skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> Am I the only one who's completely exhausted with these blog posts and twitter threads that just throw some chat logs into the ether paired with a sloppy, biased analysis that misses important details and obvious refutations?

No no, you're not alone.

It just kills me how many people seem to be so ready to abandon critical thinking and go straight for the results that confirm their beliefs.

But of course, with large language models, there's so much behaviour that just poking them to see what falls off is never going to work, if one wants to understand what they do. And why do we even need to do any poking? We know how they work. Because "we" made them [1]. Have people completely lost the ability to reason about a complex system, without getting lost in the complexity? Have people lost the ability to reason about a system's behaviour from the principles of its design? When a piece of software does something unexpected, what would most programmers do? Stare at it and try to guess why it did that? Keep generating results and come up with a fancy theory? Wouldn't they just look at the damn code, debug it maybe, and try to find out why it's doing that? Has everyone simply lost the ability to draw a straight line from a system's internal structure, to its external behaviour? What the effing 'ell is wrong with people?

It's like someone's gone and replaced all the engineers and the scientists with homeopaths and dowsers. I just checked the twitter bio of the guy who started the Twitter thread. He's an astronomer. Is that how astronomers study the cosmos? They just stare hard at the output of their instruments and try to imagine why it looks that way? Note: that's astro_nomer_, not astrologist.

______________

[1] Well, OpenAI has made that one, but they didn't invent the idea of modelling language by taking statistics over a corpus [2].
And they're not the first to make language models, either, not by a very, very long shot. So that's "we" as in humans, who have done some language modelling before. Hands up! No? Well, I guess you know who you are.

[2] Haha no. You know who did?

No, that wasn't the one.

This is the one:

https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shanno...

Scroll down to page 7. See the section titled "3. The series of approximations to English"?

Yeah, Shannon invented statistical language modelling. Or maybe it wasn't even he, and he's just showing how to do it right.

That was in 1948, btw. So much for language models being a shiny new thing that will keep improving because it's only now getting started.
Lots of vans are the same size as SUVs ... So only certain size vans are allowed? What is the cutoff?
I’ve never tried their mail-order pizza, but Pequods is very tasty.

https://www.goldbelly.com/pequods-pizza
"If you get a cut, you can pinch the skin together and use CA glue on it to keep it there."

I am not a doctor or medical professional of any kind, but I've been advised to only do this in a small spot (like a stitch) rather than sealing the length of the cut (which can then fester).
Why should I check it out? Is it illuminating, or just a good story, or what?
All models are wrong, some are useful.
-- George Box

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box
Sonoran hot dogs my dude!
Which occurred well after halfway through a fully logged collaboration (as we can assume that Hawkings comms were recorded).

The paraphrasing you gave over simplified:

“I used to position myself in front of him and fire questions and would look into his eyes to see if he was agreeing or disagreeing. By the end, I could detect several levels of no and several levels of yes with a few in between.”

Reading aloud to a collaborative partner of many years and getting eye rolls in varying directions is as valid as one grunt for yes, two for no .. it's low bandwidth but workable (just).
> in reality, there are many more ways to end up in debt, spending more than you earn is just one possible cause.

What are some others that don’t trivially collapse into exactly that?
One old timer welder once told me there's a good reason you don't see many people like him (old welders).
Calling Dask python spaghetti is quite hilarious.

That spaghetti can auto scale to hundreds of machines without skipping a beat. Which is far more useful than the other tools you mentioned which are only useful for one off tasks.
I don’t work in your area, but my observation is: you seem to have a strong opinion about the validity of certain experimental work. Moreover, your opinion does not appear to be broadly shared by your fellow reviewers, and (here I make a second presumption) also by many experimental scientists submitting work to these venues. I don’t know if your opinion is valid or incorrect - that is incidental to the discussion - but I sure wish that reviewers would agree on basic standards in advance, rather than surprising scientists with disagreements about them after researchers have done enormous amounts of work and spent public funds. The situation you’re describing (basically, having a debate about standards in the wrong place) seems very harmful.
Tang Yu, the World’s First AI-Powered Virtual Humanoid Robot CEO
I'm less worried about AI replacing my job, and more excited about how much more I'll be able to accomplish with AI. It's a multiplier.
If you have even a passing interest in this, you will enjoy the book Masters of Doom, which is about the early days of id software. I think that's what the GP is referring to.
I have to deal with continuously changing requirements, dozens of microservices, multiple type of DBs, client integrations with endless techs, clients support tickets written with an obscure human language where you have to guess what they meant.

AI is not going to take over these things anytime soon, if ever.
> A Microsoft cloud service then processes the text to detect spelling and grammar errors in your text. All your typed text that's sent to Microsoft is deleted immediately after processing occurs. No data is stored for any period of time.

