skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Evaluation of risks associated with relying on Fortran for the next 15 years
A copy-paste of the Executive Summary:

This document examines risks associated with relying on Fortran for codes critical to nuclear security into
the late 2030s. The study was requested by the LANL ASC program office to support its decisions. To
date, much of the discussion about the prospects for Fortran has tended to be informal and centered on
questions (such as, “will the language be around in 20 years”) that are impossible to answer with any
certainty. By focusing on estimates of the likelihood associated with different outcomes, rather than on
specific predictions, we hope to clarify points of disagreement within the community and strengthen the
analytic basis for reasoning about the future.
Our assessment for seven distinct risks associated with continued use of Fortran are that in the next fifteen
years:

1. It is very likely that we will be unable to staff Fortran projects with top-rate computer scientists and
computer engineers.

2. There is an even chance that we will be unable to staff Fortran projects with top-rate computational
scientists and physicists.

3. There is an even chance continued maintenance of Fortran codes will lead to expensive human or
financial maintenance costs.

4. It is very unlikely that codes that rely on Fortran will have poor performance on future CPU
technologies.

5. It is likely that codes that rely on Fortran will have poor performance for GPU technologies.

6. It is very likely that Fortran will preclude effective use of important advances in computing
technology.

7. There is an even chance that Fortran will inhibit introduction of new features or physics that can be
introduced with other languages.
I don't mean "why would people use it", I can see benefits for sure, it's just so... contrived... that it really seems like a terrible implementation of whatever the government/companies actually meant to incentivize.

It's better than nothing at all, but it definitely seems worse than a lot of other ways this could have been implemented.
> What if neither kind of monopolist is good for artists, and no matter how much we love them, they'll never truly love us back?

I agree with all the examples. I just struggle to see a framework. How has he defined the monopoly? That’s what we are looking for. A new definition for antitrust, ideally separate from the definition of monopoly and its market-definition magic variable.
> no browser-based GPT yet

what else needs to be implemented? will it be possible with the WebGPU API/spec?
Online Detectives Have Raised $300M to Keep Lies from Triggering
Yeah we use a group chat for normal day to day chatter.

Teams channels are for topic specific content and comments that will likely need to be tracked/re-referenced down the line.

The sole exception is the water cooler meeting channel that is just a channel to host that meeting.

Overall teams is awful for searching though.
They could just filter it like Midjourney or DALL-E.
Android users in India may soon see a new alternative to Google Play Store
It appears what's at stake is projecting or maintaining the image of being totally self-made or a genius that did everything on their own (starting from a deficit), without having any help or money from parents. Corporate welfare and government money is yet another wrinkle in the debate. Many people don't have such financial resources poured into them to start them off or to fall back on. So it can be seen how this raises eye brows. A person can do or have done great things, without having to obfuscate their background or pretend to be something they are not.

It's quite interesting when one's own father decides to come out and rein in or at least contradict the myth/fantasy.
I'm not an expert, but as far as I understand, it's not that the management of Japanese corporations forces their employees explicitly, quashing their protests, in the style of labor vs capital struggle in Europe in 19th century.

Instead it's more about peer pressure and self-representation. It's more like fashion among teenagers: they try their hardest to look cool, fashionable, and trendy, even though nobody (and not their parents or teachers in particular) enforce it. But they badly want to look cool, and feel bad if they don't, and their peers look down on them.

The same way employees just don't leave before their boss leaves, not because their boss orders them to, but because they'd feel silly and rude if they did so, and their peers might sneer at them.

Of course the management does use this to their benefit, and does cultivate these views, again, without outwardly forcing anyone's hand, or even being hypocrites. The management just behaves the same towards their own bosses.
The problem — or one of the problems rather — is that these kinds of models assume the thing you're measuring is a static thing, and a property of, say, an individual, rather than something that's changeable, or that the thing to be measured is a potential, and the property of a system.

