skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Apple does this because the alternative would be devastatingly bad press.

I mean, why do they permit 3 day trials that start billing at $9.99/week after that? For an app that creates ringtones? How many phone apps in the world are worth $520 per year?

And BTW, that "3 day trial"? It's actually 2 days since you have to cancel at least 24 hours before the subscription renews. So it's really 33% less than they claim.

If your child signed up for one of these subscriptions? Apple requires that subscription be canceled from the device that made it — yet provides no obvious way to determine which device that was. Is that child away at school? Too bad. Forgot their phone at a friends? Sorry about your luck.

The whole thing is absurd - letting a minor child control their own subscriptions with no way for a parent (the actual credit card holder) to cancel it unless they jump through a bunch of support hoops.

Apple doesn't get a pass here. They're just smarter about it all. I say that as a huge Apple fan generally.
> Subways in the US cost about $1B per mile.

No they don't. The most expensive subway in the country costs $1B per mile. Typical costs are much cheaper (and could be even cheaper, but that's another story).
Any bank with a ticker on a market. Technically no security on the market is safe from this mechanism. Banks are particularly vulnerable.

With a properly timed news drop, shorting, and forcing the market maker to exit delta-hedging (due to volatility) you end up having them create synthetic shares that in addition to the loaned shorted shares push the price downwards (because there will always be more shares since they were created via the contracts and are not constrained by short limits/availability and float). The market maker may even participate to offset losses.

Once the capitalization rate falls below a certain threshold you get aggregate indebtedness violations. At which point any loans they might have had create a liquidity event (i.e. frozen), which must be paid back and price levels returned to normal within 30 days (Basel 3), or 2 months (Nasdaq).

It creates a spiral which can't be recovered from, they will bleed deposits, and then the regulator will seize them, and sell their assets to one of the survivor banks for pennies on the dollar (with guarantees). Another form of bailout.

This is what largely happened with FRC, and now its starting to a lesser degree (a/o last night) other regional banks.
> Are you implying that this is a hypocritical stance for feminists to have? Why do American feminists speak for all feminists in the world?

No, I'm asking a question in an attempt to understand.

> Even if these were American feminists, you could make the argument that there is manipulation and coercion happening so the "my choice" part might be less than safe to assume.

Unless you're arguing that any and all decisions are due to manipulation and coercion, then this doesn't get us anywhere and is a strawman version of the 'pro choice' argument. Of course there is manipulation and/or coercion in some cases (from what I've heard, it's a sickly large number at that). That is (IMHO) terrible and unethical and should not be legal. I doubt that anyone (or to avoid absolutes, very, very few people) arguing "pro choice" would take the position that there's no problem with that.

But what about situations where it's voluntary? Do you argue that there is no such situation? If there is any money involved at all, you could say that is "manipulation," but is it any less manipulation than any other job where the person wouldn't be doing it if there weren't some incentive? and does that make all jobs unethical and should be illegal?
I was watching the news last night, and apparently, not only they're pretty sure it was Russia that bombed the half-Russian pipelines to Europe (NordStream2), but it was Russia (or Russian partisans, whatever they mean) that tried to kill Putin last night with a drone attack as well.

You can accuse Russia of anything you want in the current climate, and everyone will take you seriously regardless of evidence.
And by the law, Uber should be illegal. That they broke the law and got popular enough to apply political pressure does not mean that they were not technically illegal the entire time.

There's no contradiction here. If certain applications are illegal, you don't get to decide that regulation is inconvenient to your "innovation" and deal with the consequences later. Or rather, that is exactly what you do to make $megabux, and that's what should not be allowed.
But new immigrants will need a vibrant economy they can assimilate into and pay taxes. If not, we will just be swamped and become another shithole country. That helps no one.
The JEP identifies the scope as "implementation" and the component as "hotspot/runtime", so I do assume it's an implementation detail, yes.
Also the same CEO who joined Coinbase's board last year, and has seemingly fallen down the crypto rabbit hole. Maybe he's lost a bit of focus on Shopify.
> I suspect complexity is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness to occur. I don't think that takes away from your suggestion that consciousness in AI systems is _possible_, but I don't think it's the case that it's an inevitable outcome if only we can make our systems sufficiently complex. There's probably something about the specific structure of the complex thing we'll need to master as well.

That's a very good argument, and I completely agree.

As much as it's faulty logic to reduce AI to soulless machinery because we know how it works, it's also faulty logic to assume that scaling to more and more complex models will in itself create consciousness. At the very least, some mechanism of continuous self-modification is necessary, so current fixed-point neural networks most likely will never be conscious.
Did you know them personaly? Did you know their medical records?
The art of responsive design: 12 for perfect grid
> Ironically, CI/CD and issues being well integrated were the reasons we switched to GitLab in the first place. But since then we stopped using issues.

Hah, yes. Do you have any idea how jarring it is to cheer for migrating issues from gitlab to jira? But it turns out that ugly but feature complete is better than easy to work with and missing key features (ever tried searching for something in issue comments? To say nothing of high level task tracking (management wants to know what blockers we have in this multi-step 23-item epic)).
I think that's a load of nonsense.
I think this is basically it.

The problem is that any automated discovery mechanism is quickly ruined by automated spam/ads created to exploit it.

So the most reliable discovery mechanisms are still small communities of real people. But because they're good - they attract more and more people until the quality reverts to the mean, and it's mostly just junk/spam/ads again.

Social media companies are extremely prone to cancer - if you will. A large part of long they survive is in how good they are at fighting off the junk created by their own users.

