skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
But the judgement is not relevant to a context of "«handwaving»" (BTW: nice concept). If you look at the "handwaving" it becomes a strawman to lose the focus on the objective.

If an engine outputs things like

"Charles III is the current King of Britain. He was born in January 26, 1763"

, it seems to be conflating different notions without having used the necessary logic required for vetting the statement: the witness has reasons to say "this seems like stochastic parroting" - two memories are joined through an accidental link that slightly increases Bayesian values. That appears without need of handwaving. And a well developed human intellect will instead go "Centuries old?! Mh.", which makes putting engine and human in the same pot a futile claim - "handwaving".

Similarly for nice cases to be kept for historic divulgation, such as "You will not fool me: ten kilos of iron and half a kilo of feathers weigh the same".

When on the other hand the engine «solv[es] complicated tasks», what we want is to understand why. And we do that because, on the engineering side, we want reliable; and on the side of science, we want an increase of understanding, then knowledge, then again possible application.

We want to understand what happens in success cases especially because we see failures (evident parroting counts as failure). And it is engineering, so we want reliable - not just the Key Performance Indicator, but the /Critical/ KPI ("pass|fail") is reliability.

So the problem is not that sometimes they do not act like "stochastic parrots" (this is a "problem" in a different sense, theoretical), but that they even only sometimes do act like "stochastic parrots". You do not want an FPU that steers astray.

Normal practice should be to structure automated tests and see what works, what does not, and assess why.
You don't have to use Google for Google to have ~half of your emails.
https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be...

Google have been so far good stewards of your data so nothing to worry about.
The degree of precision that can be achieved using this data over a longer period of time is uncanny.
>I would be annoyed as hell if someone kept asking to be interviewed but never accepted the position. Interviews aren't free, don't waste peoples time doing them if you aren't serious/need to practice. Pay for an interview coach.

Not my problem, sorry. The system is already rigged against interviewees.
Friend told me about Bitcoin in 2009 and I dismissed it as stupid. Tried to get into it in 2012, even mined it for a bit but ultimately stopped and used what I've mined to buy a bunch of useless stuff like Namecoin domains. Dismissed it again when it hit 800$ thinking it can never be be higher. Wrong again.

Basically I tried to hop onto the train several times and each time it felt like I shouldn't (so I didn't), yet at the same time these were the perfect opportunities to do so. If at any point in my life I'd decide to take it more seriously I might have been able to significantly increase my wealth. I wonder if the next best moment to do so is now.
I’m pretty sure that is EEE
But that's already true right now, irrepective of this coming change, isn't it.

To lure US customers, app developers could offer lower prices to users who sideload, to offset the higher price paid for iPhones in the EU. App developers selling to EU iPhone owners will be able to avoid the 30% Apple tax and can pass on the savings to customers. Developers could offer more features to users who sideload. There are a variety of possible incentives developers could offer to lure users away from Apple App Store. That is assuming developers see the long term benefit of getting people to stop using the App Store and avoiding the Apple tax.
Pull requests enforce coding conventions. The simple fact that someone is going to look at the code you're contributing is enough of an impetus to write better code. Prevents us from self rationalizing lazy decisions and the like. IMO that is really the idea, to mimic that extra level of care that is taken like when submitting to an open source project.
To support your theory, I am an extreme introvert managing a fully distributed team. Yet I choose to regularly come to the office for a bit of in-person interaction (mainly social since my direct co-workers aren't based here).

I should mention that I live within a ten-minute walk to the office. For example, I can easily walk there for lunch and then walk back home.
If the commute was much longer, that would significantly change the calculus. A pleasant half-hour train ride? Maybe, but not very frequently. An hour drive? No way I'd go unless I absolutely have to.
The flawed thinking, I can sum up as a worldview, something like this.

"Unlike all other businesses in the world, we have solved the people management and measurement problem with our perfect system that organizes and scores your work, and the system is a mantra, to be repeated by all employees, and they must follow it, and we won't listen to anything to the contrary even from people highly experienced in their field"
I don't know what this all means. You'll have to explain your point about fabrication as it relates to state in llms in more detail.

But as a matter of technical implementation I can tell you: there is no state. You can't simply say "we don't know if theres state" and be done with it. You individually might be unsure. Check the paper "attention is all you need", which introduced transformers, if you'd like to see for yourself [1].

