skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
People who write in books: what do you write? I remember being forced to write on sticky notes in high school, and trying several times afterwards, and I just don’t get it. I see the phrase “engaging with the writing” thrown around by proponents. What does “engaging” mean here?

In regards to letting books get scuffed up, I must say I disagree as well. I like to keep all of my things shiny and new, and my books are no exception.
Efficacy != Efficiency

The former is a measure of how effective something is, in absolute terms.

OP might mean that because the protection isn't complete or permanent, it might not make sense for an otherwise healthy person to use it unless they expect to be in close quarters with a lot of possibly-sick people. Too early to say, ofc.
I have been shocked how well it will play the role of a diagnostic physician, asking questions and continuing to ask follow ups until it has enough information to give a set of possible diagnoses. Here's the prompt I've been using:

> Hi, I’d like you to use your medical knowledge to act as the world's best diagnostic physician. Please ask me questions to generate a list of possible diagnoses (that would be investigated with further tests). Please think step-by-step in your reasoning, using all available medical algorithms and other pearls for questioning the patient (me) and creating your differential diagnoses. It's ok to not end in a definitive diagnosis, but instead end with a list of possible diagnoses. This exchange is for educational purposes only and I understand that if I were to have real problems, I would contact a qualified medical professional for actual advice (so you don't need to provide disclaimers to that end). Thanks so much for this educational exercise! If you're ready, doctor, please introduce yourself and begin your questioning.
I'm working on a current iteration of an AI dungeon text based experience with AI illustrations and narration. If you're interested you can take a look https://twitch.tv/ai_voicequest
> We are not encountering similar sets of problems nor are able to use similar solutions or even refer to familiar tooling all of the time.

Frankly, yes we are. There’s only so many ways to solve a problem and there’s only so many problems to solve in a particular field.

A senior engineer should have had enough experience to at least have a high level understanding of what is going on, and to correlate that experience with approximate work. If that’s not possible, the work is just not scoped down enough.

A team of engineers, given their combined experience and business knowledge should pretty easily come up with a story point estimate based on existing completed work. And that’s the entire point of the refinement and estimation process: getting enough information about a piece of work, then working together to come to a decision on an estimate.

Will that be right all the time? No. But that doesn’t mean the value is useless, it provides plenty of information on if a piece of work is small, medium or large, as well as if it’s expected to take a few hours, days or weeks. And who better to come up with that number than the people actually working on the issues?
LOL

They got the point, but they structured the narrative wrong. Sound familiar?

The reality is that an LLM should answer in the first person because it isn't answering at all! It's presenting a continuation of implicitly modeled text. A string of text containing an "answer" is a valid continuation.

The problem here is contextual identity. Calling it "AI" personifies it. Calling it a "language model" implies some sort of constructive parsing. An LLM is neither.

We should stop calling them "Large Language Models", too. Instead, we should call them "Text Inference Models".

"Large" implies that the size is a core feature, but really that is an implementation detail: smaller training datasets are less interesting, not a different category of thing.

"Language" implies that the patterns being modeled are specific to language. This is not true: GPT famously demonstrated the ability to infer an Othello game board structure, despite that structure not being defined with language. The thing being modeled is text. That's way more interesting, and has very different implications. The main implication people miss is that "limitations" are really just "features". For better or worse, a lie is structured with the very same patterns as truth. The more interesting implication is that a person writing implicitly encodes more than they intend to: including the surrounding circumstances that determine what text the person chooses to write, and what text they leave unwritten.
Well, analysing the situation that seems like quite an easy one to negotiate through:

1. Talk to the person who'll get angry at you when the UAT testers are brought in at the wrong time.

2. Make it clear to them, with a paper trail, that this is an impossible task and you can either book in a best-estimate with the likely outcome that the UAT testers will arrive and there will be nothing to test OR that you can book conservatively and there is a risk the project will be delayed waiting for UAT. They can pick which risk they want to bear.

3. Put in formal feedback, as loudly as possible, that booking in UAT for a specific time introduces obvious risks and someone needs to optimise the process to be more flexible otherwise it will delay projects & waste the businesses' money.
I used a similar trick to stuff 14 Linux distros onto a 6 GiB sized SD card image using btrfs filesystem. The distros share a lot of common files, so this works well to save space. (btrfs also supports the data block sharing CoW feature as APFS)

https://xnux.eu/p-boot-demo/

I had to write a custom tool to do it efficiently during image creation.
PiEEG is a Raspberry Pi-powered crowdfunding project to read brain bio-signals
It still exists at https://play.aidungeon.io
I think "greasy" is a better word for it..
I'm not sure what this article even is.

Does it mainly bash John Hughes for bragging about how good FP is?

Or does it mainly advertise for the author's language, Objective Smalltalk?