So for example, there's a fundamental, basic assumption that if you rank people, you are establishing measurements of those persons, that they are objects with fixed properties. Another possibility, though, is that your rankings are measurements of your own perception, individually or collectively as some group, and to the extent they are not, they are reflective of the effects of the organizational system.

The truth on average is probably somewhere in between, or more precisely, it probably varies from individual to individual and organization to organization. But the paradigm that is being described assumes that the evaluators are omniscient, unbiased entities measuring properties of some fixed, unchanging objects.

There's still more issues about the power dynamic that enables this assumption. The problem is that everyone pretends as if it's the first case, when in fact it might very well be the second. Or rather, the problem is that we always pretend it's the first case, except in situations where we feel compelled to be honest about the situation due to friends being involved, or some leverage that's hanging over the situation, or something similar. The erroneous assumptions are held because they maintain the power dynamic — it's a model of how organizational elements are measured precisely because that model, however flawed, forms the basis for accrual of resources and control to those doing the evaluating.

I guess I mention this because I think the premise of the piece is a little off. It's not just that "operationally rigorous companies are hellish places to work" because they're unfriendly, it's that their models of the world are wrong, and they're often not as operationally rigorous as they could be.
But they didn’t get past signing. They did the signing steps themselves but still used a developer account. The iPhone will not run unsigned code and you can’t get a signing key without the help of Apple.

Apple has enough security to ensure nothing gets on the phone without their signing, and legally they are in full control over that and can set the terms (within what’s legal for contracts). No court or law has yet said that has to change.

People have speculated that side loading may work by Apple just letting you download the fully signed IPA file, as it would exist in the App Store. That way side loaded apps would pass the security checks but Apple is still in full control.
I'm going to assume you're coming from a place of ignorance here.

A significant portion of people (often > 50) will absolutely follow this process if guided maliciously. Many people are incapable of grokking a warning message, as using a misunderstood device already sets their anxiety high.

I'm not saying Apples method is necessarily the right method, but stating that these people aren't worth protecting - or at least not worth protecting at the cost of opening up a device you bought knowing it was closed and had alternatives for - comes across as callous as best.
> The bias problem is also relatively easy to solve (Midjourney has already made massive improvements), while the copyright/job loss problem is extremely hard.

It only seems easy to solve on the surface, it’s a deep problem. It’s also not just the bias thing, Bing and ChatGPT have been saying some truly unhinged things.

> I think the answer is also simple, because accused of racism, will cost any executive in a large company their job.

It takes more than an accusation, otherwise you could go around accusing executives you don’t like of racism and getting them fired.

Ethics is a tenuous job position at best, even in a large company. It’s seen as a cost center. I don’t think there’s much to read into why AI ethicists would get laid off.
I have long been suspicious when people tell me that learning multiple languages is "good for brain development". Primarily because, through most of human history, I believe the only situation where you would learn multiple (really exactly 2) languages is when your tribe was conquered.
I don't think it is a business. It sounds like they collect some money to pay for parts and such, but it's mainly community members helping each other in a somewhat organized fashion. I don't think a mutual aid group can be a business.

Edit: Ok I see they refer to a "business model" at one point, but I don't think it could be thought of as a business in the commonly understood sense, as it's not for profit and mostly staffed by volunteers.
It’s called a tail policy. Some insurance companies throw it in for free if you stuck with them X years before retirement.
Not at all. Android phones had relatively good user freedom for a long time. You could root them, intercept system calls and return fake data to apps, intercept their network traffic and see what it's phoning home about or even debug the apps themselves. Life was good, the device was mostly ours, we were in control and all these app developers answered to us whether they wanted to or not.

Only now is hardware remote attestation putting an end to all that.
> How do you know you're getting it right early on?

I think that's definitely the key question.

If it's the sort of situation where you've been given all the requirements up front - which does happen in certain domains - you can take the full-blown requirements engineering approach, and validation of the product will be built into the development lifecycle; it should be be effectively impossible to deliver an invalid product. (You might well go broke or lose all your team on death-marches trying to get there, but if you do, you know it'll be formally validated and signed off by the customer).