The state is all in the text, that is why I said it's important that llms can't even distinguish between text you wrote and it wrote- how can you talk about an internal state of the llm if I can create that state by my input of text? That's just input at that point, not state irrespective of input. The same would go for your inserted visual sense, I suppose.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762
"Late last year, while CEA was still conducting its inspections, it informed Amazon of one critical and 259 major findings across Amazon's rooftop solar portfolio. Problems included mismatched module-to-module connectors, improper installation of connectors, poor wire management and evidence of water intrusion in the inverters, internal documents said. "

That's not a solar problem, that's an installer problem. Clearly you need to have well-qualified people doing and regularly inspecting the installing, just as you would with any type of large-scale infrastructure. Bridges also collapse when they're not inspected, airplanes fall out of the sky.
It doesn't matter what C APIs the allocator you're using provides, if it (or you) want to override global new and delete operators, you need to override all of them need to use that. The system implementation can't just assume that the overriding implementation happens to override and/or be compatible with C's implementation.

Libcxx (the example here) uses posix_memalign for its aligned allocation - which tcmalloc could _also_ have overridden but doesn't. Again the problem is only some of the allocation routines being overridden.
Short answer: no.

long answer: while solar is actually the best indoor energy harvesting solution its still in nA land. This uses 56µA for the DCDC alone. that means you would need at least 1mA for maybe an hour to just keep that going without any screen updates or communications.

A windowsill setup might work but thats hardly "indoor" to me.

This lasts 1 year on 2 AA rechargeables - just swap the batteries.
> It's hilarious (in a way) seeing USians comment on this post. The rest of the world has had contactless payment for at least a decade.

The iPhone 6S with Apple Pay came out in 2015.

> The lack of being able to get the "real" CPAN is why some US merchants still refuse Apple/Google/Samsung Pay, specifically because they lose the ability to track customers.

I don’t think I’ve been to many merchants that don’t take Apple Pay. One of the annoying ones is AMC movie theaters.
Was spam ever that much of a problem on Twitter? Stupid humans were always a much bigger detriment in my experience and this move disproportionately boosts stupid humans.
If the value the bot operator gets from the account is less than the cost of buying Twitter Blue, then they'll make a loss.
The UK has a limit of £100 for contactless cards, with a requirement to insert and enter your PIN after a few successive taps. Apple Pay and Google pay technically don’t have the PIN requirement as they’re authenticated and technically don’t have a limit, but in practice most shops still have a £100 limit.
I put on a waterproof coat and asked them to control me as a robot filling a jug with water at a tap and pouring out glasses

It was hilariously damp. Then I talked about being more precise in the instructions to move and check and move, or specifying keeping moving UNTIL or UNLESS or WHILE.. or move FOR a number of units.. then had them do similar things with each other like move play do balls around.

You could do maze solving? Or paperts logo robot with a pen and up down and turn instructions. No robot needed! Be the robot you need to be.. or make on with an rpi and kit

With adults I've done construction problems with skewers and potatoes. The point being to teach abstract problem solving and descriptive language skills, which inform reasoning to a heuristic or algorithmic approach to a problem.

Or be the computer behind a slot and accept instructions as ordered decks of cards to do things like move and act.

Half program, half watch and wet themselves laughing as you muck up.

Binary is latent in a lot of play. Kids in lines, hands up or down. Decimating by some binary decision logic.

Towers of Hanoi.

Or.. wait until their 14.
In a sense it’s legitimizing bots as long as they pay
> For a mere 80000 USD I could have a verified bot army with 10000 accounts drowning out a lot of legitimate conversations

That’s a different problem. The parent is referring to the cheap high-volume spam/scams that have proliferated every corner of the free internet. These only work because they’re extremely cheap. There’s a reason your email inbox receives 10,000x more spam than your physical mailbox.
Moving away from algorithmic curation
Because competition and choice is good? Even though having to support multiple C/C++ compilers can be painful at times for programmers, the competition between GCC, Clang and MSVC is definitely a good thing (imagine being stuck with MSVC on Windows when MSVC was about 15 years behind the C standard until recently).

A separate Rust compiler may also uncover problems in the language or standard library design (e.g. if it's too much effort to write a Rust compiler from scratch that definitely isn't a good thing IMHO).
Globally, an interesting question is what happens if you take a date to McDonald's. Living in America, that's gonna be the end of your date. Meanwhile, it depends on where in the rest of the globe you're talking about. There are plenty of places in the world where that's a decent, if not high status place to take a date. (There are also non-America places where it's not, mind you.) (A McDonald's-date index would be a fascinating bit of sociology research.)
Massive installed base of older technology plus no financial incentives to update.
Android is more dominant across the world, and it turns out that it's just open enough that even more open platforms like mobile Linux have not retained comparable developer mindshare.

In the US however as a result of differing strategy behind text and data costs by telecom providers in the 2000s Apple were lucky that it disincentivised using data for messages, so there wasn't the same internet-based messaging app uptake that took place elsewhere globally and basic SMS remained dominant.

