skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I wonder if being multiplanetary actually makes a civilization more vulnerable rather than less? The thing about nuclear war on Earth is that it's basically unwinnable because of mutually assured destruction, and the threat of nuclear winter. Even if you win, you lose.

On the other hand, it might be a lot more possible for a civilization on one planet to win a nuclear war against a civilization on another planet. Same with bioweapons: on Earth it would be stupid to try to use an "enhanced" ebola or COVID or bird flu as a weapon because you'd infect your own people as well as your adversary. But if you're separated by a great distance, that's less of a concern.

In a way, the "dark forest" interpretation is too optimistic. The assumption is that one species will always try to destroy another independent alien species if they find one. But I wonder if it's even worse among members of the /same/ species but different cultures that are separated by a great distance.
"Tensions also grew with Mr. Musk, who became frustrated with the slow progress and pushed for more control over the organization, people familiar with the matter said."

Imagine if this happened with OpenAI instead of Twitter.
Why is that? Why did Bengalis start up restaurants serving Punjabi food?
In those 2 examples, they have nothing to do with WEF's goal as far as I can tell.

In fact, Indian Brahmin would seem to contradict with WEF's supposed goals.

wrt Mexican cartels, I'm not sure how that fits into the original narrative of WEF - do Mexican cartels work for the WEF? I've never heard this theory before.

I don't see why any of the groups mentioned would submit themselves to endgoals WEF is supposedly aiming for. I'm skeptical why they would.
Password DB in basic-store uses the key 'peanut'.
FWIW, at this point, the initialism has kind of become the name. It's like POSIX -- I doubt a lot of people know what it stands for, but it doesn't matter, because there's only one POSIX and it's the portable operating system interface.
> Why not both?

This is not a good idea. There is a conflict of interest here. The fundamental goal of government is regulation, the fundamental goal of a business is profit.

Both the morals of government and corporations are therefore very different. I call them Guardian and Commercial Syndromes respectively. When you combine these two syndromes you create monstrous hybrids.

Allow me to elucidate:

An entity in the Guardian syndrome values honor and uses forceful tactics to maintain order and regulation.

An entity in the Commercial syndrome values money and tries to use whatever means possible to gain profits through trade agreements.

You don't want a commercial entity to have the power to enforce things and you don't want a government entity to desire profit. Both hybrids lead to bad things and it's the root of corruption in the world today.

You know how the old medieval English Nave formed? So many pirates lurked off the coasts of medieval England that London merchants went to the expense of financing a fleet of fighting ships and gave it to the Crown.

Why give it to the Crown? Because you don't want some commercial entity running the Navy using methodologies that circumvent trade agreements and violently funnel trade and profit to a singular commercial entity. You need an entity outside of the commercial sphere; An entity in the Guardian Syndrome. If a commercial entity controlled the Navy you get something similar to the Mafia or Yakuza; Basically organized crime.

Only the government should enforce the laws of AI because there is in theory no conflict of interest. But practically speaking the US government is pretty heavily hybridized already (See military industrial complex). Still it's the best option.
dude is not rational, don't bother
> existing research tech out into the open world (with improvements, of course.

That’s quite the understatement, isn’t it? Neither Google nor Meta have been able to demonstrate something to the public that resonates even close the the altitude that OpenAI has.
In contrast, my first SWE position out of college adhered to PTO allotments and I accrued 6/8 of a day off each month I worked. Then, my father died, I missed a couple of weeks, and spent several years in time-off debt! Three hours south of SF.

Conversely, I just came from an employment situation with unlimited PTO. After an especially long project, I took three solid weeks off to recover. This gave the CEO pause, but it was in alignment with our policy, I was grateful, and, I think, the company benefitted significantly from my efforts while I was available!

No real point to make here, I suppose. Just sharing a varied experience.
Thanks GDPR!
It is also much more probable to become a multimillionaire through a startup than a FAANG
Can you be more specific about which slides you want me to respond to? CRT does have a position about what nominally race-neutral school board policies mean when reframed through race. That's unsurprising, because since Buchanan v. Warley, most racial policy in the US has been nominally race-neutral.

I don't think CRT should be taught to grade schoolers. It's complicated and all you can give students who barely understand civics is a bunch of fortune cookies.
As I said in the other thread, any license that bans "1:1 clones" would, by the very definition Prusa endorsed[1], not be open source.

I'm sympathetic to wanting a more "copyleft" or "AGPL like" open hardware licence, even the CERN-OHL-S could be improved, but none of those points advocate that.

[1]https://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
There is actually another option.

A more sophisticated type system.

Let's say you had some pseudocode like this:

let a = 5
let b = 12
let c = a + b

The type of a would be Integer[5..5], the type of b would be Integer[12..12], the type of c would therefore be Integer[17..17]. In a more complex example:

def foo(a: Integer[0..10], b: Integer[0..10]):
return a + b

The return type of this function would be Integer[0..20].

