skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Prediction: Valve will cleanup the technical abomination which is the current steam client: clean 64bits (yeah, the core is still 32bits...), libdl-ing all its system deps (yeah, it is still statically loading libgl...), static libstdc++ and static libgcc to avoid those horrible ABIs, shell scripts with program helpers and conservative usage of command options and not bash scripts using command niche options (often gnu only, or alternative breaking, for instance alternatives of the "official xz"). Ofc, beyond compile-time OS abstraction tables of functions, proper runtime fallback tables of functions (wayland->x11, vulkan->GL->CPU), but since libcef (the steam client is moving to libcef) is blink, they don't do anything, google seems to do everything here (hope I am wrong).

Ofc, all game engines will be coded properly the same way. It seems unity3D is doing exactly that (but their vulkan3D backend seems far to be on par with their glcore backend).

Elephant is the room: c++ is not mean for binary-only games on elf/linux since the static libstdc++ does not libdl (dlopen/dlsym/dlclose) its system dependency (unless it was fixed by c++ gcc devs and I missed it). absolute truth: c++ syntax has a toxic complexity, not to mention its absurd and grotesque _very few_ required compilers in size and complexity.

And of course: Silksong, Half-life 3, dota2 out of beta and more native AAA (irony).

I don't talk about proton, which does just displace the QA which should be done by the game devs on native elf/linux to the "proton devs" (probably a money sink hole for valve) which have to deal with the massive bloat and kludge, msft grade (yeah...), of its code and SDK. It would be more reasonable with a lean build of wine(win64 core)+only vkd3d(dx12->vulkan), but I guess few to no games would run on that. Heard proton has straight copies of windows components... which would make things even worse.
If the $100k is just “gpu time” it’s certainly within the reach of many people - not even super rich.

And maybe bitcoin miners could be repurposed for it or something.
You don't even have to look at other "fads" like 3D televisions and VR to be skeptical of the claim that recent advancements in ML* represent a major technological revolution that will change society like the Internet or the Printing Press did.

Just look at ML's own history. A few years ago we had the "deepfake" scare. People were terrified that now videos are going to surface of politicians saying and doing things that they did not and we would have no way to tell if it was AI generated or not. But we had already been dealing with this for decades with doctored images a la Photoshop. Videos could already be edited by human beings to make it look like someone was communicating a message that they were not.

What we have now is a tool that is able to generate text-based content that is indistinguishable from that written by an 8th grader. Even with inevitable improvements that get us to 12th grade level, so what?

People will use ChatGPT to write emails and code for them. Personally I don't see the appeal since I am a very creative person and don't want to outsource that work to a human let alone software, but who cares? Currently I can tell when people that I know well are using ChatGPT to "refine" their writing to me, but the content is what matters anyway and I don't know anyone who says they don't "massage" the ChatGPT output for correctness first.

Certain people will find creative uses like generating SEO content for websites etc. That's a problem for the search engines. Basically the Internet is about to get noisier .. but it was already so noisy that the older I get the less attention I'm starting to pay to it, in general, anyway.

Then again, I am limited by my own imagination. Maybe people will come up with truly "disruptive" ways to use LLMs ... but meh. Same shit different day IMO.

* and let's be honest here, ML is a MUCH more accurate term for what we have than AI ... though it's not as good of a marketing term since ML doesn't put "The Matrix" or "The Terminator" in the minds of the lay public like "AI" does.
> My advice from experience - if the advice you're receiving is wrong and you know it's wrong, explain why it's wrong and if you're pressured to go against your advice, then that person is not a fit for you and you should part ways.

I've raised about 5 million from VC... and agree at least 100% with this advice.
This is the same he law he supposedly broke.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-d...
I thought it might be about this JANET: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JANET
... but we shouldn't be trying to replace every single ICV with an EV? That seems like a silly goal. We have too many cars. EV's are a stop-gap, a cushion, a buffer.

