skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship. It's simply that the workers are choosing to delegate negotiation with HR, much as the owners and managers of the firm delegate it to the HR department. Arguably, this is better off for the company insofar it cuts down on duplication and can bring clarity and consistency to employment agreements.

You don’t think Apple plays hardball when negotiating a contract with a supplier?

It's far from a necessity. Many fruitful business relationships are constructed on a win-win basis rather than adversarial zero-sum thinking.

Whining that “it’s not faaaair” is just that — whining.

If you see someone doing that, let me know. I'll be sure to pass on your message.
I’m curious about this. Do you have a dataset? I’d be happy to take a look.
And as you see here it is not easy to even patch Exchange nevermind migrating/upgrading to a newer version or migrating to Office 365. It can be done of course but maybe management did not sign off on it due to risks or downtime. Sometimes IT cannot make decisions like that especially if there is a licence cost involved that the company does not want to pay!

https://web.archive.org/web/20220930183225/https://threadrea...

They could very well have ran on-prem Exchange and standalone/boxed copies of Office 2013, paid for once long ago. Now come and say

>"oh you have to pay again for newer versions or pay for per-user Office 365"

>"why? what we have works fine, we dont need the new features"

>"for security"

>"thats your job"

etc ect

You have only worked with certain clients I hear.
Awesome link, thanks.

Can you recommend a good way to find a better electrical supplier offering decent prices? What's your go to method/service? I've just realised that I haven't shopped around for quite some time.
Isn't the F-35 also famous for the fact that they used C++ (instead of Ada) for the software?
Well, it's more of "it doesn't necessarily violate causality (but might anyway)" rather than "here's how to make a warp drive".

Actually doing the thing may be impossible for other reasons.
Oh I know. Amazing tool, rivals The Internet. But it’s quite sad that people don’t realise just how incredible the human brain is. The impressive text that GPT spits out is so limited compared to what we have produced.

Don’t forget that we created AI. AI based on a simple trick run on a century’s worth of hardware built by human ingenuity.
Well that's confusing, people seem to be claiming different things. One is that they sell cars as fast as y If they continue to 100% sell out, why reduce margins?
I think it's hard to deny that it's doing some level of reasoning. It's quite clear that these models do not merely echo elements of their training data and that they can solve simple and novel puzzles.

What that reasoning is, exactly, is hard to know. One can suppose that ideas like "glass", "transparent", "mirror" are all reasonable concepts that show up in the training set and are demonstrated thoroughly
Black Hole’s Ring of Light Could Encrypt Its Inner Secrets
I'm not disputing the principle; I'm saying I don't think it's sufficient to explain the current situation.
I should have added the required /sarcasm tag, apparently.
Yes, that's why it's "overhead" because it's just the cost to play the game.

But after overhead, even R01 grants which sound "massive" will just end up paying for a couple of PhDs and postdocs over four years at the end. But there's some "inflation" of overhead going on over the years, so the bang for your buck is dwindlding
You purposefully multiplied the grad student's compensation by five years to make it sound like a huge number.

You purposefully cited the NSF as an example, and left out mention that the NIH (five times the funding of NSF) and numerous other organizations, provide for F&A overhead.

You present the 30% "take" as being high, when it's actually very reasonable, and you clearly think it's all one giant waste of money. Heat, cooling, water, power, internet, computational clusters, internet connections? Those don't cost money! I don't have lab space! Why am I being charged overhead!?

Over and over you're clearly manipulating readers to generate outrage. The whole piece is one giant bitch-fest; woe be the poor AI researcher!

Do you not understand how you're fueling anti-science-research efforts? The level of threat scientific research funding is constantly under? And how one of the most frequent means of attack is the perceived wasteful overhead?
Back in ~2016, I spent a year of my life trying to make this happen. I ended up with a very cheap looking version of age of empires, which runs in the browser... It's still up! http://feudalwars.net/
Wouldn't buying the MSFT stock be easier?
Microsoft does not ensure the operation or patch levels of on-prem Exchange or Windows Server. Where did you get this from? That is up to the IT of the server/company.
I’m not against nuclear but it is a long way from being cheap and easy. Look at the recent andventures with Hinkley C. And that’s with an existing industrial base for nuclear power. 25 bn pounds is 45 billion AUD which is what previous governments paid to wire the whole country up with a patchwork of broadband (inflation unadjusted).
And don’t say they small modular will step into the breach because it is not a proven technology and until the first 10 are deployed may never be.

Australia has no nuclear knowledge base and would require a nationwide debate about getting into the nuclear power game so we would have at a minimum a 20 year lead time to build something.

We could be totally decarbonised by that point and we wouldn’t even have a reactor online.