This kind of type system can solve a number of issues, all but division by zero (which would probably still have to be solved with some kind of optional type).

If type inference dictates that the upper range of an integer would be too large to physically store in a machine data type, then you either resort to bignums or you make it a compilation error. By adding modular and saturating integer types you can handle situations where you want special integer behaviours. By explicitly casting (with the operation returning an optional) you can handle situations where you want to bound the range. This drastically simplifies a lot of code by removing explicit bounds checks in all places except where they are absolutely necessary. If for some reason you care about the space or computational efficiency of the underlying machine type, you can have additional annotations (like C's u?int_(least|fast)[0-9]+_t). If you absolutely must map to a machine type (this is usually misguided, unless you are dealing with existing C interfaces, for which such a language can provide special types) you can have more annotations.

Ada has something resembling this. I believe there are some other languages that implement similar features. I believe this sort of thing has a name, but I am not great with remembering the names of things.

Hopefully this is some food for thought.
Frankly, the C standards ctte went off the deep end when they effectively banned NULL to memset etc (obv with zero length).

Not because these functions couldn't handle it, but because this assertion simplifies optimizations elsewhere.

This has required adding extra checks in my code, found mainly by trial and error, and has made it less readable and less optimal.

Finally, the checked arithmetic operations returning false on success is a horror show. Fortunately it will be found on the first time the code is run, but that's a damnably low bar :(
You might like the book "When computers went to sea", which discusses the Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS) in detail. Univac plays a big part in this and Cray has a smaller part. The NTDS was a huge project in the 1950s and 1960s to build shipboard computers for command and control, networked between ships to provide a unified view of the battlefield. Despite its success, NTDS is pretty much forgotten now.

If anyone else is interested in the IBM books you mentioned, they are (I presume) "IBM's Early Computers" and "IBM's 360 and Early 370 Systems", both extremely detailed.
Its interesting that you put so much value on clean streets? My observation is that in many European countries its very uncool to throw trash on the floor outside. People still do it, but its usually done hidden. Also people take offense when they see someone throwing trash on the street.
"Barbarians Led by Bill Gates" gives the history of the first 15 years or so of Windows.

"Fire in the Valley" a good history of the Silicon Valley through the original PC boom.

"Exploding the Phone" a history of phone phreaking.

"Shareware Heroes" a history of the shareware scene in the 80s and 90s.
The two atomic bombings and a home island invasion undeniably were not the only two options available to end the war. That is what I said was a fact.

For example, the U.S. could have continued conventional bombing, or installed a blockade around the home islands, or negotiated a treaty, or any number of military and diplomatic actions not involving the irradiation of two large cities. Japan was at the mercy of the Allies at that point, not the other way around.

You can argue that it was the best option available (I strongly disagree), but the atomic bombings or a large scale invasion of the home islands were definitely not the only two options, as frequently claimed by apologists.

Also, it is not historically accurate to claim that Japan was not showing interest in surrendering after the first bombing. Even before the first bombing, the cabinet was split between civilian officials who wanted a treaty and hardliners who wanted to continue the war. As I said earlier, Japan was sending out diplomatic feelers to try and negotiate a peace, even if their leadership was divided.
I'm in Canada, and that's how the unlimited PTO work here. Because there's a legal minimum by law (afaik), we track PTO and how much balance we have. And they have to pay if you have a positive balance - in case you weren't taking the PTO.
No, because the rich will then flee to a more rich-friendly economy and you will be left with just the poor
Only humans left, no plants, no fish, no animals, no food.
DeepMind could no doubt argue the same for openAI failing to play go and to not pursuing protein folding. Their several years behind on that one. :)

Anyway, there have been several open source versions in the gpt3-3.5 range. Those are your base to build off of. Their's just little incentive to try to go participate in a moneysink competition with Google and Microsoft.
"Looking forward, marijuana legalization will surely beget notions such as fractional-, imaginary-, and negative-length objects, each with as much potential for mayhem as zero-length objects."

It's a funny thing to say.
"Shareware heroes" is a great storytelling about the business side of indie software industry.
Not participated in YC, but happy to review your application. Connect via contact details in my profile.
Economists are part of the problem. When the rich are getting richer and the poor work their asses off and still get poorer, then just about any solution is better and the more decent thing to do than keeping disagreeing about what is the best solution.
Some companies pay you for your unused PTO when you leave the company.

