skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Also SD can do porn, which Midjourney forbids for some reason. They're leaving an assload of money on the table and somebody will nab it sooner than later.
What makes you think so? What specific bad things do you have in mind that would happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_ch... suggests that eg climate change's economic impact will be between 0% to 20% loss of GDP. That's a lot, but it's also only about at most a decade of growth.

It's also a lot less than the difference between the US and the UK's GDP per capita. It would hurt Americans to have to live like Brits, but British living conditions are far from an existential threat.
So you mean: "non-AI /aided/ project", i.e. using some algorithmic (or meta-algorithmic) writer to output drafts of the code.

There will be more competition, which means both more accessibility and more bad quality.

On your side, you may have some aid to be more productive - /may/. The projects you are working on can be "redundant" only in terms of "becoming part of a number of other spawning projects doing similar things, owing to new global levels of accessibility, and competing with a lot of noise, owing to new global levels of bad quality outputs".
> Nobody knows how to represent meaning and how to train a neural network on examples of it.

We represent meaning with language models, and GPT has been trained on examples of it (semantic similarity). It learns how to represent meaning through the training process.

The meaning relations are an emergent property of the trained neural network, not explicitly programmed. The meaning relations are automatically learned by the machine. This is the magic of machine learning and neural networks. (I don't mean literal magic. These large language models are simply too large and opaque. You can't easily identify the specific neural activation pattern that encodes meaning of any given concept within a 100 layer deep 175 billion parameter neural network.)

"In essence, the "meaning" referred to in LLMs is not the same as the meaning humans typically ascribe to language, which is derived from direct experiences and real-world knowledge. Instead, it is a form of abstract, statistical understanding that emerges from the relationships between words, their contexts, and the patterns in the data. The model essentially learns a high-dimensional representation of these relationships, which can be thought of as an approximation of meaning within the context of the model's training data."

This might help get you on the right track.

Question:
Do neural networks have emergent properties?

Answer (from GPT-4):
Yes, neural networks can exhibit emergent properties. Emergent properties are characteristics or behaviors that arise from the collective interactions of the individual components in a system, which are not directly attributable to any single component. In the case of neural networks, these individual components are the neurons (or nodes) and their connections (or weights).

As neural networks learn from data through a training process, they adjust the weights between neurons, which can lead to complex patterns of activation across the network. The network's ability to recognize patterns, make predictions, and perform tasks can be seen as an emergent property that arises from the collective behavior of its interconnected neurons.

For example, in the case of language models like GPT-3, the ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant text can be considered an emergent property. This capability is not explicitly programmed into the model but arises from the learned relationships between words and phrases through the training process.

It's important to note that while neural networks can exhibit emergent properties, these properties might not always be easily explainable or interpretable, as they result from the complex interactions within the network.
> KDE was originally an acronym for "K Desktop Environment"

Before that, it was Kool Desktop Environment.

Some German FOSS developer somewhere thought "Kool" was cooler than "Cool", which tells you how cool KDE and its design are. (Hint: they aren't.)

They dropped that very early on for just KDE.

I personally don't like it when commercial companies try to tell me what I may or may not call their products, but when a bunch of volunteers continually get all arsey about their name and bleat and moan about "calling it the right name" when I remember the real name better than they do themselves, frankly, it puts me off using the entire software suite.

I would guess others feel similarly.

If the KDE volunteers want people to adopt and use and favour KDE, then IMHO they should try a new tactic:

Stop whining about what people call it.
> The University of Oslo has a "Center for Research on Extremism" (CRE-X)

> I cited CRE-X as an example only because they were at the top of my Google search results

C-REX, not CRE-X. And I didn’t just mangle their acronym once, I managed to do it twice
I agree with the parent comment. The quality of output images from MJ v5 is vastly better than anything I’ve been able to get out of SD regardless of which tuning model I’ve tried. SD’s underlying model on top of which everything is built just isn’t that good.
Here's one that's fun as well, posted here 3 years ago: https://www.thetruesize.com/
>all kinds of strange combinations of words and letters that would never come out of a language generating model.

My experience with LLaMA has shown me this is definitely not the case.
> How many questions they’re asking on StackOverflow

Apart from already mentioned issues, another reason why this doesn't make sense as a metric is that not all language communities gravitate towards Stack Overflow. Julia, for example, has its own Discourse instance: https://discourse.julialang.org
Let's game this out. Bob and Alice are the first parties.

You trade in cash, in person, probably in a public place. Say that Alice then gets in trouble for the drug dealing they also do (or maybe the government just pings her for not doing KYC and being licensed to do financial transactions), it could be years later. The authorities seize Alice's computers and subpoena "localbitcoins", or the whatsapp/telegram/signal chat that you had to organise the meetup. They might even have a list of addresses that Alice used for transactions at this point. Alice may or may not have had good OpSec, Bob doesn't know.

