skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have the feeling Swift is more complex than it needs to be, too, but can new high-level languages really be simple? Nowadays, you need a memory model, async, generics, value and reference types, move semantics, concurrency, full Unicode support, etc.

Go tries to solve that, but gets criticized for its simplicity.

Also, I suspect part of the friction writing Swift isn’t language complexity but tooling issues. to what effect that’s true is hard to say of course. For example, compilation slowness introduces friction, but I wouldn’t know whether that’s inherent or solvable.

There also are a lot of “the compiler could be smarter” things that do not change the vision of the language, but do affect its ease of use. Such warts make the language harder to write than necessary. If those issues can be fixed, the language can become easier to write. An example is https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals....

As to that if, I wouldn’t know whether that holds. For example, https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals... begot https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals.... Both were implemented in 5.7, but I wouldn’t know whether those left any rarer warts or even introduced new ones, or if that process ever will stop.

If that process cannot stop, I think it’s better to leave a few warts that programmers will soon encounter and learn about than many very rare ones that, when encountered, will make programmers pull all their hairs out because googling them only produces “I changed Foo and the compilation error went away” results or StackOverflow pages without answers.
von Hammerstein-Equord, commander of the Reichswehr in the early 1930s was more focussed on outcomes: "One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
Yeah,
I built something almost identical in langchain in two days. It can also Google for answers.

Basically in reads through long pages in a loop and cuts out any crap, just returning the main body. And a nice summary too to help with indexing.

Another thing i can do with it is have one LLM go delegate and tell the scraper what to learn from the page, so that I can use a cheaper LLM and avoid taking up token space in the "main" thought process. Classic delegation, really. Like an LLM subprocess. Works great. Just take the output of one and pass it into the output of another so it can say "tell me x information" and then the subprocess will handle it.
Still waiting for rocm support on the 5700xt which they kept promising was ready any day now.
Can you? The ruling seems to rake issue with the digitalization itself.
Well that is exactly what I think should change. I do not want to have to pull in a package for regex, parsing json, generating a random number, counting the number of available cpus, etc. Quite a lot of standard functionality required across a broad swath of projects. I understand Rust does not want to bring them into core, but I think there should be a middle ground that offers richer functionality to the language without the wild-wild-west of crates.io.
yea it’s basically bc masculinity (courage, independent thinking) = bad to people in power so they publish this kind of crap all day every day
> If I was in a public system, I’d fear I’d be fighting for attention alongside the general public, so I’m not convinced it would be better.

Are you basing this fear on any sort of facts or are you just afraid out of ignorance?
That's not true. As I discovered when my COBRA ran out recently, finding individual plans that match the coverage of employer plans is very hard or impossible, regardless of how much you're willing to pay.
What would this do to Ireland?
The idea behind Cantor's diagonalization proof is that you can't find any way to assign "first", "second," "third", etc to the reals. The proof assumes that you can, and that you've already assigned every real number a unique natural number.

It then derives a contradiction by proving that there must be reals that aren't in that ordering, without making any assumptions about the ordering. So any ordering has this problem and none of them work.
web3 is not crypto either (crypto is merely a constituent metaproject). these are important distinctions, like saying web2 is a database or something
10am-6pm and Zinc helped a lot with my hemorhoids
Lions do have a alpha and primates right? It might be just extrapolation

But I think there should be enough public wildlife wolf documentaries and videos to be presented as data on how wolves live or others
Could well be, yes.

Our exchanges on the Hercules list were very unproductive and in fact frustrating to very unpleasant for me. Just remembering where I'd seen this before was slightly upsetting.
I've waited hours in NYC.

I've waited less than an hour in New Jersey and Connecticut.

When I still lived in NYC, I resolved that if I needed a hospital but I wasn't in extremely bad shape, I would drive an hour into an adjacent state's ER rather than wait in NYC.
How it worked in 2009: https://github.blog/2009-10-20-how-we-made-github-fast/
> Gill has not always been a troublemaker. His career has been defined by long detours into the bowels of arcane mathematical problems. Injustice bothers him—but so does error.

Thank-you. This motivates me to study statistics. A quantitative truth seeker is doing exactly what is needed, and he did not need to know enough about computers to hack them (for example).
You're correct, a lot of people are mistaken in this AI gold rush, however they are also misunderstanding how weak their moat actually is and how much AI is going to impact that as well.

Notion does not have a good moat. The increase of AI usage isn't going to strengthen their moat, it's going to weaken it unless they introduce major changes and make it harder for people to transition content away from Notion.