The real goal are livable, productive areas with good public infrastructure that aren't designed around cars. All the infrastructure to support cars is a big part of the problem: concrete! Storm sewer systems! Traffic control! Highways cutting off migratory paths of native fauna! And the side effects of designing cities around cars: noise, auto collisions, pedestrian fatalities!

This is more automaker/oil industry FUD.
Interesting question indeed! There isn't much of a consensus on this as you can see from the other comments. Nonetheless, I spend much time thinking about this so I'd like to take a jab at it as well.

I think it partially has to do with the concepts of modality and grounding. A modality is a channel through which information can be conveyed. You probably learned early on about the 5 human senses: vision, hearing, taste, smell and touch. The grounding problem refers to the fact that any symbols (read: language) we use, usually refers to perceptions in one or more of these modalities. When I write "shit", you can probably imagine a representation of it in different modalities (don't imagine them all!).

Interestingly, large language models (such as ChatGPT) don't have any of these modalities. Instead, they work directly on the symbols we use to communicate meaning. It's quite surprising that it works so well. An analogy that helps understand this is that asking an LLM anything is much like asking a blind person what the sun looks like. Obviously they cannot express themselves in terms of vision, but they could say that it feels warm and maybe even light because it doesn't make any noise. It would be a good approximation and they would be referring to the same physical phenomenon, but that's all it is, an approximation. They could say its a large yellow/white-ish circle if they heard this from someone else before, but since the blind person cannot see, they have no 'grounded truth' to speak from. If the sun would suddenly turn red, they would probably repeat the same answer. My point being: you can express one modality in another, but it'll always be an approximation.

What's interesting is that the only 'modality' of these LLMs is language, which is the first of its kind so we don't know what to expect from this. In a sense, LLMs are simply experiments to the question "what would a person that could only 'perceive' text look like?". Turns out, they're a little awkward. Obviously there's much more to the story (reasoning, planning, agency, etc.) but I think its fundamental to your question why reading for humans and AIs (LLMs) is not the same: LLMs have such a limited and awkward modality that any understanding can only be an approximation of ours (albeit a pretty good one), hence learning from reading will be much different as well.

Hope this helps your understanding.
This is no different from the NFT hustlers. Scam artists and get rich quick types exist everywhere.
No idea who the technology leader might be, but I hear about Joby most frequently.
A (potentially) free bootcamp that focuses on end-to-end deep learning systems
An apprenticeship focused on building industry-standard end-to-end deep learning systems, from data engineering to model design.

The programme is led by a machine learning engineer from Meta and will include talks and workshops with data scientists from Deepmind and Meta Research. This is an advanced programme aimed at experienced engineers and academics.

The programme's structure is a 6-week in-person bootcamp.

The next cohort starts in May 2023 in London. The course is free if you've been in the UK for the last three years.
> That's an over-generalization

I think most people here will interpret the word "can" in the sentence you're quoting as a caveat emptor; and I would add the same applies to TFA. Loop fusion can etc. but measure if it actually does in your exact context.

> You can improve constant factors all day, but that won't obviate the need for doing millions comparisons.
> You can only take a dumb algorithm so far before it breaks down completely in practice.

If the dumb algorithm relies entirely on arithmetic while the better algorithm has conditional jumps, branch prediction misses can play against it for unexpectedly large input sizes.

Micro-optimizations may fall short quickly, but big-O() approved algorithms don't always win either, in practice.
Sounds like we are converging to a point that taste science is the next doable project in deep learning. Find something that can be measured. For example measure the amount of sweat of the person eating spicy food. The blood flood rate in the surface of skin. We can know roughly how the person react to spiciness. And than maybe do some clustering, changing the amount of spiciness, draw some regression curve, damn this is exciting!
Don't forget "compare selection to clipboard"
Sure, sure, Marcus says one thing and has one set of motives. Elon Musk says another thing and has another set of motives. But if you want to dismiss this by questioning the motives of the signers, you've got a few thousand other people whose motives you have to identify and dismiss.