Then when iMessage launched in 2011 telecom providers plans had changed enough so that data wasn't as expensive, so it became seamless to keep using the default iPhone messaging app to talk to everyone.
One time as a kid I did a holiday class where we sculpted wax (heated up in an electric frying pan), like bronze sculptors do. I didn't consider my dragon good enough to go to the effort and expense of casting it in bronze, but it was certainly fun!
I think people actually value some of the side effects of privacy on iOS though… one of them is that app developers just can’t be quite as appalling in their abuse of users.
I’ve yet to try reviewing code locally, instead of in a browser. Does anyone here had a good experience of how to review code outside of the traditional browser based tools?

This topic reminds of something Joel Spolsky told me about Stack Exchange, in the context of social networks. Giving users the ability quote text when replying is something they really wanted to avoid because it causes arguments to devolve into semantics — far more so than if people had to write out responses in full. A tool like quote-replying shapes (and deforms) our ability to have productive debate.

The unit of change in software is a patch and yet most of us use completely different tools for writing patches, reading our own patches, and reading other peoples (IDE/editor, git diff/show, and GitHub/Lab respectively.)

I like the change of context that web based patch review gives me. I often find bugs or untidiness when looking at my own changes in a browser. When working with others, I’ve found the best code review to be about collaboration and sharing of ideas and responsibility, picking out unseen errors, adding overlooked refinements, giving advice, and improving the team’s bus factor.

If we’re supposed to be playing co-op instead of death-match, shouldn’t we all be in the same level?
The only innovation there is the "Atlantic" part. Stop pretending like it was something new and uniquely horrible.
If we think about spikes as discretized transfer functions, I would say it's totally viable to "hack" them to represent numerical approximations.
In fact, a recent paper demonstrates that exact mappings between ANNs and SNNs exist: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.12522 There are some pitfalls here, though, and I'm biased against these kinds of methods because they don't use the temporal traces of the neuron integration.

Regarding RWKV, someone actually trained a "SpikeGPT": https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13939
That's a neat insight, which will be great for porting these models onto energy-efficient devices. But the learning problem is still the most interesting open question to me. If we crack that, we can scale down GPT-like models by several orders of magnitude since we can "re-learn" subproblems instead of "hardcode" a silly number of permutations, like the present models do. Neuromorphic hardware (brains included) lend themselves incredibly well to learning. We just don't know how to exploit that yet.

Regarding the optical layers, are you referring to optical chips like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20719-7 ? That would be an example of using optics to implement your stateful transfer functions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_neural_network), but there are several of other incredibly promising technologies such as memristors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor), quantum materials (https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01832) and even biologically based chips (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_computer). My take on this is that these technologies exploit different principles of physics to "compute" in some way. But I like to think that our computational theories and principles are independent of the implementation substrates.

There's still a long way to go, but practically speaking, I'm convinced this kind of hardware will have profound consequences for the way that we compute today. We're talking at least 3 orders of magnitude in compute. Imagine ChatGPT running 1000 times as fast. It's ridiculous.
Because IRC still needs a lot of things to keep running (be usable) and works mostly for chat messages.

NOSTR isn't twitter nor IRC, you can take your posts which can contain just about any type of data inside and build an art gallery, a forum or dump for meteorological information.

You can scroll back in the past. It is up to the relay if they have interest in keeping your data or not. If nobody cares about your data, you can still preserve it yourself without barriers for that.
The physical Apple Card itself doesn’t even support contactless payment, it needs to physically be swiped or inserted.
Bots and sockpuppets have an incentive to be verified -- they're hoping for a return on investment. What benefit is there for a regular person that can compare with that?

It's also not that there will be a single entity using thousands of bots but thousands of individuals all paying because of some real or perceived financial incentive.
Texas seems to be 1500-1800, whereas Northern Canada (including all of Ontario and Quebec) seems to generally be 900-1200. So 20-50% worse, no? No clue about the cold factor, but the maps are lifetime kW per nominal kW panel, so presumably that’s factored in.
> physical Apple Card itself doesn’t even support contactless payment, it needs to physically be swiped or inserted

Its sole purpose is to be swiped. It's well made, but I don't think they want people using it.
Yes, that’s why no one (almost, of course) from the US would buy an iPhone in Europe anyway.
> The old way (whatever it was) wasn’t great but at least you got a mix.

I thought Twitter was a complete echo chamber where you only ever heard from people aligned with you, except more extreme.
Being on the Bazel team, and having previously worked closely with the Piper team, this naming would be very confusing for me!

That said: good to put your thoughts out there before going too deep into the implementation rabbit hole. Good luck with your idea. Build systems are fascinating.
You also said, "If he really wants to help people..." about someone who clearly knows more about the people he's helping than you do.