From that there a myrriad options to identify Bob and Bob's addresses.

In your example you don't use an exchange, but that's not the only method of identifying Bob. Mass survelliance and metadata gathering noticed 100 phones within the location and timeframe Bob and Alice were supposed to meet. Bob had to take a phone to do the actual transfer of bitcoin (or any altcoin), so just leaving it at home wouldn't work. They also know the amount Alice transferred to Bob and the rough timeframe that it was completed and put into the ledger. Bob was also seen drawing out roughly the right amount from the ATM an hour before the meeting. Of the 100 phones, most haven't drawn out that much money recently.

So they can correlate a set of phones with a set of addresses. Even if Bob is not completely unmasked at this point. He has the money in but has to get the money out as well. Bob wanted as you say, to move money across the border. In order to do that Bob must cross the border[0] and meet with Charlie to do the reverse of the transfer. Only a handful of those 100 phones crossed borders shortly after meeting with Alice.

As soon as the money in that address moves again the cross reference with the locations of the tagged phones and discover that they know Charlie because he's done a KYC with an exchange and installed their app (even if he doesn't use that address for the transaction). They ask Charlie some pointed questions about whether he is following KYC procedures in his financial dealing and he caves and gives up the chat logs confirming your meeting, or maybe they just install NSO spyware on his phone and watch to find all the other people Charlie is dealing with.

So...

In a perfectly isolated one off instance maybe that's pseudonymous. In any real world transaction it's extremely unlikely that a state can't use it's resources to unmask the participants. In a one shot, the rules might be one way, but in multi-shot there are always factors that will serve to unmask the participants, and in reality you have to do those transactions over and over until you slip up and just combine them with a KYC exchange account and it doesn't even require that level of effort on the part of the state. OpSec is hard, as they say.

[0]: there is an alternative where only the bitcoin transaction crosses the border in return for something of value, either physical or digital, both have alternative paths that can be tracked in similar ways.
Data driven analysis and exploration of CCP influence operations
Warsaw Convention. The Convention for the Unification of rules [for] air travel
It's a culture thing, I had a similar experience after the company I worked at was bought out by an American company.

In any exchange with the US, any question asked was responded to with, "That's a great question!".

It was probably just filler but definitely came across as incredibly patronising to our ears.
American political discourse has been against the Washington consensus and neoliberalism for quite a while now.

Come to think of it, neoliberalism has been unpopular for quite a while now. It's a miracle the world is broadly still as neoliberal as it is. I guess politicians fear the economic fallout from giving in to populism more than they want the short term vote gains?
To be honest I think we should be adopting the full ecosystem we've been busy building around containerization.

Imagine calling up breakdown assistance because your car won't start, mechanic comes out, cracks the hood and is like "ah there's your problem right there, ignition service has only 1/2 pods healthy because the node went into NotReady due to DiskPressure. I can clear up some log files so it goes underneath 80% disk usage again but sucks teeth it's gonna cost ya. I'd recommend throwing the whole car out and getting a new one. You shouldn't get an attachment to these things, they're cattle not pets."

Truly breathtaking.
I have the same issue with the logout-greeter crashing and stopping me shutting down or suspending. I often have to resort to "sudo shutdown now".
Special Edition will not work, but release Skyrim is a DX9 game, it will work.
> You will see the 1,000 Indian engineers every year (let's say) moving to the US, but not the other 499,000 that doesn't or cannot.

But why can't they? Isn't that mostly a visa issue that wouldn't apply to an American who would study abroad then come back?

> A lot of those people with foreign degrees also entered US to get a higher degree (Masters or Ph.D.)

That does mean that their lower degree was recognized by the US university. Are you saying it would be less recognized by US companies?
Bad exchange rates are the cost of money laundering, along with the eventual jail sentence.
I agree, GNOME is prettier, and also, functionally poorer. KDE is uglier but works better.

But for me, KDE is not very functional and is missing a lot of core features and functions that I want.

MATE is slightly better, and Xfce is better still.
> As several research papers have pointed out, GPT 3 may be just a "stochastic parrot", but GPT 4 has "sparks of AGI".

Conflict of interest. Show it to me or other skeptics and if they say the same then maybe we have something going on.

As for the loop LLM now that is actually interesting. I wonder if it leads to them producing the correct code next time around?

> I can foresee a future LLM like GPT 5 replacing the need for junior developers almost entirely.

I think even with a lot of development in the area that's basically the maximum that will be achieved, IMO.

