those critiqued here (I am uninformed, so please correct me with more nuance):

Bank runs are similar to prisoners' dilemmas. If all depositors could agree to not bank run, then they would have. Without this agreement, it does make sense to participate in the bank run (earlier is better), since if the bank run happens and you tried to be "good" by not running, you could be the one holding the bag at the end. And if the bank run doesn't happen, then no cost is incurred.

So unfortunately, a bank run is one of those situations where everyone makes really rational decisions in the absence of coordination, but the outcome is bad.

Is this a valid defense?
This is basically what NuShell does (with the shell -- but also with files too).
Why don't these guys join the NuShell team?
Sure.

This is just a big "fuck you" to non company supported open source projects, as it turns out even ones labelled "sponsored css" on Docker Inc's own website.

Which are all clearly insignificant and unimportant, dumb little command line utilities and libraries like, say, curl...

https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/2314#issuecomm...
There's dozens of people who would get it... DOZENS!
It's so much worse than that.

The same people who cry to be bailed out of a bank run are the same people who wring their hands about the moral hazard of student debt relief. You will find that theme repeated. Any government money spent on poor people we simply cannot afford.

The rich never stop asking the government for money. They expect it. They certainly never refuse it. Never forget that.

"Libertarians" are pretty much just Reagan-era deregulation conservatives. It is utterly self-serving.
The issue to me here is that code is a literary work. Literary works are copywritable. Except that AI generated works without human authorship aren’t per this.

Interestingly this came up when copilot was announced and one comment or another was “this will be an interesting bit of case law.”

Well now we have to see who wants to go first and establish precedent for the next half-century. :-)
If Bloomberg is to be believed, the run started after the funds started experiencing real problems with regular money movement. In which case, it is kind of an emergency?

> But the firm learned that its limited partners were encountering issues using SVB services as they tried to transfer the funds — they weren’t immediately going through as expected, the person said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-11/thiel-s-f...

But the funny part is that this story is still unfolding. The bank's new management is soliciting new business under the same "startup-friendly" pitch (and presumably a large number of the same assets and liabilities), and again vulnerable to _the same exact run on a small-ish number of uninsured deposits_ (as opposed to diversified banks with lots of insured accounts across many industries). Except, now they also pitch it as fully insured! So how does this even end? Is it a temporary thing until the bridge bank gets acquired by somebody, or do they have now perpetual 100% protection from the FDIC? Really trying to understand. What good is a friendly bank that collapses from mismanagement and is propped up to serve the same small segment, vulnerable to the same run again?
SVB didn't fail because people pulled money, it failed because of a lack of risk management. Complaining about those pulling money out is silly. If anything they should have pulled it out much earlier.
Contagions gonn contage.

If it was in a vacuum maybe they could have kept a lid on it. But I disagree that they should have stayed calm about it with what happened prior with TerraUSD, Luna, Celsius, and FTX. The length of the list shows that it would have been infeasible to collude to stay quiet.

This hall of shame feels like an ego trip.
Why is the date on this article 5-months ago? (OCT 18, 2022) Is this really a new feature?
Does anyone know if GPT4 creates a new object for each session or had one for all of it? Can these prompts leak?
We are all getting old. College age kids aren't old enough to remember when that show was on the air.
It sure seems that of all the people who could coordinate and convince others not to run, this list of investors with several thousand overall portcos would be just the right people. A moment of stability at a time of crisis would sure be better than a run for the doors NOW approach that set off the stampede.

Imagine the ALL-CAPS tweets and backdoor phone calls that could have been possible if these very same investors (who now rally behind the shuttered and reopened bank) could have called for calmness instead of panic. But that's not what happened. Once the run starts, you can't stop it.
Each of them have long, complex procedures they have to follow in many cases, and some exceptions. A court might well be able to issue a preliminary injunction faster than an agency can do notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Agencies specialize at problems that don't need a simple rule, but rather need large amounts of meticulous and tedious special cases. They've got more bandwidth, but not necessarily shorter latency.
> They didn't, they just said "access" which unambiguously means just "access".

Not only that, they said access to your public images. Not "access to your account" or "access to your project". They explicitly mention "any images in your public repositories" as a thing that you will "maintain access" to "during that time".
> it is entirely prisoner's dilemma.

It is, but also it's even worse. The usual prisoner's dilemma is explained with 2 parties. In this case, it was thousands of parties with a choice of: a) do what's best for your business, b) bet that almost all the other parties with also choose b.

2-person prisoner's dilemma is a fun game theory exercise. "All the customers" prisoner's dilemma is a social "have you met other business people" exercise.
Understanding how DEFFN works is not the same as disrobing a blushing, helpless woman.

My objection is specifically about these three things in combination:

1) equating a code function to ‘damsel’, a gendered stereotype for a helpless women;

2) using phrasing that would most commonly be referencing disrobing and viewing someone; and,

3) having the characterization blush when doing so.

These three components taken together are not fundamental to all characterizations. They are specific, gendered, and offensive.
A startup in the hand is worth two in the bush.
>... as long as their Kessler Syndrome half-life is low enough. And, you know, you haven't launched thousands of them.

It's hard not to sigh at the persistence of this getting applied mindlessly. The quantity isn't particularly important here, altitude is. There is still atmosphere at hundreds of kilometers, and thus there is still drag and in turn orbital decay. It falls off non-linearly with increasing altitude, but for low LEO and VLEO is very significant. You can see from the graph shown in the linked tweets that these only got to around 380km. At those altitudes lifetimes are measured in months [0]. You may also find it handy for visualizing to look at it in animated form with a Gabbard diagram [1], same result. Debris aren't an issue at low orbits because of how fast they decay, regardless of numbers. Indeed making use of that is directly part of the reason why SpaceX does Starlink launches the way it does, inserting low and then raising gradually via sat thrusters rather then just aiming directly for final orbit. Yes there are some reuse energy advantages and such, but it's also so that if there is a major problem (like this, or the batch they lost from unexpected solar atmospheric heating increasing drag) they fail safe, naturally decaying rapidly and burning back up even in the case of total control loss.

----

0: https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm

1: https://old.reddit.com/r/space/comments/ld4vlq/gabbard_diagr...
I'm in the middle of getting my family using Nextcloud and the Memories app for that. No idea how well it will work long term, but it's an idea.
I’ve never worked in an early stage start up. This write up convinces me that it’s not for me.
as you've discovered, really it just depends on your lawyer
> undo a very Microsoft oddity

I don't think Microsoft are the reason why JS uses UTF-16 strings.
IOUMMU prevents this
Unneeded on pixel devices per the project zero announcement [0]:

> affected Pixel devices have already received a fix for CVE-2023-24033 in the March 2023 security update

[0] https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2023/03/multiple-inte...
I've read it "Rewriting ..." . You guess in what exactly.
Why was this flagged? It's hilarious:

> MOC uses alternate accounts for personal safety reasons

Does MOC think PG is going to have him whacked? I primarily use throwaways here since I don't care about karma, but this is absurd, and makes MOC look crazy.