First, you dismissed a practical idea which is being executed successfully. Second, you spent two paragraphs waxing poetic about an impractical idea. Inserting a "if it's practical to do so" between those doesn't really fix it.

If you still don't get what I'm reacting to, perhaps consider where you said, "...but in the real world" or "Efforts like this are commendable, but what we really need to work on is...". It's clear you think you know better than he does how best to help his community, which you've probably never even visited.
We don't have bedbugs, cockroaches or ants because of what we do have: house centipedes. They eat everything. Given that they bite (I've never been bitten) they're not exactly great to have around, but cockroaches and bedbugs are truly disgusting.
1. GCC supports more target platforms than LLVM, including many low-volume embedded systems that are unlikely to ever get upstream LLVM support.

2. The GCC developers are interested in supporting a broad set of languages that compile to native executables, and Rust is an increasingly popular language for systems programming.

3. Whether something is "necessary" or not has never been decisive in whether or not it happens. When presented with a programming challenge, why not try it and see what comes out?
The frustrating twist is that - under the hood - this screen is CMYK. There’s a magenta “ink”, which would fill out a huge gap in the colour gamut, that we can’t even use. The same applies to cyan. Both colours are fundamental to the display tech and yet poorly represented in the very boring 7-colour palette.
$8 won't stop the really bad actors, just the trolls.

And impersonating someone could easily make a lot more than $8 in a very short time.
Yes that much I got. It's a thing that would be nice to have. But that doesn't explain exactly why the GCC would be the ones doing it nor why there would be two separate projects.
I'm all for the best solution winning but here's the perspective of a regular end user.

When I read about nostr I see code examples and cryptography charts.

When I read about Mastodon (fediverse) I just run docker-compose up and I'm in business. That is what made the fediverse breakthrough and nostr not.

It needs to be user friendly for both end users and sysadmins for it to catch on.

Also unrelated to all that, I'm kinda skeptical about any system that claims to be resistant to censorship because it will become a hotbed of racists and bigots online. On one hand certain parts of the fediverse take moderation too far, but on the other hand you can't have a platform with zero moderation. It would be chaos.
That's not the point. This wasn't a slam against the American economy or something. Obviously the US has some of the greatest tech companies, beyond the "tech" companies.
> Freedom isn’t free bud - you pay for it with Karma

Well said, though for HN, I think this is more like "you're in someone's backyard attending a BBQ with their friends. There are things you can say and be invited next time, and some things you shouldn't."

There was an HN comment yesterday calling a company name almost-racist, because with the right intonation, there could be parallels to a word that can be interpreted in a racist way. I didn't even dare commenting that "those who seek to be offended, will find a way to be offended." I think the downvotes given to the comment said the same thing, but of course kills the topic. And we'll see the same thing repeated again, thought perhaps not by the same author.
Paid spam accounts are removed as well, which you left out of your analysis.

Buying an account doesn't give you un-suspendable account.

All spam detection techniques are applied to paid accounts and they are removed as well.

This not only raises the cost but difficulty.

Just having money is not enough. Detecting 10+ payments from the same credit card is trivial.

There aren't infinite amounts of valid credit cards or Apple accounts to be used for verification.
If a scam can't even make $8 per account it's pretty much doomed to failure anyway. Think about it.
> Those tend to be cultural.

Language is culture. A large part of language learning is learning culture, expressions, idioms.

If I say"white as cheese" to a Frenchman he won't understand what I mean because the average cheese in France is not white, unlike in Romania.
AMD Ryzen 7000 Burning Out: Impacts all 7000 processors
Signal development came from an ex-Twitter director that was initially sponsored by the CIA (through Radio Free Europe) and then developed with experts on the backyard of the NSA (Hawaii). Eventually this relatively unknown messenger algorithm got adopted by a messenger company own by Facebook (a privacy loving group) for over a billion users.

It ain't no surprise that just about everyone relevant in the crypto world prefers telegram than something called "signal" (just inform yourself what it means in the intelligence community).
In OSS, after merging a PR, generally you can't get back at the author and make them do a follow-up change, because they are volunteers. A certain degree of gatekeeping is necessary. In a company however, you absolutely can just assign such a task to the author or someone else. That means it's possible to integrate changes into the main branch faster, which is very beneficial.

I've seen teams that try to mimic OSS development and only merge absolutely perfect PRs, dragging out long-living branches and integration. At some point the perfectness can't keep up with the plan, huge PRs are suddenly reviewed hastily, and the end result is worse and slower.

Bottomline: PRs can be used slightly differently in companies to improve speed and reduce overhead.
I Need a Freelancer Now
Have you ever felt that you need to find a freelancer immediately, without spending time of job postings on various platforms and conducting endless interviews just to find the right candidate for your project?
Android phones are still like that if you choose to not buy pixels or Samsungs