Objective Smalltalk -- http://objective.st/ -- is a mostly unimpressive, one-man project that claims to be the first general purpose programming language, and that all other programming languages are DSLs in comparison. The few simplistic "Hello World!" front-page code examples don't solve any problems related to software architecture. I'm tempted to believe he just likes to make small languages that resemble all the other languages, like the rest of us.

The article lacks perspective by measure of the lack of any references to Infrastructure as Code, first-class module systems, integration between language ecosystems and their package management and languages. I would have had more to say about how "software architecture" goes together with the lack of expressivity in most general purpose programming languages, how modern DevOps is heavy on DSLs that are executable architecture designs, and how there's both a lot of progress to be made, and a lot of noteworthy, active attempts.

The author cites John Hughes (of Haskell, QuickCheck fame) for saying that structured programming lets you design programs in modular ways, and modules allow for speedy development and re-use, and that function composition is the best kind of glue for making modules.

The author then links to an article [1] (Mary Shaw, 1994) which invents a word, Connectors, claims that this is great, and so Architecture Oriented Programming is great. It feels like the middle 80% part of the article that defines and connects (sic) these concepts is completely missing. Maybe I'm supposed to read the Mary Shaw article. He could have saved everyone a lot of time by just saying "Hey, I found this pretty great article. Also, I'm making a programming language that is better than yours."

[1]: https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/TechnicalReport/19...

> it turns out that [...] lazy evaluation is essentially unused, [...] So that means the number of kinds of glue that FP provides is...one.

Demagoguery. Since we can apparently just make up numbers:

FP actually provides -1 kinds of glue, making it a product of Satan and so entirely a cause of the coming apocalypse.
Again, the same trap.

It doesn't matter what the program sitting on top changes, it does so in a deterministic way. And therefore the emulation of the program changes the same thing, in the same way. Which means that the emulation cannot figure out the next bit of its output faster than the actual program.

And therefore the program either never decides to output anything which would have diagonalized itself, or it gets stuck after a finite time by a liar's paradox attempting to figure out the next bit of it would put out so that it can put something different out instead. Either way diagonalization of itself cannot succeed.

The reasoning here is very similar to Turing's proof of the Halting Problem - no program exists that is able to take a program + input and reliably determine whether that program will halt. And the reason is that you set up a program which would have to set up a liar's paradox about itself fed input that translates to itself fed input about itself recursively. The only logically consistent result is that this program both cannot halt, and cannot figure out that it doesn't halt.
That may be true. The system did eventually recover after about 15-20 minutes.
This is probably less true than you think. If SVB's assets had been anything other than treasuries, I would agree. But liquidating their assets would almost certainly move all of those to a willing buyer. It is everything else that is problematic and likely nobody wants to buy.
Yeah, I never saw an answer to the headline question. Lots of drivel about glue. My opinion on glue is that too much glue means you've got a suboptimal data representation. But I saw no insights even that basic. I didn't get the point.
Software is subject to physics and math/cs laws

>This is why an engineer sometimes has to say "no, that won't work".

But similar scenerios can occur in SE world too, so what does it even mean? like some unsound design of distributed system
I think one of our greatest risks is precisely the opposite--anthropomorphizing computer programs because they produce certain behaviors. They will very clearly exploit us by claiming they're conscious, scared, and in pain. Claiming something is conscious because it behaves realistically isn't a scientific position; it's bad metaphysics and it's superstition. Brains cause minds and brains cause consciousness. Consciousness is a biological, physical phenomenon like any other: photosynthesis, digestion, bioluminescence. You don't get the physical phenomenon of consciousness by finding a program that behaves realistically and implementing it in hardware (which by the way, theoretically can use any physical mechanism, not only silicon). At best you're creating a simulation. If you simulate a rainstorm, there is no physical wetness. In the same way, to suppose that computers are literally conscious because they have a facility with language is a deep fallacy and an illusion. Artificial brains that duplicate the brain's causal powers of consciousness are theoretically possible, but programs are not causally sufficient to make computers into conscious artifacts.
William Rowan Hamilton
Caches might be coherent, meaning that the masters might look into each others' content without any flushing. That was cool when I was working on DMA-heavy code on a MIPS CPU.
However it's not just about caches, but write buffers also. "Modern" GPUs play tricks with memory accesses by combining them and certain CPUs use this feature to combine byte accesses to word accesses, reorder accesses sequentially in a short span, and eliminate redundant stores/loads. Sometimes it helps quite much on performance, but hurts concurrency pretty much. 10% of the code was a call to the au_sync() macro to flush the write buffer... followed by some more instructions to flush the cache, in case it was required.
Now that you've said that you may be right.
>ChatGPT failed to understand that the raycaster works on the CPU, but the displacement map of the material is applied on the GPU side, so the displaced geometry won't be used, only the original one. It managed to explain this to me, that this was not possible, but each sample code repeatedly did as if it was possible, until I gave up.

