skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're describing magic and contradicting yourself. Tri-state means everything is off, so one transistor can't also be on at the same time. Damping dissipates heat, so damping by controlling the output transistor requires a bigger output transistor.

Down below the digital level, you can't isolate decisions from each other and nothing is free.
Some of it is very impressive although some of it seems about equal to the TTS built into my phone. How long until someone can package this up and make a program that takes in epubs and spits out mp3s?
> You're making the meritocracy argument and it is disingenuous.

You’d need to prove intent for that claim. Merit based seems fair to me.
Considering his vast wealth of knowledge and expertise in the field he might as well be called an engineer. In fact probably more so than many real engineers.
Once they realized what had happened, couldn't they started over from scratch?
ChatGPT Wouldn’t even exist without Google e.g. Transformers, Deep RL.
What does this mean for JAX (light-weight ML library from Google Brain) vs Tensorflow (from Deepmind)?
Discussion (100+ comments) continues at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35635900
I don't need to know the internal - it's pretty obvious. When you are test launching a rocket, MaxQ is the moment to test (aside from ignition, which you can test with static fire, so not really "test launching a rocket"). So SpaceX wants to test the booster launch; they have tested everything else on the ground that they realistically can at this point. That means ignition, get off the pad, MaxQ. Everything after that point is gravy.

Of course there are plenty of systems after maxq they want to test, but not to sound like a software project manager, but "is the juice worth the squeeze?" Everything past maxq may not happen if the rocket goes RUD before or at that point, so how many points do you really want to be putting into stage separation, boostback, reentry, when those engineers could be triple checking Stage 0, fueling, start sequence, and liftoff?

Was it supposed to tumble and explode? Of course not. How many weeks of delay of booster launch is "don't tumble during stage separation" worth? SpaceX says on the order of zero, save it for the next unit in the heckin rocket assembly line (that is wild to say out loud but that's what it is).
> you switch from 0.0001 to 0.001 failure rates. You risk is now 10-fold higher at each failure point, but with thousands of failure points adding up you are now essentially doomed

Our ex ante ability to estimate these probabilities is lacking. Especially when they’re coupled. And redundancy, instead of tighter tolerances, is often cheaper than the classic approach. These are proven lessons from SpaceX.
Both houses in the same planet maybe?

Everything is connected perhaps?

Clouds don't turn away at the frontier.
This isn't really credible. The Daily Mail also quotes Musk:

> Musk has said the entire program will cost anywhere from $3 billion to $10 billion.

These can't both be true.
Is it bad that I can't tell which one was focused on products? It seems like neither of them was.
> There will always be an aspect of our culture that ai cannot take away

Sure, but who cares? All it needs to do is take away the good bit.

Also, the example of radio is telling. Radio destroyed musicianship as a career. Before the gods of rock and roll, there were tavern fiddlers, and now we don't even need the gods anymore. A classic example of ever-greater concentration of capital.
that's still sysadmin
this is both cool and exactly why i don’t want to use emacs.
> N1 was a technical blunder on many levels

Why? It had pretty advanced engines, conservative fuel choices, architecture optimized for low requirements at manufacturing. And it was originally planned for Mars missions, not LEO missions.

> Korolyov opted to a novel design which was too wide (17m!!)

Why too wide? Technical decisions were made with all degrees of justifications available at the time. That it's wider than anything else till today, including Starship, doesn't make it "too wide".

> Combine this with other technical mistakes (the shape led to the extra weight while the modularity wasn't required, too much drag, etc)

Extra weight in weight-carrying construction is compensated, at least to a degree, by lesser weight of spherical tanks. Modularity was present so even N-11 was considered - two upper stages of N-1. Too much drag - comparing to what?

N-1 was quite state of the art technically when it was created. I don't see how calling it a technical blunder can be justified.
Definitely. Thanks for the feedback!
ok. I'll bite.

Sh looks like shut up.
X looks like a porno venture.
Gnome is not politically correct.
Red Hat is communism.
Daemons are satan's children.

Where do we stop ? /s
I don't see why it's so difficult to believe. As noted on Mullvad's "Swedish legislation" page that you linked to, search of premises in a case like this is only allowed if there is a reasonable expectation of finding items subject to seizure (or other evidence of the offense in question). For what it's worth, the law itself is very readable, if you know Swedish [1].

Given that Mullvad are highly public about what data they store and why, Mullvad would arguably be able to make a strong case that there could be no such reasonable expectation. So the police had to weigh the potential gain of doing the search anyway against the risk of opening themselves up to lawsuits by doing so.

I would not have been surprised if they had decided to do it anyway, but I'm not really surprised at this outcome either.

1: https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K28P1S2
WTH1!!!
> we need professors who avoid politics entirely but strongly encourage their students to vote, then educate them such that we repeal the bullshit drug laws Nixon passed back during Vietnam as a way to coerce those who wouldn't fight in that travesty.