There are a lot of middle men who are going to be shocked to find out how little people care about their layer when openAI can replace it entirely. You know that classic article about how everyone's biggest competitor is a spreadsheet? That spreadsheet just got a little bit smarter.
Women also trade them to each other. And they get prescribed surprising often.
Both can be true. The hospitals are doing it intentionally because some misguided stupid people think they're saving the world.
Explain how it improved. Yes, it has improved accuracy (test taking) but it still gets stuck in the same loops over and over:

"response has issue A" -> point out issue A to GPT
"response has issue B" -> point out issue B to GPT

GPT replies with the response that had issue A ...

This is not a tool that is going to be good at performing generic tasks. It just isn't.
No multiple sources have explained that 'alpha' implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle.

Here is another.

https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/

You are offering a false dichotomy and suggesting that gaining dominance through force or challenge is the only path to authority.

Also a 'dominance hierarchy' can exist without the need for contest or battle.

If you have worked around dogs outside of the silly 'alpha' concept you will notice that dominant members can impact the behaviors of other members with a simple look or by withholding attention and positive reinforcement.

This is why real professional dog training for working dogs is almost exclusively positive reinforcement these days.

Fear and intimidation is a rather poor training method for domestic dogs.

Of course if you want to discard the original meaning of 'alpha' as presented by the people who originally coined the term for your own personal definition no evidence they offer that their previous research was wrong will fit you expectations.

'Alpha' was specifically coined to describe their misunderstanding of behavior at the time and doesn't simply imply 'first' in their context.

Dominance and aggression are separate behaviors that may have intersection but gaining status through aggression tends to result in unstable relationships and is incredibly expensive to males in species where it is a predominant method of gaining status.

Wolves rarely gain status within their group through aggression, thus labeling the primary breeding pairs as 'alpha' by default is scientifically incorrect.

Most of the status of the breeding pair was gained through breeding and not aggression and in reality true aggression is simply not typically tolerated by the dominant members of the pack.
I wouldn't be so sure. A quick web search brings up average server utilisation numbers for large-scale cloud providers between 45% and 65%. That's probably an order of magnitude or two higher than what you could do on a mobile device without absolutely annihilating the battery.
More water in seas does not mean that sea level will rise evenly everywhere. I've heard that the relocation of water masses will in fact make sea level lower somewhere. Also landmasses will rise and sink.
Are there any serious calculations of the details?
> You can't prove a negative.

Idk why this saying persists. Many, many negatives are easy to prove. For instance, it is very provable that an adult elephant is not sleeping in your bed right now.
The TikToks you linked are examples of what the parent comment is talking about: people interacting with wild animals as if they were pets.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of codeine being available OTC in the US. Thank you!
> "I want to do X" actually means "I want to have done X,"

I co-authored a book with someone, which ended up meaning I did 90% of the work and they could be prodded with considerable effort to contribute in a few areas and give feedback. But they were thrilled to have been an author and hand out copies etc.

No real harm from my angle. I have no issue with them being a co-author. Doesn't hurt me. But a perfect example of this principle. A former boss at a small company was a somewhat similar example. They liked being a $X. They came to not like doing the work of being a $X.
This is super interesting and not something I’d have ever thought about. I’d assume you’d want to also use noniodized salt in any context where you’re boiling/simmering tap water for an extended period, e.g. for soups, curries, and such.

Will probably tweak my cooking habits thanks to this. Thanks for the share!
You cannot know what you will need, but to leap from that and say that you cannot make an informed consumer choice is a huge and incorrect leap.

Actuaries know, in aggregate, what specific demographics will need. Insurance companies use those statistics to make profit. The view that consumers cannot make informed choices on healthcare needs is incompatible with the fact that risks are not perfectly and uniformly random. Unless, by “informed choice”, you mean one that is correct in hindsight, in which case, I agree.
It isn't anywhere near being able to diagnose anything more than off-by-one and other common errors.

Identifying hose problems will bring a LOT of value - but it isn't going to program and do general problem solving for you! It just has no signs of being able to do that.
It's not obvious how to order the rationals either, but there are of course loads of orderings that work, and it turns out that they can easily be put into correspondence with the naturals. Such orderings are not from lowest to highest, obviously, but they exist, and you might naturally assume there's one for the reals.

The thing with the reals is that no orderings work, that's what Cantor's diagonalization proof does.
What if we just don't have a stick. The government or a company they hire is the party that reviews claims. The insurance contacts must have standardized terms and conditions.

This probably wouldn't even really hurt the insurance companies. They would not need to compete with each other by denying claims on the backend to provide lower prices on the frontend.

The current system is a race to the bottom.
It's OK, gaming is also having its AI moment.