As to your other points, have you seen how much space we have down here? Cramming a plant into a specific area is not a net benefit. We’ve got a geographically diverse population with a lot of empty space, it would be better to have more plants in more diversified locations.

We will end up passing nuclear by, the economics and time lag just don’t stack up for us
I agree that software engineers need to understand the product and take more responsibility in its definition. I believe this has regressed compared to early professional programming norms as computers and especially smart phones have become staples in everyday life. I also think current ways of working have enabled bad product management.

That said, good product management is still worth its weight in gold. Someone who is willing to put in the work in terms of analyzing user behavior, has good UX instincts and respect for engineering can add a lot of value and magnify the impact of the team. It’s rare, but definitely a force magnifier for the team.
Does anybody know of a good intuitive explanation for the claim that FTL breaks causality? By intuitive I mean something more than "the numbers in this formula don't add up without breaking causality".

I've tried to build a foundation for understanding this concept several times and failed each time. It makes total sense that with FTL, it would be possible to OBSERVE events in the wrong order, but just this alone wouldn't break causality. My intuition is not helping me get any further than this.
It’s not a warning, it’s just an indicator that it’s intended for adults.

Well, that and the astronomical price tags on some of the sets.
This is something that varies widely by funding agency- you are correct that NIH grant budget limits are exclusive of indirects, but for the NSF the opposite is true. Different funders handle that differently, and additionally some funders have a cap on the indirect rate that they will allow. Many private foundations will only an indirect rate of 20%, for example. Some corporate grants that I've seen do not allow for any indirects at all.

Depending on your institution, and how they do their accounting, this can have serious negative effects for investigators. At an academic medical center, the majority of PIs are NIH funded, so all of the accounting and finance planning for research assumes a 54% indirect cost rate- so if, for whatever reason, your portfolio of grants doesn't fit that mold, you can have issues. I have known PIs who had multiple very large grants from private foundations, and so were not producing the expected amount of indirects and ended up being a net negative to their department's bottom line. This caused them (and their department chair) all kinds of problems.

Accounting and grant budgeting are two of the things that I wish I'd learned more about in grad school!
Yet no body ever called me subhuman for parroting answers and only passing MCQs!
Isn’t this what the luddites said?
This is a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbIk7-JPB2c
This is the thing that bothers me about her videos, though. Certainly established science should be challenged when there is the potential that something isn't quite right. (Science itself may be "perfect", but it is performed and chronicled by flawed, biased humans.)

But I feel like she takes a contrarian view just for the sake of being contrarian, so it's hard to tell which of her ideas actually have merit, and which simply exist to challenge the status quo, even when the status quo is conclusively proven.

Edit: that said, I really do want to believe this! The speed of light being an absolute limit to how fast we can travel (or even communicate), means most of the universe (even most of the galaxy) will be forever out of reach to us. And that's kinda depressing. Unfortunately, physics doesn't care if I'm sad or happy about it.

Edit2: on the other hand (I wrote the above after only having watched have the video, shame on me), I do find compelling her idea that some mathematical constructs (like special relativity) inherently cannot fully describe reality (in SR's case, SR doesn't include gravity). So saying "special relativity says FTL travel causes time paradoxes and thus cannot be possible" may be true, but since SR can't fully describe reality (hell, neither can GR), maybe it just doesn't matter. That doesn't prove that FTL travel/communication is actually possible, but at least suggests that we shouldn't be so adamant about it being impossible. But who knows, IANAPhysicist, etc.
Apparently, they are different people: https://forums.atariage.com/topic/243163-programmer-adam-cla...
Here's a KCRA news piece on those tiny homes

https://www.kcra.com/article/tiny-homes-are-being-assembled-...
> Wait, but we don't actually even know what is happening inside GPT-4 on a fundamental level, to produce the output we see.

This just isn't true. All of this research descends from transformer research that came from Google in 2017. We know exactly how they work. There's nothing surprising in what's going on.

I spent a bit of time looking for a decent intro to all this because I wanted to at least provide a resource for people who are terrified of LLMs. I think this is a pretty decent one [1]

[1] https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-...
> In January, when Mr. Rosenberger could not find a co-sponsor for an event with Nadine Strossen, a former head of the American Civil Liberties Union and a champion of free speech, he found a partner in Ms. Steinbach, who moderated the event.

Amazing that no one else was willing to sponsor an event featuring the first woman president of the ACLU.
A friend of mine who's both a kick ass engineer and great product manager once told me this analogy, which is employing similar to the one in the article:

"For any software project to succeed, you need three types of developers:

The kamikaze. They kick off the project, they don't care about the mountain on the horizon or the abyss less than ten clicks ahead. They get everyone on board and they will also give the column directions and keep them on track.

The soldier. They just march on and on. They may take longer to solve a problem, but they don't tire. They keep at it.