I don't understand, because encouraging students to vote and educating them to be anti-strict drug law are both political positions.
Correct gut feelings are just your subconscious running the numbers without bothering you about it. A human having a (correct) gut feeling that the numbers are wrong just means that the human has not chosen the correct numbers to look at, or possibly that a human has made an error in telling the computer how to calculate the numbers.

Yes, computers are really good at making calculations, but we have to tell them which calculations to make, so there's still (will always be?) a weak link in the chain.
Lithuania: Students stop university from using only proprietary authentication
If you write a spec you've got to have some process to verify your stuff meets that spec. Otherwise you just wrote a fucking dream journal.
ai.com's domain registration doesn't seem to be owned by OpenAI. And, ironically, ai.com's registrar (not registrant) is Google LLC.

https://whois.domaintools.com/openai.com

https://whois.domaintools.com/ai.com
Will we ever live in a world where people once again use first-person pronouns?
> It's tough for me to compare Google DeepMind to OpenAI GPT4.

Is it tough because one of these is a newly merged and rebranded team and the other is a machine learning model?
> Until that tree that was just planted dies and decays back into co2.

Unless you build a house with the wood. Wood is a great building material. Unlike concrete, which releases CO2 in its production, wood construction reduces CO2.

Besides, you'll never ever create enough biomass to fuel the economy, and you'll wreck the environment trying.
Something interesting I learned in my own personal medical journal is that the most popular treatment for cataplexy is sodium oxybate which is very closely related to GHB (aka Rohypnol). It's well-studied, proven effective and widely prescribed. There's even fights over patents. My point being, that this runs counter to any narrative the illicit street drugs are anathema to traditional research. Doctors and biologists do treat all chemicals as chemicals and will develop treatments based on evidence. The evidence behind MDMA (and hallucinogens and ketamine) is compelling, but historically hasn't been worth elevating above other treatments. In the case of cataplexy, there isn't really any other viable treatment so oxybate immediately became the first choice.
I searched the phrase on youtube. It's mostly stuff about this launch. You'll need to be more specific.
>you can learn a manual labor trade quickly

As with software you can get competent quickly, but quality comes with time and effort.
This is a huge accomplishment as Nikon and Canon were locked-in and formidable competitors.

I bought my Sony after I’d lost my Canon camera (and lens) so I had no more connection to Cannon and looking at reviews of full frame mirrorless cameras I saw nothing but people complaining about the autofocus on Canon and Nikon full-frames until you got to the top of the line bodies that a wedding photographer could afford. Sony has decent autofocus at the entry level so that’s what I got.
Yes, I think it's virtually impossible for someone with no party affiliation at all to win. Running a national campaign would pretty much require some party organization even if it's a third party. That being said, if they were an independent then I guess they are effectively a party of one and can just pick their own judges?

Similar to with the voters, I don't really care what party a judge says (or doesn't say) they are a member of. My concern is who appoints them. So I would consider a situation where a disproportionate number of judges have been appointed by one party to be skewed.
> As a regulatory body, they may be largely captured by industry at this point.

You're not wrong. But if Boeing were to exert its influence on the FAA, it would exert pressure to delay or prevent the flight, not to permit the flight. The fact that the FAA permit the flight flies in the face of the idea of regulatory capture.

And to be clear, Boeing and Lockheed are in positions to influence the FAA, but not SpaceX. SpaceX has not been around long enough for the revolving door to make a full swing.
I've been using USAA bank for more than 20 years, it has worked great for me.
I naively used to think that BuzzFeed could be a new business model for investigative journalism, with revenue from the native advertising in its other arms going towards Pulitzer Prize-level work. What a shame.
That is very cheap. The room build is another large cost, but labour is a large part of that cost where I am.

The image quality is going to be unlike what you get from a higher spec machine, but does that matter most the time?

A crappy picture can be diagnostic.

Do you know the model or make of what they are using? I’d be interested to see what they are like.

I struggle with the idea that 10 MRs a day would support a business anywhere, so seeing numbers is really interesting.
Laid off around 6 months ago. Small SaaS company, funded by established private equity firm. During Covid they doubled headcount, didn’t see the platform adoption they expected, and a little later halved the company by laying all the newer people off.

> How did you feel then vs now? Are you doing alright?

At the time, I wasn’t worried. I was a little relieved in fact. I didn’t care for the job all that much it just paid well enough. I wasn’t aware of how the job market was going to be. Since then it’s not been great. It would cost a ton of money and effort to move right now, and of the 4 interviews of done, only one position has been remote.

> Are you looking for/have you found work? How do pay/benefits (remote, etc.) compare?