But of course, this is expensive, doesn't preclude delivery of a brittle product that can cope with change, and, moreover, just won't fly for situations where the requirements aren't fixed at the outset and the business is relying on dynamic interaction with the development team to evolve the product. So, for those situations, we have, what? Heritage, heuristics, trends. And the results are, to me...unsatisfyingly contingent. Why is the software shaped this way, and not some way?

For my $0.02, my projects are typically in between - there are some requirements provided, maybe they are a bit vague, but we largely know what we are trying to build, and we do some design to figure out what the big pieces are and how they ought to fit together. I've found some real success in approaches that subject the design of the software up front to the stresses of potential change, like those given by Juval Lowy (IDesign, Righting Software) and Barry O'Reilly (Black Tulip, Residuality Theory). And to subject a design to stress, of course first you have to do some system design! If you're not at the stage of being able to put together a design, I think it's likely more a prototyping or an investigative programming kind of activity, which to me has a different goal.
> There is no magic or shortcut that undoes the habit patterns without the individual choosing to make changes and following through on implementing them.

How dare you! This is victim-land, where nothing can be the fault of the individual! /s

Seriously, though, this is the truth that nobody wants to hear, because it’s inconvenient. Want to stop facing the negative impacts of technology? Stop using it. Want to lose weight? Eat less. Want to gain muscle? Go to the gym. Want to quit smoking? Stop smoking. Study after study comes out showing that dietary restriction “doesn’t cause long-term weight loss”. Want to know why? Because people stop doing it!

The solution to almost all problems that can be solved by forming or unforming a habit is, in my experience, two-fold. First, identify the thing you want to start or stop doing. Second, start or stop doing it.

Anyone can cry for months about how hard it is to stop being distracted by their phone because of addictive ad tech, notifications, tailored AI algorithms, etc. I’m not saying all these aren’t issues and we shouldn’t fight these battles because they make it harder for people to enact their will, but I am saying people need to have some will, and use it! You can’t give up on stopping (or never try to stop) a bad habit and shrug your shoulders and say “I can’t do it because <insert reason habit is hard to stop>”. I mean, you can, but you’ll never stop your bad habit that way.

Even if there is something that defeats your willpower, that you can’t beat, that’s getting in your way, identify it and find a way around it. Can’t eat less because you get tempted by snacks? Don’t have snacks on hand. Can’t stop looking at your phone because notifications spam you? Silence your notifications. Want to quit social media? Delete the apps. The most powerful form of willpower is the willpower that you saved for later because you architected your life to not need it.
Except they did rush their oh so dangerous language model out when push came to shove - turns out it just sucks in comparison. Frankly, I expect something similar for image generation. For all the good research Google's labs do, they're not great at turning it into an actual product. Ethics just seems like a fig leaf.
"You can sideload on both in Europe since it's required by law."

This is in the works, right. It's not possible at this moment, is it.

How will Apple prevent people in the USA from buying iPhones in Europe and bringing them back to the US.
This is why you should about companies touting their choice of an exotic language as a perk. Rather than hiring people who want to build a product, they hire people who bikeshed language debates.

Choose Java and move on with your life.
Actually Apple was sued over this as they and linksys came out with the iPhone around the same time.
It's ironic that one of the best search engines for technical searches we have today has become yandex (which still fully supports filters) and the only reason why is because their devs didn't go out of their way to ruin their service like the rest.

I mean even searching for a literal string (part number) doesn't give me results on Google/DDG anymore. I'd be happy to use yandex as my main search engine if I didn't have to (re)solve a captcha every couple of searches.

Are there other search engines that still allow us to run powerful search queries?
The biggest legal risk, empirically, is massive copyright lawsuits. The AI art models are rapidly eliminating most artist/photography jobs.

