skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have slightly-conflicted opinions about this.

On one paw, I'm disappointed with how normalized, say, caffeine is, and how many people accidentally fall victim to caffeine dependence out of carelessness. In many cases, one's inability to function before their daily cup of coffee didn't exist before they got addicted. (Nowadays people at least know how terrible nicotine is, but most still think vaping it is OK for some reason... but I digress.) On the other paw, I'm also not exactly a supporter of the idea that "drugs are wrong", as you so kindly put it.

(Some people need caffeine to help an existing condition just like some people with ADHD might need stimulants, obviously I'm not talking about that but rather completely healthy people who develop a dependence on caffeine because they think it's completely safe and harmless.)

I believe that proper education about drugs would enable people to use them safely and responsibly—rather than the current situation where pervasive propaganda prevents many people from obtaining the education they would need to do so (also known as "harm reduction"). They can't tell the signal from the noise, so they have to shut everything out, even safety tips that would help them.

Don't get me wrong, not everything you hear about drugs is propaganda. For example, methamphetamine and MDMA are significantly neurotoxic and can wreck your brain and your life very easily and quickly. Heroin is so madly addictive that one often stops being of sound mind once they've taken even a single dose, if it's high enough.

But ayahuasca (DMT), or LSD? They are of course to be respected and used responsibly, but they are not "wrong" in and of themselves. Yes, there are ways to abuse them, and they are capable of facilitating severe mental damage and permanent impairment—but that doesn't mean they're simply wrong, even if they are risky.

You explicitly dismissed this but I want to say it anyway: set and setting matter a lot when you take a psychedelic. "set" represents your entire mental state. It consists of your mood, your hopes and dreams, your anxieties and traumas, your goals, and so on. People who get a bad trip were stung by set. Not because "drugs are wrong".

Psychedelics do not directly cause depression or misery or trauma—they give your brain the capability to create those experiences for itself. They create unrestrained thought and an experience that isn't subject to the usual moderation. Of course you can traumatize yourself on LSD—your barriers are down. You're vulnerable to your own thoughts. By taking LSD you are taking responsibility for what you do to yourself while you are on it, and what mental state you are in when the trip starts.

Drugs aren't wrong, they're just formidable.
I just wish it used the uMatrix UI, which I think was easier to parse, at the cost of much more space of course. But I have plenty of room on my desktop display.
Technically, the lookup using O(1) since you need to find your fingerprint in a grid. I fail to see how that’s much faster than finding your stop in a list. Especially considering the false positives.
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1014862808126

1. The results of this study are about long-term treatment, not a single dose.

2. The study makes absolutely zero claims about the epiphenomenal effects of receptor site increases/decreases, as far as I can see. That is your interpretation (with no evidence.) Sure, people describe withdrawal effects after quitting a drug that made them feel good, and there might be a correlation with decreasing receptor sites and those withdrawal symptoms, but you have not established any causal links, the main point I asked you about.

3. In the original comment you associated the generally positive effects that the OOP described as a consequence of decreasing serotonin receptor sites. Yet then you make a claim based on this study that decreasing receptor sites cause negative withdrawal effects. It very much seems like those two claims contradict themselves? Honestly a bit confused here what you're trying to say.

> I have been studying neurobiology for 20 years.

Well that's impressive. May I ask what your h-index is?
Have you ever been to the IT department of a private company, to get a small change made that makes your job more efficient or helps a customer solve a problem?
Or Kotlin? Or Scala?
I'm working on a Django app where most of the frontend is old school Django templates with some JS on top. Kinda comfy.
It’s worse than that because you don’t get preferred tax treatment for childcare so you have to pay for it in post tax dollars, plus on the low end those post tax dollars disqualify you from government benefits
Consider Phelbas is good but as the first culture book it would have been the introduction of the culture/ship ai ideas for people which would have made a big impact.

unfortunately I read it after going through a lot of Iain Banks' books such as The State of the Art, The Crow Road, The Bridge and Feersum Endjinn, and found it to be just ok.
For me the biggest ones are:

1. Compilation is ridiculously fast.
2. The language is miles more intuitive, and doesn't require nearly as many hacks. In a handful of hours using typst I've written much more interesting things than I ever would've attempted using latex macros. This might be less important for you, but my latex usage is intermittent, so I've always forgotten it by the next document I write.
It hallucinated the answer based on the URL. Bard is probably doing the same.

I just provided ChatGPT with a link to your comment and it claimed it was a "a link to an article on TechCrunch about a startup called Tava Health." I gave Bard the same link and it claimed it was a page about a tool called "TLDR This."[1]

[1] https://i.imgur.com/FRVuSQy.jpg

edit: After playing with it some more, it's evident that Bard can perform web searches and likely access cached content like Bing Chat.
Okay let’s take the software industry out of it. Do you think millions of non-software jobs will be affected?
Being made redundant is different to constructive dismissal to avoid maternity leave liabilities.