The sniper. Any really difficult issue they will just take out.
But they need calm and solitude to do their deed."
In military uniform, steampunk style, moar fractals
Again, you’re saying that it’s cheap, but then responding to criticism they’re bespoke by presenting an untested technology that has further lead time delays and may even be vapourwear. You still can’t spin up an industrial base in less than 5-10 years, and there sure as hell isn’t the political will to ask the Chinese to build it for us
I haven’t heard a single realistic argument on how this AI will harm us.
Wow that paragraph went into a vertical climb and somehow kept going higher
https://archive.is/2023.04.04-221503/https://www.bloomberg.c...
> I would bet on Alphabet for the long term, the original inventors of the paper, together with DeepMind.

> But chatgpt like tech could have an effect on their advertising income.

An AI response costs a lot more to serve than a search query.

Microsoft is integrating GPT into it's SaaS offerings (see copilot), where it adds new features (and is gaining traction for it's adds and search products). Meanwhile, for every GPT query served by Google, it costs them significantly more and can't be monetized right now with adds.
You can probably add some extra also from it not being standard container ship so loading and unloading it is likely to be less efficient than containers.
> The primary "you need to understand this" difference about Japan rejection, IME, is that Japanese people readily accept anything other than an explicit yes as a clear no. Your average westerner tends to be really delusional about this, and the even the ones who accept it (like the author, apparently) are still hurt when it happens.

Somewhat. But the Japanese will try to exploit the asymmetry, too.

If a Japanese businessman says "Wakarimashita"(I understand) they mean "Pound sand". Do NOT take "I understand" as a "Yes, I agree." You will get burned.

However, if you as a Westerner delivers a "Wakarimashita" as a "No", the Japanese will get VERY VERY upset.

One of my favorite moments along these lines was dealing with a Japanese company who had dorked with us for almost 24 months (also a Japanese cliche) but now finally needed the deal to go through quickly. As they impressed upon us the newfound importance of the deal my response was "Wakarimashita" with lots of nods and a wide, friendly smile...

Watching the facial expression on a half-dozen people on the other side of the table darken visibly was quite glorious. The Japanese discovered that "Wakarimashita" can also mean "Bend over" in addition to "Pound sand".
This is an interesting argument as it's easy to apply it nearly universally to any example of learning.

What sort of evidence would convince you that it is learning?
> Id ask what is the price of their power KWh?

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-e...

and historically aggregated: https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistic...
Also any watches that work with gadgetbridge.
This looks good as an overarching framework but will likely fall into the same bucket as a lot of regulation in cutting edge fields (if this ever becomes mandatory). These are only as good as the quality of the people doing the assessment.

I've worked with a lot of people in the medical world while developing SaMD (software as a medical device) in the past that had little to no idea about software. They can apply the principles in the abstract but will likely not dig deep enough to catch some very major issues.

In the medical world, things like post market surveillance and notification of adverse events help to at least create a public feedback loop here. I think we will need something similar in this space if we really want to see more than a surface level, checklist ticking exercise.
It depends on the job. If you're part of a team then cohesion and harmony matter as well.
> The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research.

"The obvious downward line" is not relevant since it's for a time period that is only starting to affect todays climate. I was previously talking about time periods which would already be affecting the climate today. What if through the use of modern machinery and fertilizer the land use started trending down slightly in the 80s, and rose rapidly before then? We don't know, which is why your statistic is fully irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not interested in simplifying complex systems like historical agriculture to "line goes down now, line must have been going down before".

Maybe "do some damn research" that looks at the content in the context of the discussion.

> Hell no. I am saying if the level of greenhouse gasses drops there will be lag in the other direction. There’s nothing special about the direction of lag it’s simply a delay before equilibrium.

I really, really think you should try to re-read my previous comments. This doesn't make any sense. Let's play through it with numbers - maybe you'll show me I've been a complete idiot.

Let's define a starting point of greenhouse gases and temperature, both start at 0. We are in an equilibrium. Now we increase greenhouse gases to 1, and after some time temperature will also increase to 1 (arbitrary values). Then we decrease greenhouse gases to 0 (previous equilibrium). It will take some time until the temperature goes back to 0.

Referring back to the comment I was replying to: where do we get colder compared to a reference earth without increased gases?

That's my whole argument, it's what I've been writing the whole time. The increased greenhouse gases lead to a higher temperature, which will (until it goes back to equilibrium) be increased compared to if there was no increase in greenhouse gases, and it will stay increased for a while after greenhouse gases are at equilibrium.