Yes, but not nearly like I should. I’m burnt out on the job search. The leads I get fizzle out. As I mentioned, I’ve had about 4 interviews, only one of them was a job I would actually want, and only one of them made it to the next round (ironically it was the most antagonistic interview I’ve had recently). Recruiter reach out is really low, maybe around 5 per month and job applications are just a void, assuming LinkedIn doesn’t just show me the same “Promoted” jobs it did 6 months ago that already rejected me. As far as pay, it seems remote roles are paying a less than a couple years ago.

> How have your feelings about the industry changed?

Sort of, I never wanted to really be in this industry, but the intertidal required to do anything else non totally miserable was too high. I was planning on leaving eventually once I put enough money together to survive for a while, but I’m spending all that on bills and a seriously of events that happened right after the layoff. I did admittedly commit the industry mortal sin of letting myself stagnate (in terms of keeping up with trends, hype, and framework/language/whatever of the week) over the years. I still learn a lot, it’s just mostly “useless” stuff.

Honestly, I expected I was either going to burn out or get sized out of the industry eventually, and had started to work on plans for that, but I thought I had a few more years at least.
A state machine is a technique. It is not language-dependent.

There might be libraries to encapsulate the mechanics of state machines -- I don't know, though, because I find the mechanics of creating them easy enough that I never felt the need to seek out a library to support them.

I'd recommend reading up about them on the web. Here's a reasonable start: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/state-machines-basics-of-c...

In their purest form, though, state machines are very simple. You have a conceptual "state" represented by a variable, then what amounts to a series of if-then statements (or a switch statement like in C/C++). The state machine consists of a loop, each iteration checking the current state (1, 2, 3, etc.) and performing the actions associated with that state. Then the state is changed as appropriate and the loop continues.

So you have something like "If the state is "Starting", then do initialization things and change the state variable to "Running". If the state is "Running", do some business logic. If it's time to quit, change the state to "Stopping". If the state is "Stopping", free up resources and stop execution."
Well another way to look at it is human society and its laws should tend to the needs of its citizens and the job loss implications of this and other AI tech should concern the state which likely doesn’t want a bunch of idle people dependent on the their coin purse. Some protection of human workers seems warranted. I don’t think think copyright or public rights even need to come into play.

Arbitrary or not, this technology serves companies more so than workers. It’s not clear the benefits outweigh the cost to society. The cool factor is not a compelling enough argument to allow it unrestricted. Everyone needs work, that’s a basic fact of life. We should be mindful knowing one day we will be targets of replacement.

As consumers, we should avoid supporting, where possible, commercial uses of AI voices and as citizens, support new laws that curtail their commercial use. Not sure what else can be done as people will use this stuff commercially if able and people will consume it because it exists.

It would be nice if people who lost their voice could get it back. Although he would be less iconic, speech synthesis like this could have given Stephen Hawking his voice back. That harms no one so I can see exceptions for such cases.
Thank you for the feedback. I wanted to focus on online banks in the beginning, but I will add more "traditional" banks too
The front brakes do most of the work. It is not the case, as you assume, that both front and rear contribute equally to braking. If you didn't use the front brakes, or even if you tried to have them apply the same force, the rear wheels would absolutely skid.

If you want an extreme visual example, check out stunt cyclists who brake so hard the rear wheel comes off the ground. Pretty easy to see that the rear wheel isn't contributing to braking when it's in the air.
If the kickstarter got funded but didn't make any of the stretch goals, people may have hoped for more, but it's still a success.
There is no answer to this.

If you hang the entire R&D plus materials cost for Starship on this one launch, it's a huge amount.

If you consider this as R&D that will be amortized over decades of launches, not that much.

It's the same math that gets you the military buying $5000 hammers: it all depends how you allocate fixed costs across units.
This article doesn’t make sense because Inmarsat-41 is not a GPS satellite, so the farm equipment must have been relying on it for something other than “their GPS signal”. It would be nice to know what that something was, so that similar single points of failure can be avoided in the future.
I don't remember having any problems with debugging programs with cuts. But it should be said that I restrict myself to green cuts [1]. There are usual ways to avoid those, but not without making the code more complicated than it needs to be.

Debugging soft cuts is more of a problem. That's because soft cuts don't appear in the tracer and it's difficult to follow program flow when it doesn't directly correspond with the source code as-written. Or at least that's the way the tracer behaves in SWI-Prolog which I use almost exclusively these days (plus Visual Prolog, but let's not talk about that). There may be a setting to configure it. I generally don't use soft cuts, I find them a bit clutter-y anyway.

There's a run-length encoding program in the "99 Prolog problems" and it also doesn't use cuts:

https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~meidanis/courses/mc336/2009s2/pro...