So "it depends"
I got roasted one time by Don Norman during a presentation (early in my academic career, mind you), and it has proven to be some of the best feedback I've ever received. More Don Normans, please.
I think this is a worthwhile point. My belief about Substack is that many of its initial appeals to writers were to people who were not happy at traditional publications. People who had brand names, and wanted better money, prestige, or editorial control than they were getting. So, it's definitely designed to provide isolated perspectives: isolated not only in the sense of being a magazine with a single voice, but also in the sense that it will tend to attract people a little further to the margins of the cultural discourse, who attract attention and bump up against editors.

However, I don't believe this is a big problem, since there are many other places to get opinion and analysis other than Substack.

In fact — and I have no basis for it other than intuition — it doesn't feel like Substack's model could ever make it that big. By nature, a magazine with one writer isn't going to provide enough content to be anybody's only source, and, as you say, there aren't that many people who are going to subscribe to dozens of Substack writers. Having tens of thousands of subscribers really doesn't make too much of a dent in the media landscape over all, it's just that it's very well monetized, so it's great for this handful of writers (and Substack Incorporated of course).
Well, even in a highly competitive industry like lumber, with many manufacturers competing daily for the sale of identical products, we saw significant price increases. This due almost entirely to a dramatic increase in demand relative to supply. So much has been said about supply constraints and greedy corporate shenanigans, but lumber is an excellent example of neither being true. I think the inflation we're experiencing is a product of people spending more money, and having more money to spend, likely as a direct result of historic and unprecedented federal stimulus. And I attribute fault to both parties. Trump juicing the economy at the top of the business cycle, Biden blowing the lid off, and "it's-only-transitory" Powell keeping rates too low for much too long.
I've never got any impression either side is about to win at all. And yes, there are plenty of wars historically (and even recently, e.g. the Syrian civil war) that have dragged on for many many years. But Putin would never have launched the attack against Ukraine if he thought things would be where they are now.
How far off are we from a military-trained AI that could make that sort of prediction accurately?
It was being manipulated from both sides.

If you had serious evidence against the son of the sitting president, your first reaction should not be to mail the thing, untracked and uninsured to TUCKER CARLSON.
Yes it's true! People with non-economic viewpoints are vulnerable to being hurt or taken advantage of by management. It sucks.
It is in the official extension repository [1]. I had to put it there because of how difficult/impossible it is to run a local extensions. But it's definitely not designed for general use. I'll be glad to guide you if the tiny amount of help I've included isn't enough.

The source [2] is available too.

The actual idea of the extension is "Style stuff using regular expressions". So you specify a regex; what to search, attributes and/or text (text can cause a lot of undesired results so I don't use it much); and css styles to add to the elements containing matches. I only really use it to apply visibility: hidden to any element with an attribute matching one big regex that's basically just a bunch of domains regex |'d together. The example in the options UI is what I'm still using years later, I've just added more domains.

EDIT: I just realize the example has "searchText" set to true, you'll probably want to set that to false.

To give you some idea of how user unfriendly it is, configuration is JSON in a textarea and the regexs are defined in a string in that JSON, necessitating the use of many backslashes for escaping from both regex and strings. It's basically brainfuck :)

I originally started with just taking out tags but that idea was quickly shot down. Lots of links aren't <a> tags. Sometimes the domain being linked to is buried in some JS in a onX event attribute, or some data-* attr that the UI framework uses and a bunch of other oddities. So the code searches all attrs. It's not super efficient but I've never noticed it causing a slow down.

Another problem is, often, the original request doesn't even contain the links, they're loaded after. So it uses a MutationObserver and looks at the new elements for matches.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ssure/

[2] https://github.com/7w0/ssure/blob/master/content/content.js
> If you want to be safe from liability, don't watch illegal/immoral content. You will be fine.

This is naive. I don't necessarily know that the content is illegal until I've started playing it. By that point I may have already shared it.

Same issue with any p2p, I guess. You could start downloading a file with a harmless name and later discover it was a fake name.
Thiam did a SPAC after leaving CS. Guess what happend.
This finding does not affect either Shor's Algorithm or Grover's algorithm, as far as I can tell.

I haven't read it in detail, but the abstract is so absurd that I won't bother.
I'd bet good money you could go back in time and swap out JS with just about any relatively high-level language (maybe the original Scheme plan, maybe Java, literally anything with managed memory) and that language would enjoy JavaScript's popularity today.