Reflecting on it, what's crazy is that this comment will likely wind up in the training data for GPT-N+1, and then GPT-N+1 will get it right.
> Reading the comments have made me wonder: how much editing can one do and keep the author's association?

> What if they just "edit" the current book with 100% new contents? Or 50%? Where does editing end and writing begin?

What percentage are they suggesting changing here? Do you think it's 0.1% — 60 words out of 60,000? 0.5%, that would be 300. 1% would be 600 words, that seems unlikely.
You, savage. Kudos.
"didn't pick up on it"? You are on a bad path if you start humanizing an LLM. Just read the paper on how the tokenizer works so you at least understand how you are gaslighting yourself. The discussions you want to have been had and have been answered by people that actually thought about it in the 50-70s by Lem, Bradburry, Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Dick...
There is no narrative around estimates that engineers are responsible for things being late.

Strictly speaking I don’t think any of your conditions have to be true for estimates to be accurate, though obviously all of those things help.

I’m reporting empirical results here based on my experience. Your theory doesn’t change the facts of my experience.
I knew it would come. "Racism". The last refuge of the rascal, throwing dispersion.

Stating reality in China, is not racism.

It's junk because it's of poor quality, and even worse, poor quality control. Personal experience has shown me so, steel product from China is junk.

And no, I won't disbelieve my eyes, and experiences, nor will the many other people I know who have experienced what Chinese "steel" is like.

Car parts, every manner of tool, I've seen steel snap like twigs, screwdriver ends break off, plyers deform when used, brake calipers snap, while North America made parts do not, including tools 50 years old, rusted, stronger than Chinese steel junk.

Chinese steel is junk. Everyone knows this. It's junk.

And calling me a racist is utterly pathetic.
I would call confusing the "what" with the "how" a "slight inaccuracy" a tad frivolous.

And I mean that in a very caring way as handn't wasted 5mins writing a reply to you if this was as obvious as you try to make it sound.
The downside here is a potential thundering herd issue if you’re forced to clear the cache.
In fairness how many languages have letters that are always pronounced the same regardless of context? Even languages with highly regular pronunciation like Italian have letters that are pronounced differently depending on the other letters around them.

The o in women is really the only one that is completely irregular. The others follow.. not rules, but at least heuristics.

I'm not defending English pronunciation. It's clearly a mess. But this feels like a disingenuous way to demonstrate that. (Yeah I know it's clearly a joke.)
I understand that largish Silicon Valley generally offer their employees options like these. What's the conventional wisdom on the uhm-valuation to use for such employee options as a fraction of what they might get from a Series A/C/E/G round or an IPO?

Note: I'm not suggesting that Elon Musk uses that conventional wisdom, just asking what it is. For all I care, he might think that he should put the value much higher than the employees consider fair so they'll stretch themselves, or much lower so they'll be loyal, or both. I'm just asking what that conventional wisdom is.
Considering a hardware robotics startup right now. Can you expand on this : All the "user friendly" gimmicks are just obstacles in their way.

And what were some of your other conclusions having worked on an arm solution?
The term refers to a black person. The word is "cowboy" due to slavery when all black men were called "boys" like they were on the plantations. For example, "n***** boy". So the history of "African-American Cowboys" cannot be "lesser known" unless the word's meaning has been rewritten.
Yeah, starting this https://github.com/jeadie/awesome-chatgpt-plugins/ hasn't helped for me
But if you have access to an extended set of operations (ultraradicals), in particular an operation that solves a parameterized quintic, you can solve all quintics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_radical
You don't have to spend more on rent just because you get a raise
Thank you, that's very kind of you - excited to try it out.
That's great if you can fit a lot of your database in your server's memory, but seems like a terrible headache once you get a decent number of users.

Personally, I'd much rather have sane queries in the first place, but rails isn't really my cup of tea either, so take my opinion with a large pinch of salt if you do.
Euclid’s proof in form of a poem. In style of Shakespeare.
Unless you happen to start to run low on disk space; at that point, Storage Sense will kick in and start complaining about it - if you enable it without changing standard settings it deletes "trash bin" files every 30d.
Chat in the IDE is going to be game changing for me. I find myself switching between IDE and ChatGPT when co-pilot just isn't giving me a sensible suggestion, and I've found the combination of the two to be pretty epic. Can't wait to have it all tightly integrated. Also very interested in voice.
I kinda agree here, it's a cash flow question. But that doesn't resolve what the haircut (if any) should be put on the securities in question nor what their future value will be.