_______________

[1] A "green cut" is one that does not change the program's Least Herbrand Model (LHM). Or, in plain English, a green cut does not change the set of queries to the program, that succeed. A "red cut" is one that does change the program's LHM. A green cut only stops unproductive backtracking, or backtracking that diverts a proof down infinite branches. A red cut is one that cuts finite success branches. You should never use red cuts, and you should never run on a barge :P
But not always! There are those among us who like nothing better than to double down in a flame war. One nice thing about having visited often over the past 7 years is that I know whom to avoid responding to (for the most part).
Jeff Dean is clearly one of the greatest software developers/engineers ever but there isn’t much evidence that he is a brilliant ML researcher

And indeed Google AI has achieved very little product wise during his time as CEO. Kind of suggests he is a big part of bureaucratic challenges they have faced
They're more likely to choose their successors based on merit than familial ties for a start. That's really enough, but they may also have less need to enrich themselves as they don't need to plan for inheritance.
If you've worked at a large organization, you'll know the news can paint a cartoonishly distorted picture largely informed by the perspective of the anonymous sources, journalist and news organization.
Wow! Thank you
But if this were a college homework assignment you would be expected to explain briefly why n divides m, the comment did skip over it which can confuse people.
This is disingenuous when you consider that it's not really over the top, and less subjectively, mods have other tools available to them, like renaming submission titles.
sorry if i'm out of the loop, but i've heard what you describe as GNU/Linux, not Emacs/Linux. did emacs change to be the branding label of things like the compiler, the ----

just saw that you're probably making a joke, as i just found this :) https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.en.html
There's an interesting history behind the RCA CED (Capacitance Electronic Disk), an attempt to put video on vinyl. While the full history behind it's failure is complicated, a large factor was the differing priorities between research and other departments that delayed the product by several years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance_Electronic_Disc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnpX8d8zRIA

Considering some of the other comments about merging two AI departments together (DeepMind and Brain) and injecting more bureaucracy into DeepMind, it seems to have some parallels with the story of the RCA CED. You can't just let researchers do research. There needs to be a clear goal/priority that this research can eventually be converted into a profitable product or service. Otherwise, the researchers will continue to work on "cool projects" and publishing papers with their name on them, with little consideration given to how to monetize this research.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this AI gold rush trying to inject AI into everything. It's just interesting to ponder.
> there are some rounding errors yet to be eliminated

I can live with rounding errors. What it said about me was not rounding error - it was all lies that would sound correct to someone that didn't know better (which is the only reason to ask). We're screwed if ChatGPT starts getting used for background checks.
Not to be snarky but do you realize that what you have stated is the definition of working against each other? Research teams are about getting to the paper and a deeper understanding, product teams are about getting something out the door that helps you capture value whether you understand it or not. Engineering research teams are notorious for being both ungovernable and spending so much time "understanding" their ideas that they miss the market window. The canonical book on the subject for me was "Fumbling the Future" which talked about Xerox PARC, I worked in Sun Labs ("where good ideas go to die"), hired people out of Microsoft's BARC (Bay Area Research Center), and worked in IBM's Watson group which pulled a bunch of people out of research to "make a product out of AI".

It is a really hard problem to "commercialize" imagination or innovation. Two very different mindsets between "doing product" and "doing research." DOW Chemical did a pretty good job of it, but they have always been more "components of the solution" rather than the full solution.
This sounds like poor, unsubstantiated gossip and drama from TMZ. Sounds like you have an axe to grind.
The problem is nobody wants to make a hundred purchasing decisions per day. Which is why micropayments aren't a thing despite us having had the infrastructure for decades. There's no reason PayPal can't support sub-dollar transactions now, or ever before.

Nick Szabo and I disagree on probably everything else in this world, but we agree on micropayments. Nick's paper is worth a read and does a great job of explaining the issues [1].

tl;dr: around micropayments is that in reality users/customers don't actually want them. They run afoul of our fundamental human behavioral costing model.

The reason ad-supported is so prevalent isn't because it's being forced on us by a shady cabal or anything, it's just the least-worst option we've compromised on.

[1] https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/micropayments-and-...
Show HN: Codeium Chat: Free IDE-Integrated ChatGPT
Hi HN, I'm Varun, CEO at Codeium. A few months ago, we launched our flagship AI-powered autocomplete capability to a decent response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33885676

Today, we are excited to launch our next major capability for accelerating software development with AI - Codeium Chat!

Codeium Chat gives you both the familiar open-ended chat experience from ChatGPT as well as sleek one-click suggestions to integrate seamlessly with your existing workflows. No need to switch to browsers or copy-paste common prompts. Use it to generate, refactor, explain, and translate code (let us know what else you can use it for!)

Codeium Chat is available today in VSCode, with more IDEs coming soon. This is just the next step in our mission at Codeium to build a one-stop AI-powered code acceleration toolkit that integrates naturally with your existing workflows, and would love to get your feedback.
File under: A. Lincoln, team of rivals