But who knows. I've been following AI news and even read as back as the original AI winter (when people spent hundreds of billions of dollars basically just because LISP existed).

To me it seems that AI development is a self-limiting phenomena, historically. Why is that the case I haven't figured out -- except maybe that the investors get tired of it and funding stops -- but it seems that people get hyped up about what is theoretically possible and not what we can work with right now.

"Put random stuff in, magic happens" -- this seems to be the current belief system relating to AI, at least looking from the side. And it makes me an even bigger skeptic.

Would love to be wrong, I have to say.
Can we get this for the DnD monster manual too?
If people move out of lower wage countries to where the well-paying jobs are, then it will become harder in those countries to hire people at low wages, driving the wages up.

Of course that shouldn't be the only factor, and it isn't; the EU also invests in its poorer members. Ireland in particular is a massive success story in that regard. It was poor when it joined the EU, and now it's rich. I hope more countries will follow that path, but obviously there are tons of other factors at work as well; government policies, corruption, etc.
> While picking any stack you want may sound wonderful to the individual developer, it's less so for the company as a whole (...)

Nonsense. Each team owns it's services, and they know best what works and doesn't work. It makes no sense to claim organizational inertia as a valid reason to prevent you from picking the best tool for the job.

To add to that, microservices allow you to gradually upgrade services without having to be blocked by the idea of having to go through major rewrites. You just peel off a concern, get it up and running, and direct traffic to it. Done.
2011 was 12 years ago
if(nn4)document.layers[dst].src=url;
if(ie4)frames[buf].document.location=url;
..
if(ie4)document.all[dst].innerHTML=frames[buf].document.body.innerHTML

I prototyped in Netscape Navigator.. had to fix it for IE.
Couldn't it be <a href="part.htm" target="dst"> just from the beginning ? - but what you got is AJAX, JS addictions and no caching.
So we should expect some builds for Steam & Proton?
This problem is not great. It is a classic of the programming puzzle kind, and does not measure metrics which are important for most engineering. For some roles, like working deep in the weeds of a compiler or database optimizer, I think it's not that bad. That kind of programming has a puzzle feel: searches for near optimality in combinatorial (or worse) solution spaces. But it's not very applicable to most engineering.

On the point of committees, though. Hiring committees make a hire/no-hire decision. They don't approve questions, but they do make decisions based on the results of asking a question. So they rely on the signal that the question generates, and if a question is not giving good signal, they will have an opinion.

There's a different reason for wanting to standardize on interview questions. It's very easy to embed cultural bias. If the topic of a programming problem uses the rules of a game, for example, that will probably mean that people who are familiar with the game will understand the gist of the problem much faster than people who've never played the game.
Perhaps there is a sort of selection bias going on, where the people who work at Google have been chosen because they are good at leetcode type problems and think they are important, and so they tend to solve problems by implementing their own tries and similar data structures, rather than by using robust canned implementations.
Mew is right. Jaw position actually fixes sleep apnea. The cause of sleep apnea is the airway collapsing when supine. Fix the cause not the symptom. Either surgery or expanders to allow the lower jaw to be forward.
A UX model that I think is more powerful (but less sexy) is to focus on the "dumb" parts of the question, that is: surfacing url's and fragments from those url's that relate to the question, and then sprinkle some LLM summarising on top. Instead of leading with a meandering LLM explanation of the subject with some references thrown on top. I want to AI to assist instead of lead. The UX of an unravelling conversation should be the sideline of my quest for answers, not the main show. If this was a preferable UX to developers we would design our existing documentation sites very differently.

Unrelated, a search I made: I asked it how state management could be handled in html Web Components. It described how server side state works in Microsoft's Blazor, described React and Redux, and then briefly mentioned hooks and class based components in React. None of which is related to Web Components.
In general I agree with you, but

> You can also store JSON into Postgres, but you should better use MongoDB for NoSQL purposes, right?

It's a common folklore at this point that Postgres is sometimes a better document store than most NoSQL databases (including Mongo), see for example this which is also at the front page of HN today, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35544499
> Yes we can fake more, but there are also more ways to get information so its harder to suppress true info. I think the two cancel each other out.

They don't, unfortunately. The continued influence effect means that information received first will generally take priority.
Skyrim is shader based so rtx remix won't work.
High rise building may be a solution but there are some drawbacks in this idea such as increased cost, construction challenges and it also not suitable in all location also
Looks like your cars Kubernetes certificates have expired after a year, we'll need to SSH in and run kubeadm to refresh them. Wait, the 5G pod isn't starting ...
This poking fun at Mercator is starting to feel like tired meme at this point, especially when in reality alternative projections, like Winkel-Tripel popularized by natgeo, are plenty popular.
It’s incredibly difficult to change established brands. Especially for open source projects which do not have large marketing budjets.