It would be much more effective, and meaningful, to challenge their arguments.
So great to see another fly.io blogpost

As an aside I'm so happy now that GPT-4 exists, the other day I had the VP engineering discuss GPT-4 in a meeting and was considering firing and closing down junior positions.

I'm also mixed on this but not surprised that junior positions will be less in the few years, it makes me wonder if CS grads would pursue software engineering at all if the future if the pipeline from junior to senior is eliminated.
The second archived link seems to still be pay walled. Here's a mirror just in case

https://archive.is/0rJIh
You wouldn't do such a thing because you have a bunch of hard-coded goals provided by evolution, such as "don't destroy your own social status". We're not building AIs by evolving them, and even if we did, we couldn't provide it with the same environment we evolved in, so there's no reason it would gain the same hard-coded goals. Why would an AGI even have the concept of goals being "stupid"? We've already seen simple AIs achieving goals by "stupid" means, e.g. playing the longest game of Tetris by leaving in on pause indefinitely. AGI is dangerous not because of potential misunderstanding, but because of potential understanding. The great risk is that it will understand its goal perfectly, and actually carry it out.
And the user experience was incredibly different. For me personally, when I went to a website that used Shockwave I would reach for the back button because it rarely worked on my machine, similar to RealMedia player and Java applets. Regarding Java applets, I was tasked with fixing one Windows machine in a university computer lab that simply would not load a Java applet. All the machines in the lab were cloned from the same image and I was the resident Java expert. For the life of me I could not get that machine to load the Java applet - I spent an entire day on it.

Flash always seemed to work and load fast which likely had some role in it getting mass adoption.
I'm arguing that "war harms trade and has a huge economic cost" is not on its own a strong argument for "war is not going to happen". The cost was huge then but not large enough to prevent war. How do we know it's large enough now?

It doesn't even sound that far fetched. For example, in recent months there have been many articles in (even "serious") newspapers speculating about war between US and China in the next decades. Perhaps it's just fearmongering but apparently no editor told those journalists: "that's ridiculous, don't you know about globalization"? You must think it's obviously and completely impossible? Do you then think China will not try to control Taiwan? Or they will and no serious sanctions will be imposed?
… how disconnected from reality must you be to think this is an okay thing to impose on hundreds of millions of people who rely on a specific communication channel to talk to their loved ones? "Oh they'll figure it out and install another app" -- wtf?

I agree it's not great that this is all controlled by Meta but this is what it is now. It will take a long time, or some heavy nationalization, to fix the situation. This mentality of "let's break it and people will figure their shit out" is i.n.s.a.n.e.. You know that "move fast and break things" is a BAD thing when you're affecting the lives of so many, right?
Ohh that's just mean, I'm not trying to get anyone fired. I'll just never shop at an Apple store again. I'm sure plenty of people walk in wanting to spend the least amount possible.

Then end up leaving with a 2500$ computer, no big deal it's only 200$ a month.
SearchGPT: Flags SEO results, ad-ridden sites, and removes click-bait
Hi,

I posted this some time ago but didn't get any traction. I get that it's behind a login wall, but this is necessary as running costs are high and usage needs to be tracked

An initial credit is given and then it becomes pre-paid. The price is a bit ridiculous atm (10c per good result) but I plan on halving it soon (I am being paranoid about going bankrupt)

Bing + ChatGPT + Custom code = search without SEO junk, sites containing ads, and with summaries instead of click-bait
this is neat and all, idk why i feel so exhausted every time i see a new language these days
Same experience.
For me the golden standard for a problem I can conceptualize but I can’t write code for is to start a prompt with “how would you do this with —given language”?

That has taught me some things I didn’t know and helped me formalize and understand concepts better (I think).

Also, on a more funny note, it’s the best ffmpeg interface I’ve ever used :)
One obvious point I'm missing here, and that I've been missing from Janet discussion in general: why Janet and not Scheme?