JavaScript's ubiquity has everything to do with its monopoly in the browser, and nothing to do with any specific features of the language.
A Man Is Living 100 Days Underwater. It May Do Extraordinary Things to His Body
We may seamlessly transition from "this isn't a real A.I, only a bit of simple fuzzy logic" to "this is needlessly using a billion-weights model to simulate a bit of simple fuzzy logic".
Meanwhile in the the real world complaints about service and the quality of said service do tend to correlate.
One disappointing design decision is that they've organized your previous chats into "Bard Activity" which just shows each message you've sent in sequence. No differentiation between different conversations, which can have very different contexts built up over lots of messages. I definitely prefer ChatGPT's approach here.
You are totally right, I was trying to ELI5 my language but ended up taking it too far.
Oh, if you have good enough content that's also important to people. People will pay. I've started paying for an AI substack because the news is so important to me, and I couldn't find high quality & deep coverage in mainstream media.

Now, this does mean the 'average' journalist stands no chance. But 'average' news is already overproduced to worthlessness. No one needs the same boring take rewritten slightly. GPT-4 can already do that.

They would have been unemployed anyways, because all the average newspapers (read local newspapers) died out. The only remainders are national newspapers that only hire the best of the best.

At least now they get to experiment with their passionate topic, and potentially discover new markets, instead of being forced to report on mainstream topics.
Great example. It demonstrates you don’t know how to teach the subject. Your Skittles example won’t help with explaining how to add ax + bx. To generalize the concept of combining like terms we need to refer to the distributive property.
There's libraries, at least in the USA, in a lot of places.
A cheap VPS from Digital Ocean or Vultr might be all you need.
Yeah, this article seems pretty wrong to me.

However! I believe that Grover's algorithm will not be a very big deal, at least in early-ish quantum computers.

* The speedup is proportional to the depth of the quantum computation, measured in oracle calls. So we're talking maybe 2^40 speedup, not 2^64 or 2^128.

* There is a significant cost in converting practical algorithms to run on a QC, because QC algorithms have to be reversible.

* Early QCs will have a huge overhead from quantum error correction.

* Just guessing, but early QCs will probably have lower clock speed (taking long to compute a gate than a classical computer uses for a whole clock period), a higher fabrication cost and a vastly higher error energy usage due to the fridge and classical electronics.

Divide that 2^40 by all these factors and you can see that it won't get very far, at least until all these "early QC" problems can be solved. So the impact on symmetric crypto probably won't be much at all, but moving from 128-bit keys to 192-bit keys would be plenty.

The above mostly does not apply to Shor's algorithm. Shor might be slow on early QCs, but it's exponentially faster than any known classical algorithm, instead of only linearly faster.
Ask HN: How widespread are custom/bespoke dtabase systems?
Are companies writing custom database systems from scratches (I mean "starting from zero" and designing+implementing systems that fit specific needs and employ data models that are more tightly tied to characteristics of data sets and interactions with these data) to tailor needs better suited to certain clients just a tiny niche tied to few companies or is it an actual booming "invisible market" lurking in shadows of obscurity that is not that much talked about "in the mainstream"? I can certainly see them being created for social media platforms or search engines. How about world outside of these two groups? Are existing popular "mainstream" database solutions enough in the "real work" or they are areas when need for more closely tailored solutions are blatantly obvious?
I'm not really sure what I'm looking at. Is this something like Google Dataset search? It sounds like you're adding something else on top of this with the "harmonizing" you mentioned, but it doesn't appear to be implemented yet unless I'm missing something.
iOS 16.4 Adds Voice Isolation for Cellular Phone Calls
For those who are curious, here's the specific thing that Appendix C misses.

Suppose you have gates (quantum or CMOS -- doesn't matter), and they are imperfect. And you want to implement some algorithm that won't work without error correction. So you use an error-correcting code of complexity c. (Classically, this could be as simple as copying every memory cell c times and taking a majority vote of c attempts of each gate. Some extra complication is needed to put the pieces together while still getting exponentially close to 100% accuracy.)

So you start by setting c=3 (majority vote of three tries), and you get really really far. But you need a longer calculation, so you go up to c=5. Then c=7. Then c=9. And so on.

And you discover that this actually scales pretty poorly. This is because the little gizmo that takes a majority vote is itself error-prone, and just making it wider doesn't improve fast enough with increasing width.

But you can instead use recursive error correction. Take c=3, look at the result as its own imperfect computer, and error-correct that with a second code with c=3. It's kind of like c=9, except all the little majority-of-three voting gizmos become majority-of-majorities-of-3 instead of majority-of-9 gizmos, and you get a natural way to make them arbitrarily wide.