I fully expect future rendering techniques to lean heavily on AI for the final scene. NeRF, diffusion models, et cetera are the thin end of the wedge.
bitcoin uses sha256, is that crypto?
Marc Andreessen on His Intellectual Journey the Past Ten Years
You must be psychic. I was literally thinking of cold reading as I wrote my comment.
No, it's assuming whatever the government does with it won't cause a generalized inflation spike.

Let's say the government wastes all the tax revenue building a next-generation aircraft carrier that's so incompetently constructed it collapses in drydock before it can ever set sail.

That won't cause the price of everything to go through the roof, except perhaps locally where the money is spent.

And actually, the government can often put the money to better use than individuals. Is there incompetence, corruption, and wasteful government spending? Of course. But two things can be true at the same time. I'd like to see an individual try to build a bridge, repair a road, or open a public school off of their tax savings.
You're thinking of the Mars Climate Orbiter, where the mistake was between NASA and Lockheed Martin, both American. Besides that, the issue wasn't the specific unit system used, it was NASA not testing to make sure their specifications were met before launch and then being too bureaucratic to react in time. The exact same issue could happen in metric with CGS vs MKS.
> They cannot release something that seriously threatens their bottom line.

If they manage to move a significant part of ML compute from datacenter to on-device, and if others follow, that might hurt Nvidia's bottom line. Big if at this point, but not unthinkable.
Yes it will be able to give amazing feedback to us as devs and quickly identify common problems (that I still make all the time, even after developing for a decade!) which will bring a ton of value to programmers.

But, it will be a tool - it won't be something that will solve general problems for you. It won't make an average programmer a great programmer.
I don't think this is true. Humans, like other mammals, have fairly clear hierarchies. What's interesting (and what the article argues) is that these hierarchies aren't based on brute strength or ability to win a fight or aggressiveness (though these can be factors). But this doesn't change the fact that animals have clear hierarchies.
when it's layoff season.
Judging by the mere flood of praise of AI on HN, where we know people are over average smart, I truly am concerned.
I tend to agree. People love to blame insurers for the difference in price between US and (other country) healthcare prices, without any mention of facts like US nurses earning 4 to 8 times as much as an average NHS nurse, or that half a trillion dollars goes to end of life care in the US every year, i.e. spending $70,000 to extend an 85 year life 3 more months.

Income = expenditure. They are one and the same. Every dollar spent on healthcare in the US is someone else's income and looking at the profit margins, 'someone else' doesn't seem to be the insurers.
Americans who are unable to listen to critiques of their system are frankly an embarrassment for the country. Their insecurity is kind of pathetic. They hold us back in development as a nation.
still none the wiser..
I'm not talking about informational stuff.
This article did a good job making me want to write more.

But it didn't do anything to explain how to write as an engineer. Like the author I didn't enjoy writing in school, so how does writing as an Engineer differ, and how does one improve ones Engineering writing.
How long was your token list by then?

Once context gets long with the limited tokenization memory we currently have it seems to go insane rather fast. Would like to test on the 32k model to see how the same prompting differs.
> The economy isn't built around lies and making shit up, is it?

I see you've never talked to a salesman. Try going to a time-share sales presentation. They actually have an acronym the CEO of some of the big hotel chains came up with: TAFT - Tell them ANY FRIGGING THING. (really it's frigging because: corporate ethics or something).
How’d that work at Google? Loyalty is zero guarantee of safety during any sort of reduction in force. You’re just a line in a spreadsheet. Also, you can have the best working relationship with your manager and if they don’t have enough juice, you’re still out.

Tips: Robust emergency fund, keep your network warm, work enough to keep your employer reasonably happy, show up every day like it might be your last.

(technologist for 22 years)
I don’t get it. The audio clip front and centre at the beginning of the article is an ad.
> Looking through the documentation, the API looks brittle.

Thanks for the feedback! Can you elaborate on the parts of the API you felt were brittle?
the key to really understanding that lies in the knowledge of a simple fact , in the words of the renowned cool Oscar winning screenwriter "It's all in your head" , Enter the dance :"Darwin "---> we ain't that special, the meaning depends on the story you tell yourself, [what your attention head/fishing rods focus on/attach to, Think of Google's PageRank, what is the linked to the most is the most meaningful, whether it's a slap from your dad instead of a hug you should have had, or a a loved one with tons of happy memories [that are all in your head ], what you define as happy, sad, love, hate , is also based on the dance that takes place in your head between literally everything. every meaning you form, idea you have is a product of a datasettic dance , all in your head. Now back to your specific question, consider again, google's Pagerank, but now apply that to , not just one head, but 8 billions, that product of that 8 billion human dance determines all the meaning behind everything, the interaction between your internal attention heads with those external meaning determine the meaning of everything to you. for example, to not drift so far let's consider this reply, every word I've written you will understand by & only by what is already their in ur head, You have no way of knowing the meaning behind this text , so what is happening now in your head is a dance encompassing all the vectors in your latent space, producing what you humans define as "consciousness"
I didn’t claim similar, and it seems like we’re losing the point here. Mine is that your claim at the top, that the problem had to do with having two copies, actually has nothing to do with why they lost. The problem, as the judge described, is that they didn’t put the “C” in CDL, and looked the other way when then knew it was missing, and then tried to claim fair use for something that clearly isn’t fair use. They didn’t lose because the judge is being pedantic about how many copies there are, they lost because they’re actually squarely violating existing copyright law.
We need to realize that publicized healthcare is the only option. Then we can focus on how to make it more efficient.
My screen name here is my real name and the same name I used on the old Hercules list.