What exactly are you arguing against? It seems you're taking stabs at whatever sentence you feel is incorrect, but I haven't seen a coherent argument.
No doubt there's great content on Substack, but good content is not what makes Twitter so popular. Paul Graham and Marc Andreessen are two big names behind Substack. At $650M valuation burning through $25M per year, unable to raise more funds and without a strategy on how to ever generate revenue with a subscription model, the only reasonable way forward for Substack is ads and low quality content that can appeal to the masses. Just like Twitter.
There is nothing intuitive about special relativity. If you want to understand SR (or GR or QM), you must throw intuition out the window and strictly follow the rules of the theory.

The best explanation for why FTL breaks causality that I have seen is the tachyonic antitelephone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

Drawing a bunch of spacetime diagrams might help as well.
The GPT models do not reason or hold models of any reality. They complete text chunks by imitating the training corpus of text chunks. They're amazingly good at it because they show consistent relations between semantically and/or syntactically similar words.

My best guess about this result is mentions of "mirror" often occur around opposites (syntax) in direction words (semantics). Which does sound like a good trick question for these models.
This is true, it all comes down to money.

Europe is as capable if not more capable of being the center of engineering, tech and software. However there is no huge hotbed of VC money that allows huge risks.
> Microsoft has done quite a lot to rehabilitate their image

I don't want to sound as a anti-MS fanboy, but that's the standard procedure when you get to the point "If you can't beat them...". Microsoft isn't to be trusted just because they're a business, but because like many others they're after profits above anything else. Just look at how they turned a potentially very decent OS (Windows 7) into worse privacy nightmare at every new version. I simply don't want them to mess with Linux.
Yes my mistake, thanks!
This is easily Sabine Hoffstader’s fringiest video. Please don’t get the wrong idea that this is a point of controversy within physics! As a physicist I’d estimate 99.9% of her colleagues would disagree and I would too. She has no real argument, just vaguely gestures at “maybe the comoving frame makes relativity invalid” and then vaguely gestures at “quantum gravity spoiling everything we know so far about physics”.

As to the second point, quantum gravity is a thing but almost certainly will not upend the special relativistic account of the large scale causal ordering of events. This is for the same reason that it almost certainly won’t change the calculation of the amount of time it takes an apple to drop from a tree —- within the domain of validity of the old theory, its predictions will agree.
I'm fairly certain that an LLM alone will not independently start taking actions and pursuing goals and causing harm. That's not how LLMs work, as you and I both know.

I'm not confident I can say the same about, say: an LLM calling itself from within an infinite loop in which the LLM is asked to predict actions that will [eg. add money into a bank account], and then to write code that executes those actions, then to examine the results of those actions and update its plan. (This takes no additional breakthrough in AI architecture, only an increase in the reliability of GPT for it to become practical. It is basically a summary of the AutoGPT project).

I don't know if LLMs are anywhere close to any part of what goes on inside the human thought process. But I am sure that evolution was able to stumble upon the human thought process. In 2003 I was quite confident that was forever beyond the reach of humans to program into a computer, but in 2023 I am far less certain. I think human cognition is gradually becoming less of a mystery.
Which is the same as the paid ChatGPT plan when using GPT-4: 25 turns every 3 hours.

Bing's free one is better in that sense in that you can use all 200 over a shorter timespan.
I mean flatcars are still used today (not just historically) for things like tanks, farm equipment, lumber, semi-trailers, and sometimes even standard containers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatcar)

Cars that carry containers are now mostly referred to as well cars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_car)

An intermodal chassis or frame usually refers to the highway version used to pull a container behind a truck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_chassis)
To get to Mars faster than light, you have to be able to travel backwards in time (you could watch yourself start the trip).

If you can travel backwards in time, you can kill a younger instance of yourself.
nah we run a pool of common pgbouncers that route to the various postgres instances we run. they also run google's cloud sql proxy as well. it's actually haproxy -> pgbouncer -> cloud sql proxy -> postgres.

everything but postgres runs on one machine. we use haproxy to load balance replica connections across different pgbouncer backends for replicas of the same db.
I think the narrative that it needn't be an air superiority fighter came later (I.e. they changed the requirements when they realized it would not be competitive in practice).

iirc it was originally intended to be an air superiority fighter. Consider this line from the wikipedia F-35 entry

"intended to perform both air superiority and strike missions."
I think I'm taking about a different failure mode. To have a "wall" you don't need a large organisation, just leadership that has certain blindspots or beliefs that they don't allow to be challenged. (I know I'm being a bit vague, I can't go into the specifics unfortunately).
I think Meta’s problems are largely similar to Google’s: they have very bad leadership, specifically Zuckerberg, and thus can’t leverage their existing talent to execute/compete. The whole Metaverse fiasco would seem to demonstrate he’s effectively a “mad king” at this point, and probably surrounded by a sycophantic c-suite. Having the best talent in the world (which they obviously do by how fast LLama was spit out) isn’t going to matter that much if its all serving at the behest of someone who has become deluded by their initial success and has no ability to course correct.