If you aren’t reporting your PTO, your “unused PTO” doesn’t go down and you can still get paid for it when you leave.
You need to calm the f down. Do you understand anything about machine learning, software and hardware? How do you propose that some configuration will become generally intelligent given what we know today? I'd really like to hear your theories, then maybe I'd be frightened too.
As someone who, myself, has very scattered speech and thoughts and yet still has to be able to speak in front of others for many reasons, I would say that the best thing you can do is to practice what's called "extemporaneous speaking." The literal definition is just "speaking done without preparation," but, as I learned from one of my prof's in college, it's more than that. You have a rough outline prepared, even some stories, maybe opening or closing points. Then, think about the kind of questions you might get asked. Don't prepare for individual questions, but prepare answers that could fit multiple answers with a bit of tweaking on the fly. Having a solid idea of where you're going is key.
Admittedly, I still have trouble with this too, but I have far less than I used to. I wish you all the best!
Yeah I think so, I also misinterpreted your quoted 'abstract' I think :-)

Basically my main point (or question really, I am not sure in it) is that we should resist thinking about government as an abstract entiry different in character from any org - really what it does or looks after is just, in the end, some small set of humans doing some actions that have some effect.

They're democratically elected yes, but that is a bit meaningless in the practical detail of any one given situation. In a sense it's not different, safer, or better, than some company led by some small set of individuals also makikg concrete decisons, for any one concrete decision.

Maybe democracy and policy has some aggregate influence over all decisions, making them lean in a certain way. But it's not like 'the government' as an entity is one thing led by a concrete conciousness or plan. Does that make more sense?
Until maintenance is done or the machine is customized, like changing the nozzle or air duct.
> there's nothing about the Steam Deck hardware that would make a game Deck only.

Yes, AAA exclusive for steam deck is too unrealistic. However AA or indies with steam deck-first platform may be emerging, that they'll focus on the screen size and controls of deck.
An editor for a live interview would be challenging to employ. If you have a practical way to do this besides chloroform, I'd love to hear it.
So who in his friend and family is an engineer?
> It's only tone deaf to people who understand "undefined behavior" as an epithet or as synonymous with giving a license to compilers to screw you over.

Unfortunately, this is the correct understanding of UB.
Requiring passwords to follow strict rules makes them less secure, not more: https://blog.codinghorror.com/password-rules-are-bullshit/
I believe there is great value in introducing learners to tools that are so simple and easy to use that they can just get started and focus on programming without having to wrestle with tools and incidental complexity.

This is a design challenge: crafting tools that are laser-focussed on their actual purpose and trying to make it as straightforward as possible for users to do what they intent to do. It takes empathy and clear, simple and pragmatic thinking, which can be surprisingly hard for many people and I believe it becomes harder the more we become entrenched in our profession and its way of doing things.

In my own experience, if I had not discovered Processing I am not sure if I would have actually gone down this path and become a developer. Before that, I had so many frustrating experiences with tools and especially the command line. Everything was just so opaque to me, since I had no one with programming experience to guide me through and when I tried looking something up, I felt like I was going down a neverending rabbit hole. Now I really enjoy digging into the most obscure tools and programming languages, use Vim and Emacs daily (yes, you can like both) and actually enjoy writing shell scripts.

I think if beginners actually get to experience what it is like to program something that is meaningful to them, that they care about or just enjoy, they will become motivated to learn all the hard and annoying things as well. But they should not be stopped by hundreds of landmines and roadblocks before they even get there.
Not to go full "Dropbox in a weekend", but if you're technical enough to self-host, this is something you can build for yourself

Everyone is going straight to embeddings, but it'd be easy enough to use old school NLP summarization from NLTK (https://www.nltk.org/)

Hook that up a web scraping library like https://scrapy.org/ and get a summary of each page.

Then embed a site map in your system prompt and use langchain (https://github.com/hwchase17/langchain) to allow GPT to query for a specific page's summary.

-

The point of this isn't to say that's how OP did it, but there might be people seeing stuff like this and wondering how on earth to get into it: This is something you could build in a weekend with pretty much no understanding of AI
Wouldn't you assume that closed-source products would generally have a competitive advantage against open-source products? Especially for products where most of the contributions to the project are from the company selling it. With closed-source you have to worry less about people simply selling copies of your design without having to have invested in any of the design process. Competitors also can't as easily include your design improvements into their products. And, there's definitely a cost associated with sharing internal designs.
> Businesses underpay and when they can't find people willing to impoverish themselves to work for them, they apply to the government to bring in "temporary foreign workers" - for things like fast food restaurant workers not essential business, keeping the wages down.

> Temporary foreign workers and international students in canada are allowed to buy housing, so aside from renting the rich ones who make it here actually buy up properties for their family offshore.

If they're being paid so little, I don't see how they could possibly afford to buy any properties. I've only known a few, but they all send the majority of the money back home instead.

This feels very fear mongering on TFWs and not grounded in facts.
These comments follow Prusa around but nobody seems to go beyond this type of surface level spec sheet take and into the details, especially in a more professional / high performance context. Prusa machines work in a production, factory-like environment and it isn't clear that Bambu or others can do that.