KDE was foolish to try, and the best they can do is just accept that KDE is a deptop envirenment.
Good relationships with people. Compared to engineers, managers have mostly bad relationships between them. And engineers will be under you, so you cant be friends the way you used to be either.
> When questioned, I explain that the dictionary is available as a function to query a string for membership.

Well, that removes most of the fun of it.

I think that’s actually a good example of why this is not a good question. It’s disconnected from any realities.
Ah, so we've arrived at the truth: you don't actually understand the concepts being discussed, so you reject them out of hand to avoid contending with your own lack of knowledge in a social space that highly values deep and wide competencies.

I promise you, if you dedicate yourself to good-faith study, you will discover the essence of what people are talking about when they talk about "systemic" forces at play in the world.

Note that I am referring specifically to systemic forces because this encompasses the sum total of all causal influences on all elements of the system writ large. Systemic oppression is merely one half of a dichotomy, the other half being systemic privilege. Every sub-population within a general population can be evaluated along this 1D quantitative axis of "net-oppressed" vs "net-privileged". Some may be exactly balanced at the origin on this axis, but it would be simply absurd to assert that every sub-population is on average net-zero on that scale -- the probability of that happening is "almost surely zero". Ergo, some groups are more oppressed than others. Further, our constructed systems are not so complex that causation is unknowable. The civilization that humanity has built has relatively direct cause-effect relationships, largely due to its artificiality. So it stands to reason that we can determine that a) some groups are more oppressed than others, and b) the reasons for that net-oppression of a given group can be determined as functions of the components of the system they inhabit. Does this help clarify things?
"Surely you can have the hash function be O(1) by only looking at a subsets of characters something like"

I seem to remember that in the very early days of Java the standard hashing method for strings only looked at a small prefix - turns out that very common use case was to be storing URLs as keys which, of course, mostly start with the same letters...
What does that even mean? And what statistics or other evidence do you have for that view?

To take one perhaps naive interpretation:

For example, encyclopedias used to be sold as a collection of dozens of heavy volumes. Producing them was a lively business.

Nowadays, everyone gets free access to Wikipedia, which has more content than your shelf of Encyclopedia Britannica could ever hold and gets updated all the time.

When you bought Encyclopedia Britannica that showed up in gdp statistics. Wikipedia doesn't.
For comparison: Vienna has a large tram system and their trams are block by other vehicles four to five times a day on average. This number is going down because of changes to street design so car drivers are less likely to park their car wrong. https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000145150263/anzahl-der-fa...
The typical use case is getting around prompt size limits for information retrieval tasks over large corpora. If you want to ask a question of a large corpus, you first use nearest-neighbor search in embedding space to retrieve snippets likely to contain the answer, and then stuff those snippets into the prompt.
Thanks for your response! I do get your point, and that is why a normal "email" sign up option should always be available to new users.

I'm just wondering what would make an app not ALSO include social logins.
Feels like it's a UX / onboarding process thing but I can't pinpoint what
issues + PRs probably is a better metric of language stability/maturity, and github stars is a (obvious?) metric for how many people on github like projects. Nothing in there about popularity. At all.
Perhaps spend some time on a real-world toy problem, the kind where you spend a lot of time dealing with small practical things like error handling?

I have interviewed a lot of people for coding jobs, and I usually try to test ability at doing things like this, and when I find someone junior who already knows how to approach problems like this, I am always very in favor of hiring them. Based on the discussion here I'm definitely not the only one.
You've completely misunderstood my original comment.
The process of meeting new people to establish compatibility is absolutely a numbers game. To expect to meet someone with whom you are compatible enough to spend many many years with just by meeting 3 new people is ridiculous. It's not impossible, but given the number of permutations of personalities it's extremely unlikely.

In order to find a suitable life partner, you need to be exposed to a large number of potential partners. Some people get lucky and hit the jackpot after meeting 5 people, others after 50, others still not after 200.

Also, divorce rate is not at all an indicator of healthy relationships. Religious or cultural taboos massively influence divorce rate, and there is plenty of evidence to show that the result can be people trapped in dreadfully unhappy marriages without any escape.
It depends on what you are counting as 'n'. It's reasonably clear in the discussion that we're talking about operations on individual characters. Calculating the hash of a string of length n is O(n). Look up in the hash table is still O(1), but you need to calculate the hash first, and that's linear in the length of the string (for non-degenerate hash functions).

On these kinds of problems, I like to suggest that we might be thinking about arbitrarily long "words". Get out of the headspace of language dictionaries, look at things more abstractly. Otherwise a lot of big-O analysis becomes degenerate.

Also, don't forget hostile inputs!