Interestingly, if they also share the text with third parties, then every one of those statements could still be completely true.
Maybe. I’m not on anyone’s side here, just what makes sense.
It's somewhat similar to H2 Push, which had similar justifications about adoption and interest. When frameworks finally started supporting it to some extent Google expressed their wish to kill the feature, that instantly dissuaded most developers finishing their implementations or from even considering it.

(Not to mention the fact that the developer tooling for H2 Push was terrible to say the least for a long time)

To me it seems Chromium/Google are somewhat out of touch on how slow the web and adoption of new things happens.

In this case, it was also behind an experimental flag, I don't know how the f** they expect people to show interest if it's practically not usable on the web.
This applies to lots of areas though, the multiples is just one tiny example. Like rote memorization of an api for a language. It's far easier to see and plan ahead when you don't have to constantly stop to figure out something else. More of your mental energy can go toward higher level thinking when you don't have to continually downshift to figure out the low level pieces.
I feel the same. It's the MacDonald's effect: increase offer, demand grows.
I have a MSc in MechE. Unfortunately a lot of the stuff he does is the “fun stuff” and like any engineering job, you’re lucky if you have a 50/50 fun stuff to paper work ratio.
I find it strange that so many people in this area get concerned about becoming obsolete. Back in college, I clearly remember a discussion we had (me and colleagues) about how our job was exactly to get us obsolete as soon as possible, so we could go do the next order of things.

I wish most of my real life work were exactly like that, it'd be much more fun.
You’re probably already aware, but there are medical formulations of CA that are in theory less likely to irritate tissues than general purpose ones.
That's science fiction, though. The Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation is just that: An interpretation of a set of equations. And pretty much by definition the worlds cannot interact in any way. Even if there were some obscure way to differentiate between MWI and, say, the Copenhagen interpretation, I wouldn't expect it to become feasible anytime soon. But as far as I know there cannot be any experiments differentiating between the two (or other interpretations), because they're simply different interpretations of the same equations. They predict the same experimental outcomes.
TigerBeetle writes to disk for long-term storage. Data over time is the part you can't fit into memory (eventually). :)
Human contact has been a bad thing for a lot of bird species.
It’s a highly regressive taxation scheme putting the burden on those who can east afford it: the lower your discretionary income compared to disposable income, the more you sink into VAT.
Pretend? The recycling rate for vehicle lead acid batteries is over 99% in the US.
To be frank even that very low buying price together with the 6 billion CHF that UBS asked from the Swiss government as a warranty is not enough to cover for the almost unlimited amount of money they may lose in Credit Suisse related US class action and other liability related lawsuits due recent and not so recent events.
> Why shouldn’t or why couldn’t so-called natural “laws” face competitive pressure the same way organisms on earth do?

What would they compete over? What would the mechanisms of mutation and of selection be?

This also would seem to assume that time has to be fundamental and cannot be emergent, for the evolution of laws to happen over time.
You've made me feel completely alienated from the world.
Why would sufficiently advanced AI even need a prompter? The AI could play the role of the greatest prompter in the world, and ask the same questions to the end user that the human prompter would.
I'm very surprised at this and I wonder if it's not a failure of the shear strength of the glue, but of the surface of the wall. I'm pretty damn sure that plaster is a crap thing to attach directly to, ditto wallpaper, and rough raw brick while strong is far too uneven to expect much contact between it and the item glued.
Not at all. Viewed one way it isn't a problem at all (the user found and fixed the issue). Viewed another way, it is a flaw in the docs for FixedBufferAllocator that it offers a "free()" call but fails to make clear that this only works when freeing at the end of the allocated region.
> Kakoune does the same

Great! I’m glad I’m not the only one to have thought of this simple idea :)
Yes, and you totally ignored the cancers that could occur due to low levels of additional radiation in the population at large. You are simply presuming that such cancers cannot occur.

What you are doing here is demanding that the cancers actually be demonstrated, requiring that radiation be treated as innocuous until it can be conclusively shown it isn't. This is the mindset behind those ranting against the linear no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis.

But regulation doesn't work this way. Nuclear isn't something that must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I think you are missing an important detail here:

"When you buy goods online in the EU, prices may vary from country to country or across different versions of the same website, for example due to differences in delivery costs. However, if you buy goods online WITHOUT cross-border delivery you should have access to the same prices and special offers as buyers living in that EU country"

So when cross-border delivery is done (this is fulfilled by electronic submitting even) I can charge different prices for different countries. All people with IP from country X get the same price. Country Y can have a different price.

Same price among all countries in Europe cannot be true... you even have different prices on Amazon stores in Europe like amazon.de amazon.fr amazon.it amazon.es on same goods from the very same warehouse etc.