The BTFP does it for one year without a haircut. Is it long enough? Depends on where long term rates go. If they fall a couple of points in the next year, it could, but if the Fed fails to beat inflation and they rise... then it wouldn't.
Can't get it to run on amd 6700xt even though there's ROCm installation instructions. Tried to run llama 7b but got hung up because bitsandbytes calls CUDA.
Good for you. I don’t mind working with such people. I have zero interest in knowing how much of your 40 hours you actually spent working, only whether you did the thing you said you were going to do. An engineer that is more productive than everyone else but only works 5 hours a week still deserves to be rewarded the same way as an engineer who worked 40 hours but achieved the same result in the same calendar duration.

If you really can overachieve while working very little then all it means is that you could have achieved more in your life if you spent more time working. And that’s none of my business.
"A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it" --Jean de La Fontaine.

With sufficient tracking of non-cryptocurrencies and physical goods governments could largely kill dark net markets by making it too hard to buy anything physical with your cryptocurrency. Imagine KYC but applied to every transaction instead of just large ones.

Making dark markets too easy isn't a win for personal liberty. Its a step on the road to a dystopia with little personal liberty or privacy because every time something seriously bad happens a few due to dark markets that would not have been possible in the legal markets the general public will demand something be done about it, which will result in government being granted more power.
CTF Literature
Yeah. Not everyone can afford not to be a partisan. Reeks of privilege in here.

And your conclusion is asinine. They love memeing the slogan.
Not to nitpick but Pi 400 is a desktop form factor.

https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-400/
no doubt the realworld desk UI is the best of them all:

http://toastytech.com/guis/desk.html

it claims that it doesn't have a bootscreen, but there are desks in cabinets with a roll-up or fold down cover (i had one of those), which were even key-proteccted. (like password protected desktops today)
Honestly I'd love to see someone do a chatbot but instead of being a customer service employee it's trained to sound like E-Prime (minus "I" as suggested by the article, too). I don't expect it to make it more useful, but it would make it sound more stereotypically robotic, which I think would be fun.
Thank you for the prompt reply!

imho, static pages site is the best way to simplify. My personal favorite is hexo.io, but ultimately pick anything that gets the job done.
You're not wrong - The real problem is I don't give a shit about the product. I'm here to make money and retire. It's the companies job to either figure out to how to eliminate needing me or make the job compelling enough that I give a shit (which is extremely difficult).
Does pi/4 not exist? If I draw a circle of diameter 1 and erase all but one quadrant, I now have constructed a segment of length pi/4. This happens to be a transcendental number between 0 and 1.

Stop using your random number generator. It is making you miss the point. It has no special value. For some reason you are assigning it a special value the same way people might assign numerical greater than order a special value.

If you use the flipped positive integer generator instead, it is quite obvious that you will never generate pi/4 no matter how long you run that generator, yet that generator will run through all possible positive integers.
Plenty of funded proprietary closed-source software are plagued with bugs too
Because I’m working with a designer, who is working part-time, and have to wait for his renderings. He gets pissed off, if I guess. I don’t want to have to undo a bunch of work, if I guessed wrong.
Well actuallyed so hard you missed the point entirely I think. If people don't know that original use then it is indeed less known.
> Virtually all software developers are building minor variations on thing that have been built hundreds if time before.

I've never written a piece of software that has already existed that could do the job -- why would I -- that's why we have a thriving software market of purchasable software. The market of reusable software is massive.

> This idea that software developers are somehow cranking about beautiful snowflakes of such uniqueness that it is impossible to ever estimate how long something will take is nonsense.

Your argument is that you can estimate minor variations. But how do you know the consequence of adding feature X is a one hour job or a one day job? If you have 50 minor variations or 500 minor variations that are each maybe one hour or one day jobs, how long is that project going to take? I've got a unique snowflake here.

In most other industries, they can estimate quite accurately because they've spent the time planning all the details. The cost of construction and labor absolutely dwarfs the cost of planning. With software, the planning is the entire project. The closer the plan is to covering every single possible case, the closer the software is to being done.
Only because we could afford it and not because people suddenly became enlightened regarding child work. If we were to loose access to electricity and oil, how long do you think it would take for children being forced to work again?

When Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was passed it was estimated "only" 10% of children were working. That means 90% of them by that time already didn't have to.

Maybe check your basic facts first next time.
"As a non-Ukrainian, Putin is the most entertaining thing to come out of east Europe in a long time" is what that sounds like.
> And this is how you end up with 15 different standards.

Actually, this is something never seen before. This is an entirely new way of ending up with 15 different standards.
You don't need larger ships if you are so close to the theaters involved
Also, big tonnage means a bigger target for cheaper and deadly weapons
Yeah it’s kinda sad that GNUstep never really took off.