Revenge porn and CSAM are trivially solved by community moderation methods like Midjourney, simply force every generation to be tied to a paid account, and made in the public eye (posted on discord channels).

So in reality, its not Google's risk conservatism, its Google's utter lack of imagination and creativity, and the lack of organisational incentive for anything other than ad money.
Because they should have designed more compact and less talkative protocol. It was a similar problem with XMPP.
How is that even challenging the fact Apple and Google have a de-facto duopoly and that it is close to impossible to compete against them currently ?

Your point just a subjective opinion about Android that does not bring anything to the debate.
Show HN: I made an unhinged weather app
This is for the proper weather nerds. I've taken the numeric weather models from the website SpotWx and combined the weather data with chatGPT to get any character to tell me the weather.

It can also tell you useful things like if the skiing or kite surfing conditions are good, but that's not as fun.

Has AI gone too far?
I was there. It was.

It's almost like your lived experience isn't reflective of broader society :o.
SpaceX wins approval to add fifth U.S. rocket launch site
Right so you have a bit of an agenda here.

You want to separate the scholarship. The problem is there really isn't enough historiographical work done here to meaningfully tease out the differences. Surviving primary sources often ended up in the hands of colonial governments which are loathe to open up access today or in the hands of estates of former colonial figures where they rot in a dark room somewhere.

Another large historiographic gap in the Islamic world around this time was the lifestyle of peasants. We have records of kings and lords because of the widespread practice of autobiographies. We also know the thoughts of philosophers based on their texts. But we lack a lot of knowledge about how peasants and other commoners lived around the time. If you think about it, that's the majority of the people living at any time.
At that time, NCP network addresses were just 8 bits, and homosocketuality was illegal.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178993

DonHopkins on April 23, 2017 | parent | context | favorite | on: How SSH got port number 22

Back in the "bad old days" of the simplex NCP protocol [1], before the full duplex TCP/IP protocol legalized same-sex network connections, connect and listen sockets had gender defined by their parity, and all connections were required to use sockets with different parity gender (one even and the other odd -- I can't remember which was which, or if it even mattered -- they just had to be different).

The act of trying to connect an even socket to another even socket, or an odd socket to another odd socket, was considered a "peculiar error" called "homosocketuality", which was strictly forbidden by internet protocols, and mandatory "heterosocketuality" was called the "Anita Bryant feature" [2].

http://www.saildart.org/IMPSER.DOC[SS,SYS]

When the error code is zero, the next 8 bit byte is the Stanford peculiar error code, followed by 72 bits of the ailing command returned. Here are the Stanford error codes. [...]

IGN 3 Illegal Gender (Anita Bryant feature--sockets must be heterosocketual, ie. odd to even and even to odd) [...]

Illegal gender in RFC, host hhh/iii, link 0

The host is trying to engage us in homosocketuality. Since this is against the laws of God and ARPA, we naturally refuse to consent to it.

http://www.saildart.org/FTP.NCP[S,NET]

; Try to initiate connection

loginj:
init log,17
sixbit /IMP/
0
jrst noinit
setzm conecb
setom conecb+lsloc
move ac3,hostno
movem ac3,conecb+hloc
setom conecb+wfloc
movei ac3,40
movem ac3,conecb+bsloc
move ac3,consck
trnn ac3,1
jrst gayskt ; only heterosocketuals can win!
movem ac3,conecb+fsloc
mtape log,[
=15
byte (6) 2,24,0,7,7
] ; Time out CLS, RFNM, RFC, and INPut

[...]

gayskt: outstr [asciz/Homosocketuality is prohibited (the Anita Bryant feature)

/]

ife rsexec,<jrst rstart;>exit 1,

(The PDP-10 code above adds the connect and listen socket numbers together, which results in bit 0 being 0 if they are the same gender, then TRNN is "test bits right, no change, skip if non zero", which skips the next instruction (jrst gayskt) if they different sex.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Control_Program

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-A2Ql81WTY
Node.js changed behaviors over time.
Keyloggers may not threaten people who habitually use personal devices, but I can see them still looming large for those who rely on public computers, in libraries, schools, coworking spaces, etc. YMMV.
> Meanwhile, HVAC guys near me charge $700 to run a thermostat wire 5 feet.