Other example Netflix or Youtube Premium subscriptions, they are also not the same price among whole EU (for example Denmark vs. Bulgaria)
They use a random forest classifier, which is an ensemble model that gives a consensus result of several decision trees. One way to achieve this consensus is voting. Random forest models are commonly used in building chemical models like this (and in QSAR), because they are quite robust. Due to the typically small size of chemical data sets (dozens to thousands, typically), more sophisticated methods are not usable and do not perform better.
Sounds great, when the SUV loses control and flips into a kindergarten before exploding, where will you be?
To some extent, this is true, but it should never be used as an excuse for refusing to help those who are in poverty today.

There are many in poverty today who don't really have it better than 50 years ago. They're living under bridges, bouncing from shelter to shelter as they can, barely managing to get enough food to eat.

There are many others in poverty who do, indeed, have it "better" in some senses (for instance, they may have a smartphone—some of the time, in between times when it gets stolen, or broken, or they can't pay for the service), but who are still in desperate straits. They're living in their car, working three part-time jobs just to be able to continue to live in their car as opposed to on the street like the first category. Or they're couch surfing, relying on the patience of the last couple of friends who haven't already kicked them out while they apply to job after job after job and continually get ghosted even for fast-food positions.

Just because "poverty" in the 21st century doesn't look like the stereotypical Dickensian picture of starving children with nothing but a stick to play with doesn't mean it's not real poverty, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to end it.
This is one of the things that makes me most excited about Bun. It’s much faster for certain kinds of things like this, and I hope its focus on performance spurs a positive arms race of sorts.
CS would be insane to accept that price

Their CEO can just turn this into a game of chicken, since it is the depositors who are at risk, not him

And if the sale is being forced, why even offer $1 billion? Just threaten jail time and take CS for free
I always thought Rupert Sheldrake was a lot less wrong than the impression given by his critics, though he's certainly become an utter crank focusing on dubious "telepathy" experiments and attacking the "orthodoxy" to the point where he's impossible to take seriously now.

His thinking around the 80s and early 90s was onto something I think, even if he largery missed the mark when it came down to the details of his theory.
yeah, you could invent a nefarious story about how this went, or a misinterpretation of the story, as well as a simple accounting of what Hawkings really thought. How you decide where to draw where the truth is, isn't particularly easy.
Businesses that do both b2b and b2c will either have a toggle to show prices with or without VAT, show both, or only show price with VAT.
I just got some super glue to re-glue the anti-slip rubber to the bottom of my laptop, which has become detached. But i am too scared to use it as i am bed-ridden at the moment and have visions of being eternally glued to my duvet cover or to my laptop!
> the work of a language server didn't need to fully compile the source code to be effective

And you can get that by toggling three settings in your LSP client. They're even documented in the user manual [0].

They are enabled by default because users won't be happy if their proc macros don't work. They'd be even less happy with the "ctags for Rust" approach you're suggesting.

[0] https://rust-analyzer.github.io/manual.html#security
> I doubt any big company actually tried (or tried very hard). Cost of implementation becomes a kind of implicit test here, because companies like things cheap.

So if an individual unpaid volunteer spends their time doing a 2nd implementation, <bigco> might consider it for their browser. But they won't pay for a 2nd implementation with their own staff, even if they own a humongous chunk of the browser market (which comes with responsibilities) and even if it is a better algorithm.

Sounds about right.
Not related to the content but to the article: the links to other articles between the paragraphs are extremely distracting.
> anti-patternic

patternic is not a word.
Show HN: Quivr – Crowdsourced Dating
We just launched Quivr about a week ago. The idea is that the public votes on matches for daters, who have the work done for them. Our userbase is mostly matchmakers (women) as well as daters.

Looking for suggestions and criticism, as well as early adopters who want to help us build the product into what singles would love using more than standard apps.
I want a retrofit kit so I can make my 90s 4WD SUV electric. That would be great torque for off road.
Brett Harrison – FTX US Former President and HFT Finance Veteran Speaks Out
Lee Smolin suggested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection
But that specific hypothesis doesn't seem to match our universe anyway.
I bought one of these 2nd hand in early nineties after being introduced to the RPN way of doing things with a Hewlett Packard 28S calculator. Had fun with this machine although it was similar in many respects to ZX81 (and supposedly Spectrum) I grew up with.

The soft- and hardware had similar issues. For a meaningful programs in both cases you would quickly need to descend to machine code, which on both systems was very enjoyable experience. (E.g. BBC micro had far more mature software stack.)