Specifically:

- What is the long term durability like?
--- Do the nozzles leak when using high performance materials? (E3D themselves cannot even ship anything other than Revo that can actually make this claim with the only exception being Prusa factory installed 0.4n V6s)
--- Extruder durability?

- What is the support experience like? We've heard it is patchy relative to Prusa, specifically around spare parts availability.

- How is the lifting / warping problem with the given build surfaces and enclosure? This is a non-trivial problem if you want to use the entire surface for large jobs with advanced materials.

Would be curious to know if you have any insights on these points or using Bambu in a professional context and how they perform.
I heard about that from On the Metal podcast a few years back. Couldn’t believe I hadn’t come across it sooner. Its really fastinating to read about computers before the internet and big tech era when the job was unglamarous and done for the love of the game. It made me sad I missed it.
And we did.
Paid service on api / llama wrappers. Laaame
There should really be probabilities associated with the predictions otherwise it's pretty meaningless.
How should we understand the weird experience of coincidence?
Yeah, I get the mechanism of what is going on. I'm more interested in why all the parties involved think doing that is justified. Why do people think they should be given a lump sum when they quit. Do they see it as linked to leave somehow? Is it just custom to have a goodbye gift? Do they see it as a bit dishonest but an open secret? Or is it an implicit right?
While I don't disagree that having mostly good people generally isn't effective in long term security against all evil people, I also dispute the main claim somewhat.

> Stop asking the market to look after collective interest. This is the job of the government.

That's the thing: our government, society, is simply an emergent, collective agent of individuals. If most people don't actually have in mind the importance of altruism, then the whole thing doesn't work:

(a) The government can't watch our every little move (as-is);

(b) The more the government watches us, the more risks we take with authoritarianism (even totalitarianism);

(c) Having everyone extremely social-good disinterested is extremely inefficient: you increase policing costs, legal costs, regulatory costs, it increases complexity arbitrarily and makes the whole thing grind to a halt (see highly corrupt cultures);

(d) Moreover, the disinterest becomes dangerous because even if the mission of the government were to steer social-good disinterested parties to somehow achieve collective good societies (whose success I question), a disinterested population doesn't care to vote for well-meaning politicians, and doesn't have the ethical and social understanding to make good choices in this area. And then when the whole culture is social-good disinterested, it's hard to imagine somehow all government workers would be magically pro-social angels, and not as corrupt as the rest of the population.

In conclusion, the entire backbone of a society is ethical enlightenment (of course, alongside other things like effectiveness, and ethical effectiveness). If individuals themselves are not ethically enlightened, no social good outcomes are possible, be it from governments, markets, or various organizations like non-profits and coops.

I think the market would be looking after our collective interest if this enlightenment was more widespread. And then we could better discuss mechanisms (and general structural innovations -- which I think are very important) to keep the few inevitable problem cases and unenlightened psychopaths from ruining it for the rest of us :)

In a way, societies are made of goodness (cooperation).
It won't, because we have the movies and these safety teams. But we shouldn't just hope it turns out right. It's a little like parenting.
Less than in Vancouver. I have no kids and will never have any. I couldn't afford them if I wanted them
I am by no means a chemist (beyond a secondary school level), but burning CO2 doesn’t seem possible. Doesn’t burning through application of some energy split the bonds of complicated stable molecules into less complicated, but stable molecules (by adding oxygen), thus releasing energy.

In this case; how do they recombine the CO2 into more complicated hydrocarbons? And if it’s energy negative, is it better to do this, or to use it to capture carbon?
On the Gravitron, a centrifuge carnival ride in the shape of a flying saucer, riders experience 3Gs for minutes. Best carnival ride as a kid, we rode it continuously for ages.
It remains to be seen if this is true when interest rates aren’t at nearly 0%.
causality is about information, intent is about the semantics of that information

causality is unrelated to intent
Do you see a new DOM being realistic? Not a sarky comment. I ask because I don't see the problem with a new <bellend> tag. Meaning that in 2023 browsers start having a html and a bellend tag representing an end to legacy and a line to the future.
just be careful not to teach chatGPT how to hold a whiteboard marker.
AI “Stop Button” Problem (2017)
Show HN: PizzaGPT – ChatGPT clone accessible from Italy
No, the power belongs to those with the most powerful video card.
That doesn’t change the fact about how they got there, stealing intellectual property.
Wow… Singapore is not even on the list. As a Kiwi expat I can tell you Singapore is at Hong Kong levels of unaffordableness for non locals. The Singapore government housing scheme skews theses statistics significantly. If you are a local here, great. Everyone else is paying top dollar (2 bedroom condo units renting for 50% of the median household monthly salary)