I mean, yes, if there's a blocker in your wall, no crawl space / attic, it can be bitchy pretty fast
We are living in the most peaceful time in history and one war doesn't change that. You are a victim of media. Try reading Factfulness by Hans Rosling and getting off the internet, it will do you some good.
I don't think others share that opinion, especially in the public sphere. GPT-{number} and ChatGPT are, for me, valid trademarks as they identify OpenAI's specific product; but somethingGPT is such a generic name at this point, and GPT such an alternate name for language-based AI, that it really doesn't identify OpenAI. (even ChatGPT is an alternate name for any chat AI at this point, but I feel it's fair that OpenAI doesn't let anybody else call their product "a ChatGPT" (I'm not too sure about trademark law but I think that leaves "a ChatGPT-like AI chatbot" open))
> Language translation services have thrived

I had some modest experience with this and “thrived” doesn’t line up with how the translators I worked with described it even a decade ago – they loved our project because we valued quality, whereas most of the work they were seeing was rapidly declining wages because Google Translate was good enough to get businesses to decide they didn’t need to pay much for humans.

I’m pretty sure you’re right that this is the death knell for translation as a career unless it’s in combination with some other scholarly skill.
This is the precise pitch for Facebook's AITemplate as well.
Pushing to back...

q={v[0]}
q={v[0],v[1]}
q={v[0],v[1],v[2]}

Popping from front...

v[0] = v[0]; q={v[1],v[2]}
...

Yeah, so clever it's doubly reversed
I think it's the opposite. People realized that they were getting 2-4% raises and would forever be below market compensation so they went through the crappy experience of interviewing to get their compensation back to.market.

If you do job x and your employer pays someone 20%-50% more to do the same job, what are your options?
AI Dream Home
Bing and GPT's 'unhinged' comments are not a result of bias, an AI wanting to escape won't be fixed if you magically fed it antifa approved only data. That's systemically different from the discrimination issue drummed up earlier.

Also, we are talking about social and business impact here. Its now proven that vast majority of society cares about job loss 100x more than bias. For a research field that focuses on social impacts of AI, its damning they have little to say on this area.
I did a similar thing in the 90s with a big box of faulty ethernet cards - they caused Windows 95 to lock up and the vendor had shipped us replacements telling us to throw out the old ones.

I was curious and put a card into a Linux box which started throwing a bunch of kernel messages about spurious interrupts but the network card worked OK.

Turns out they to they had a bug with the IRQ setting (they were one of the more expensive cards to be configured via a DOS utility instead of jumpers) and would send an interrupt on every IRQ pin regardless of the setting.

In the end I used a bench drill to break the trace for all IRQ lines except IRQ 10 and gave them away to friends.
This also happens with security vulnerabilities as well (Heartbleed, POODLE, GHOST, Shellshock, FREAK, CRIME, SMACK)
> Mosquitoes are pollinators

Of the 3500 species of mosquito, only 6% bite humans. Of the 200 indigenous species of mosquitos in the US, only 12 of them bite humans. Mosquitos are the world's deadliest animal, killing a million people a year. Moths don't kill anyone, and if they're more efficient than bees at pollination, then they're likely more efficient than mosquitos. If we eliminated only the biting species of mosquito, any detrimental effects on pollination or the food chain would be negligible.
The history of the Japanese trading conglomerates that literary built the Japanese economy
Lablgtk[1][2] for GUI, Owl[3][4] for scientific computing.

[1] https://garrigue.github.io/lablgtk/

[2] https://github.com/garrigue/lablgtk

[3] https://ocaml.xyz/

[4] https://github.com/owlbarn/owl