But you are probably right in implying that Forth probably was too alien to ever gain mass adoption, even if the soft and hardware would have been superior to more common BASIC alternative.
That or it's a warranty issue...where the DIY model forces the purchaser to carry more responsibility
Plus, you can lower your tuition with community college credit transfers (at least for some states' public uni's)
Universal Darwinism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
Maybe? A founders job is basically “execute the path to capitalize on the opportunity”. So you have to figure out the opportunity, and execute towards it by whatever means necessary - that’s a lot of jobs and hats. As long as there’s a human required to make a business possible, founders will exist. Get rid of software engineering, marketing, fundraising, identifying the opportunity, sales, customer support, etc then maybe all the founder does is make sure the machine keeps running. But at that point every other human job is automated too.

Founders are weird because their job is just to “do everything that needs to be done” so the role flows like water into any spot that isn’t already filled in a company. Replacing that seems like by definition you have to replace almost everyone else first.
> I believe next step in furthering our insignificance

The next step seems to be coming from the computer science department rather than astronomy or biology, with the growing demonstrations that intelligence can emerge from simple mechanical operations.
On the contrary, aren't sparse websites actually a more regimented experience? You end up with information that's given to you as you follow a designer's flow rather than a more active and thoughtful user involvement in navigating a sige's resources.
People always have stories about technical debt at work and open source, etc. Does anyone have stories of projects with no technical debt? Perfectly maintainable code?

We like to blame bizdev and sales for putting pressure on us, but that feels like a cop-out to me. Maybe I'm just a bad programmer but even if you took out the deadlines and "requirements" I'll probably still ship code with some warts here and there. Complaining about people in other positions is no way to improve.

Sorry, maybe a bit of an extreme take. Am still interested in stories of especially maintainable codebases, as I'm probably over-correcting here.
It's crazy to see all the current and ex Meta staff in here having their say on tastefulness etc, when they've made a decision that clearly requires some serious low moral character - working at Meta.

The compartmentalisation must be amazing.
What an insult
David Hume identified the useful distinction between is and ought.

For most of my life I've adhered to this idea - however I've come to believe, against my own protests, that the universe does, in fact, embed something like a moral code. Or more like a challenge. When we look upon it, we see a vast, empty thing, devoid of any evidence of life. The biosphere of Earth is the most precious "substance" that exists because it is the most unique. It is also the only place where this discussion can take place, since the rest of the universe is (apparently) rather dead.

So, I don't think the universe has anything to say about hat sizes or personal sexual proclivities (and indeed wrt sex the universe seems to wear its freak flag proudly given that the life-cycles of many critters involves...questionable activity). But it does say that surviving is very hard - It is quite difficult to escape a gravity well, and many OOM harder to get to another system fast enough that your craft and crew doesn't die of old age.

(I've come to believe too that there is a positive side to this setup: if it were easier to move around, there would be horrible chaos as so cheerily depicted in assorted space opera novels. It would be colonialism writ large, victimizing trillions instead of millions. And most likely humans would be the exploited and not the exploiters, not that it matters.)

What's interesting though is that the problem of spreading life beyond earth seems extremely hard-- but its not theoretically impossible. It's going to take time, which means humans need to find a stable space in which to dwell for a long time while we build planet-spanning particle colliders, or whatever else we need to do to figure out how to send vehicles to other stars. Creativity exists in tension with stability, which is an interesting place to end a conversation about how to pass The Great Filter.
The only thing I'm in awe of is how so many of you guys got API access. I signed up for the waitlist something like fifteen minutes after the announcement, and have yet to hear a peep. Meanwhile it seems everyone else here has been playing with it.
AI might make code monkeys obsolete but not computer scientists or software engineers. If you’re worried, pay attention to all the non-trivial decisions you make each day that aren’t specifically about the lines of code. And how much daily social interaction is required for working as a team, building complex systems. Your job uses code but isn’t about coding.
Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: It is!

Mr. Vibrating: It is not.

Man: Look, you just contradicted me.

Mr. Vibrating: I did not.

Man: Oh you did!!

Mr. Vibrating: No, no, no.

Man: You did just then.

Mr. Vibrating: Nonsense!

Man: Oh, this is futile!
Selling services B2B cross border should not charge vat, so you should be good.

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/cross-bor...
Returning to college, YouTube videos are far higher quality and ability than most lecturers. It's nearly impossible for for a "speech" to beat someone with unlimited retakes/recuts/similar anyways.

The places where professors should beat a YouTuber is being able to use experience from past classes (which they kinda don't seem to, since there's always a video for common misconceptions). And cases where it's impossible to "watch" with classes that need a high level of participation.

Of course something like grades are a good driver to get students to cover every topic, instead of grazing the ones they like. (Again not something impossible to get gamified a different way).
Is it only your product?
The landing page css seems to be broken