Gauche for example implements the latest (and IMO greatest) R7RS, its standard library is huge and "batteries-included" including a wide array of RFCs to the point of rivaling Python, and has a package manager in the form of Akku. Chicken has a similar story. Racket is arguably more useful "out of the box", but its community seems so heavily focused on using it for PL research that it's harder to justify using it for day-to-day programming. And there's Clojure as well, which I know comparatively less about, but is well-loved by its users.

Heck, even Common Lisp has a lot going for it, but the Standard and the conventional Lisp dev tools are kind of chaotic and idiosyncratic enough that it's understandable if people don't want to use it.

To be clear, Janet seems like a great little language. But as someone with limited time and energy who is interested in using it, I want to know why I should spend the time learning it, compared to Scheme
But why? Why do we need to stop rurality and farming? If people want to keep doing it, why stop them?
I do mathsy stuff and I feel this is the case with older mathematicians who did things before computers were so powerful. Those in my sample have a sharper intuition and a mechanical sympathy for maths which I admire and lack in comparison.
They will call us back in 2038 when shit will hit the fan.
love the aesthetic
Maybe the details of how it worked were absurd and unworkable and the FDIC shit it down.

Occam's razor.
There weren't equal parts. I was in the tiny minority saying to chill out—there was a month or so where almost every comment was hyped. It gradually moved to equal parts and then eventually to a majority of realistic perspectives.

I agree that it's more measured this time—fewer end of the world predictions—but I still fully expect to see expectations mellow out over the next few weeks.
Ask HN: What do you think of Twitter's new “Pay to play” plan?
Elon Musk announced that from April on, only paying users will be included in the posts the Twitter algorithm suggests to users.

Isn't it a bit of a strange idea to build a public townsquare where one has to "pay to play"?
This is simply not a good forum for that, precisely because it's populated by people whose knowledge of political events is sparse.
If you're anything like me, it's because you're getting older and have increasingly limited free time and energy that you can no longer dedicate to learning new programming languages.
When the AI is excessively praising you :)
You can put AI in an iteration loop with a compiler and have it bake a functional test suite overnight. It’s a TDD practitioner’s dream.
> we're also entirely comfortable with letting 9 in 10 get away to preserve a high standard of doubt (blackstone's ratio).

All this tells me is that this is could be the 1 in 10. We don't know yet.

> which undermines trust in it even more surely than letting a politician get away with a parking ticket or paperwork discrepancy.

Are you certain that's what's occurring here? The implication at the moment is there's a felonies involved. Why are we assuming that Trump is being accused to committing no crimes larger than a parking ticket?

It seems to me that there's an general assumption (not saying it's your assumption) that all politicians are lairs and corrupt and criminals and that's the norm. I think that's an incredibly sad state of affairs and it needs to change. If the justice department wants to start taking shots at politicians who have committed felonies with ironclad cases (we don't know if that's the case here), I say fire away. I don't care what team they represent.

Everyone is currently diminishing the coming unsealing with the idea that somehow it's going to be that Trump jaywalked twice. We don't know that's the case and it would be ridiculous for NY to be taking swings at him for that. If that proves to be the case I'll be vocally against it, but for now I'm assuming that those pressing charges are halfway competent.
I Don't Understand Eliezer Yudkowsky's Position on Consciousness(2021)
> it's not, that's why there are consent thingies on websites

Are there consent thingies on Google and Wikipedia?

> when you could not sign up for instagram as a minor

Sign up to post stuff. There are normally no "consent thingies" for looking.