And (IIRC -- it's been quite a while since I've gone through the whole derivation), this works! You can recurse this construction (or at least something quite similar) a number of times that grows sufficiently slowly in the size of the circuit that you get the overall O(t * polylog(t)) scaling that you want.

To make this work on a quantum computer is much harder (majority-of-3 doesn't work at all -- you need a bare minimum of 5 physical qubits per logical qubit for anything resembling this to work, and it's not a majority vote per se), but the overall conclusion is the same.

The paper looks at what coding width is needed without recursion to make Grover's algorithm work for large problems, concludes that you at least square the complexity, and decides that Grover's algorithm is useless. But anyone actually trying to do a huge Grover search would use a proper recursive code, and they wouldn't have this problem.

And this has known since 1996.
that's what the press said: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gigabyte-leaves-nvlink-tra...
Leave secret messages for Bing chat on web pages
Might be despite of it.
Absolutely, and clearly in many cases such an accurate description couldn't be supplied purely by the patient self-describing their symptoms. But for others it seems fairly plausible. I'd still expect to see qualified professionals to be required to actually approve the recommended treatment (including prescribing medications etc.).
The point isn't the government services are currently high quality. The point is that the current environment foster low quality service. In some cases voting in politicians that drove top-down management changes would help. And that would require the populace to value such changes. We might need to structure the incentives for government employees, contractors, or the regulatory environment to better align with delivering good service. That might mean more pay, which means either higher taxes or strong prioritization of efforts. We can't do that intelligently if nobody cares, or is skilled enough to drive these large institutions. Because it is hard. We almost certainly are using the wrong tradeoffs: some things privatized and outsourced should be done by government agencies. Some functions should be privatized or just regulated on the open market. Some things are better handled at regional levels that today are handled at local or national levels. The mix of tradeoffs is wrong. Incremental work to fix this requires a society-wide agreement to make progress. Not necessarily agreement on any particular (and even when there is agreement, we are going to get it wrong a bunch) but agreement on the project of bettering our society and social collaboration. That seems like it is missing and thus progress is made only in fits in starts, in a hostile environment. A hard-one deregulation here, a new bill to fund a project there, contested on ll sides, and undermined before the initiatives get started.
Yes. But as I mentioned, there was an older, lower scoring article that was ranked higher than this one while it was fresh (~3 hours old)
Amasson really has a theme going here...
From recent memory I don't recall a single Google product that has garnered mass appeal perhaps the cloud office suites but that's again debatable. Gmail was like 2004. Remember Stadia they axed that as well could have licensed the tech behind it to other companies but nope.
I get your point, but please do read the training logs for Meta's OPT, it's some Greek drama I tell ya
I don't see that as a fundamental product limitation of Substack. Having the concept of a "publication" is probably something they will get to at some point. Medium followed the same path, and they now have multi-author publications as well. I'm guessing it's more a matter of engineering and product prioritization than some explicit decision towards maintaining individuality.
The funny music video writes itself. On the one side the dorky poser who claps in the wrong rhythm. On the other side actual rhyming.
Derivative works or remixes usually require a license. Artists could very reasonably argue that AI-generated images are derivative works from their own images - especially if there is notable similarity or portions appear to be copied. They could also point out that their images were used for commercial purposes without permission and without compensation to generate works that compete with their own.

For example, even a short sample used in a song usually has to be licensed. Cover versions of songs may qualify for a compulsory license with a set royalty payment scale.

However some reuse (such as transformative use, parodies, or use of snippets for various purposes, especially non-commercial purposes) may be considered fair use. AI companies could very reasonably argue that use of images for training AI models is transformative and qualifies as fair use, that no components of the original images are reused in AI-generated images, and that AI-generated images are no more infringing than human-generated images which show influences from other artists.

Absent additional law, I expect the legal system will have to sort out whether AI-generated images infringe the copyright of their training images, and if so what sort of licensing would be appropriate for AI-generated (or other software/machine-generated) images based on training data from images that are under copyright.
I'm not posting a shallow dismissal. I'm legitimately asking what this applies to since I didn't see anything in the article about potential application. It's fine if there aren't any potential applications too, just like the videos/articles about Rubik's Cubes solving - the people/solutions are impressive even if it doesn't have any practical applications.
It's really nice to see more content for MySQL/MariaDB still being made, since it feels like they are still good solutions for a whole variety of situations! While I might look in the direction of PostgreSQL for more advanced in-database processing, for most CRUD apps the aforementioned two are going to be more than enough!
+ LA
https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/27/waymo-to-test-driverless-r...
What is the justification for barring citizens of countries like Portugal from this, seems very unfair. Have they said anything about this?
Sorry did you say days? Still on macOS 10.14 after almost 5 years. It'll be fine~