Your posts were the main reason I left that list, in fact.

I tried very hard to explain stuff to you, and offer what I hoped would be some useful guidance, information, history, code to read about, etc.

You dismissed it all, and everything that everyone else on the list offered or said.

I couldn't stand the constant negativity, and in the end, I left. If nothing else, as someone who's worked with Free Software and Open Source for this entire century so far and made it my career, your total misunderstanding of it and passionate unreasonable antipathy to it was extremely tiresome.

I am happy for you that you've got this far, and I wish you no ill. All possible luck with the project. I will not be getting involved with it again, though.
The important question is: have you ever made a large claim for a serious long-term illness? If not, you aren't yet in a position to judge the two systems.
I’m a dabbler then, too many titles.
Loyalty also makes you earn less compared to their peers. I am exhibit A for that:)
Yes, exactly this.

I wrote some questions in the specialist legal field of someone in my household, then started to get into more specialist questions, and then specifically asked about a paper that she wrote innovating a new technique in the field.

The general question answers were very impressive to the attny. The specialist questions started turning up errors and getting concepts backwards - bad answers.

When I got to summarizing the paper with the new technique, it could not have been more wrong. It got the entire concept backwards and wrong, barfing generic and wrong phrases, and completely ignored the long list of citations.

Worse yet, to the point of hilariously bad, when asked for the author, date, and employer of the paper, it was entirely hallucinating. Literally, the line under the title was the date, and after that was "Author: [name], [employer]". It just randomly put up dates and names (or combinations of real names) of mostly real authors and law firms in the region. Even when pointed out the errors, it would apologize, and then confidently spout a new error. Eventually it got the date correct, and that stuck, but even when prompted with "Look at where it says 'Author: [fname]" and tell me the full name and employer, it would hallucinate a last name and employer. Always with the complete confidence of a drunken bullshit artist.

Similar for my field of expertise.

So, yes, for anything real, we really need to keep it in the middle-of-the-road zone of maximum training. Otherwise, it will provide BS (of course if it is BS we want, it'll produce it on an industrial scale!).
The "therefore" is not quite right.

You have shown that that the original assumption leads to a contradiction and so doesn't hold.
We can say a lot about infinity. But for people who don't study advanced math by choice, the first question is why are we talking about infinity, when we don't normally, in our physical world, encounter infinite amounts of anything.

The answer is pretty simple: it is easier to work with infinity than with a large finite number, and by working with infinity, you discover similarities among situations in which you encounter different "large finite numbers". So, for example, it is easier to study a circle than a polygon with a million sides. In statistical physics we say that the heat capacity "diverges" at a phase transition, but of course a real material must absorb a finite amount of heat at a phase transition; nonetheless, we treat "macroscopic" as "infinite" freely, knowing that any errors will be far below measurement limitations.

In the above cases, we are dealing with infinity as the limit of a particular process. But in order to make the ideas in calculus convenient, we want to consider all of the limits of all sequences which converge, because it allows us to use the concept of limit freely. This leads to the definition of the "real numbers" by Dedekind cuts (the topological closure of the rationals); it is how we define the "bigger infinity". When we say the real numbers are "bigger" than the integers, we can explain this in finite-sounding terms as: we cannot define a "sequence of all sequences".
is this why `powersave` or `performance` are the only options available now?
Nope, not my experience - unless it's a trivial problem. In my experience it almost always gets stuck in a loop where it's rotating between two or more incorrect implementations. It isn't doing iteration - it's just looping. Even if I point out the problem directly, it will just say "sorry, you're right - here's the correction!" and the correction has the same response from an earlier item that I pointed out had a problem!
> "Google has TPUs but have these even made a tiny dent in Nvidia's position?"

This seems unknowable without Google's internal data. The salient question is: "how many Nvidia GPUs would Google have bought if they didn't have TPUs?"

The answer is probably "a lot", but realistically we don't know how many TPUs are deployed internally and how many Nvidia GPUs it displaced.