If a parent doesn't want a minor to look at stuff they should either not give them access or limit it.
In my experience it works well with components that are not architectural and with vanilla languages rather than frameworks.
The Old Faithful: Why SSM Parameter Store Still Reigns over Secrets Manager
As SpX Starship technology matures the unit weight to orbit should dialdown to going postal freight rate. Perhaps industry players need to specialize their division of labor away from competing against SpX if they can't seeing getting to capability parity within five or ten years. Deep space astroid belt mining operation using autonomous vehicles?
The GP comment was written using ChatGPT- another project that wouldn't have happened without ChatGPT- and the training data cutoff was March, 2021.
I really want to like Helix, but muscle memory of vim over the past 5-6 years trips me all the time. I frequently have to edit files in remote servers and vi is choice editor mostly by default.

So far for me the story has been: see or read something cool on Helix, try it for 20min and attempt to do my actual work for the day on it, then get frustrated and feel slowed down, switch back to my neovim to get stuff done and forget about Helix until the next release hype.
The 12v lane is ubiquitous, and standardized. Supercaps are inefficient when it comes to storage per weight and volume, discharge rate too.

Both lead acid and supercaps are not even remotely comparable to the main liion battery, they're suppliments, and not interesting ones
I find it hard to believe people who learned Java don't have to learn new things every now and then. Yeah maybe they stuck to Java but the whole backend ecosystem looks way different than even 10 years ago.
Even C is debatable.
Unless they're small they have HR, and HR has the time to do the research.

Which is logging into Glassdoor or levels.fyi and checking. Shit you can do that right now and get some rough ballparks.
Show HN: Multi-display screen sharing with CoScreen
Good to be back on HN with all-new CoScreen, a little more than 3 years after it launched over here!

With CoScreen 5.0, you can now share your windows from multiple displays at the same time, a long standing request by our most avid users and impossible in other apps. It also has a lightning-fast, Rust-based window compositing, scaling, and streaming engine now.

CoScreen was always meant to be different so that you and your team can share your screens simultaneously and multi-directionally, and to be able to control what is being shared. We saw it as a natural extension and closely coupled with your OS — instant, fast, and seamless. A better way to pair program, debug tough incidents, or jam on great ideas by sharing multi-modal information like code, commands, graphs, or logs.

All that made a lot of sense conceptually but to be frank, it was hard to get it right. Now a part of Datadog and with major parts of our app rewritten in Rust, we feel we’re closer than ever.

Here’s what pair programmers liked about CoScreen, so we made it even better:
- High definition code sharing: Windows are video-streamed in real-time at their native resolution whenever possible. You never have to search for your IDE anymore or be anxious to share the wrong window.
- Multi-directional collaboration: You can share, while Alice shares, while Bob shares. Side-by-side, across multiple displays. With built-in crisp audio and video chat.
- 60FPS+ super smooth mouse pointers. Type, click, and draw on any shared window as if it was your own.

What some of you did NOT like, so we fixed it in CoScreen V5:
- CPU utilization and latency have been reduced drastically as various parts of our desktop client are now implemented in Rust, building on crates such as cxx, rust-skia, iced, as well as Neon for our native remote control plugins.
- No more accidental clicking into remote windows through the new remote window toggles.
- You’re no longer bound by your displays, can share windows from multiple of them at the same time and even move them across displays while sharing without stopping.
- You’ll also soon be able to join meetings from your browser from any platform.

CoScreen runs on macOS (x64 and Apple Silicon), Windows, soon also on the web and is currently free. We’re planning to charge for larger teams and enterprise features in the future. Hopefully - finally - we’ll also have a Linux version one day. Tell us if you need it urgently and if you have any other requirements!
The US has massive areas of rural space and a political system that gives a lot more power to rural areas than they realistically should have and we don't run into this problem so I don't think it's rural vs urban.
In terms of looks mostly it just doesn't have as many types and fewer parentheses. Shouldn't be an issue if you know python.
I assume it's in comparison to on-prem repositories that are available through the Github Enterprise product.
> The question is whether they support trans people or oppose them

But they're neither. They’re indifferent with some opportunist exploitation sprinkled on top.
It has less to do with money and more to do with competence. As an Italian I've learnt the hard way how ignorant and competent there Italian government is from a technical standpoint.