In a way - the internet (or at least the DNS system) is just the top level social media company that made absolutely no attempt to fight the cancer. It's value died a long time ago, and it's mostly a wasteland of junk now.
As a web dev here, have React, GraphQL, raising application of oAuth and many others. Probably others experienced getting in touch with their friends and families. Not claiming they should have paid that with their privacy. Given the functionality for a specific time the platform did its job well. We were caught short-sighted how all this could go wrong.
So forgive my, "adversarial," questions here, but you seem to be encouraging adversarial thinking, which is laudable, but also invites adversarial thinking onto the construct you're building as well.

Marqt, much like prediction markets, is not seeking truth, it's creating a map of a showcase of whoever bought into a particular market's emotions.

It sounds like you're motivated by creating a repo of human feedback reinforcement data which could then be used to further train or fine-tune LLM's, perhaps even to sell, is that correct?

> important for society to accurately define truth in an age when information travels (and changes) faster than ever, and when LLMs so confidently lie and have been heavily prompted to avoid controversial topics.

Yeah, I don't think what you're building is getting at the goal of, "truth," it's getting at the goal of building something sellable per my question above. To the extent that someone will be willing to buy that human feedback database is a function of what they may be trying to accomplish.

Much like in the world of so-called prediction markets, I see several of your markets as being heavily biased toward speculation and feelings, as opposed to a pragmatic approach to predicting a future outcome. What I mean by that is, you could create a really excellent scientific model and way of monitoring under what conditions a dam will break, or you could poll local people around a dam whether they feel like it will break, and you may get wildly different means and variances from the two methods. In all likelihood, there is no extra new synthesized knowledge about empirically what will physically happen with the dam that a group of average people off the street will have about that dam, in the context of a society with functioning infrastructure and tens of thousands of working dams. What you will have is a database on people's emotions about the dam, or perhaps dams in general, or the company behind the dam, etc.

So what are you really doing to, "make the world a better place?" You're not, you're making it worse by selling a vision of, "truth," that is actually muddling certain applications of practical engineering or scientific predictions further.

I think if you instead tweaked your pitch and just honestly stated that it's a repo of groups of people's feelings on various topics (and who those groups are, to the extent that you can figure that out), and not a way to, "beat LLM's with real truth," then it would be a lot more responsible.

On the other hand, you could just be a troll trying to actively muddle the truth further, in which case you can just ignore my advice, that's fine too.

> Inside the marqt maker is a fine-tuned BERT model that roughly ensures the statement is sensical, grammatical, and not a question.

Can BERT conduct logical reasoning? So further to the above, it sounds like you're using an LLM to clean human feedback data, if that's the real crux of your plan, to make reinforcement data cheaper, and everything else is a sort of 4D chess, bravo, cool project!
The real question is why are we OK with this outright dishonest behavior?
It's great to see Colorado taking steps to promote competition and innovation in the field of Internet service. By repealing the law that made it harder for cities to offer their own Internet service, they're giving communities more options and putting the power back in the hands of the people.

For too long, the Internet service industry has been dominated by a few big players who prioritize profits over providing quality service to customers. This has resulted in high prices, slow speeds, and limited options for many people, particularly in rural areas.

By allowing cities to offer their own Internet service, Colorado is opening up the market and creating more opportunities for smaller, local providers to enter the field. This can help drive down prices, improve service quality, and give consumers more choice and control over their Internet experience.

Hopefully, other states will follow Colorado's lead and take steps to promote a more competitive and innovative Internet service industry. This is an important step towards ensuring that everyone has access to fast, reliable, and affordable Internet service, regardless of where they live.
I like the idea of capping THC potency (delta-9), what we have now isn't what we the general public aimed to legalize this is just competition keeping up with consumer demand

the consequences should fall on the vendors and growers on a licensing perspective, just like alcohol or food vending
Their status page indicates degradation for issues but not for any other item at this time.

https://www.githubstatus.com/
> What do you have in mind, apart from duck typing?

The focus on message passing and late binding combined. "Duck typing" is seriously diminishing it. You can write code that appears that way even in C++ with RTTI and inheriting from a shared root class and heavy use of virtual. But to achieve the equivalent of the combination of message passing and late binding in a language like C++ not built for it you typically end up having to build your own message dispatch machinery with no syntactic support to make it cleaner that will make your code look fundamentally un-idiomatic, and so doing so is tends to be limited to specific problems.

It's this combination that makes Smalltalk-derived languages feel different.

> For ST we have to differentiate the 72 and 74 from the 76 and later versions. Starting from 76 it has inheritance, compiled methods and virtual method dispatch quite similar to (though less efficient than) Simula 67.

I'd argue when we say Smalltalk without qualifying it, most of us will be talking about Smalltalk-80.
Facebook getting in trouble for privacy violations is basically a joke. That should make it their company tagline: Privacy Violations that Scale. Or something like that...
I have the impression that the Boring Company could reduce costs of subway mile significantly if they tried
That's why it needs fixing. We are not in the early days anymore.
These issues arise anytime you have rent control and units with a large disparity between the legally-allowed rent and the market rate rent. Some tenants will want to capture that value (e.g., by subletting to a market rate tenant and living somewhere else).
And if you have enough money, buy real estate.

Wonder why real estate is so expensive...

There is some narrative I've seen here and on reddit that inflation is 2-4% because the government says so. People are so confident about it. Meanwhile big brains and small brain meme are saying "no way are these inflation numbers real".

Something something Bitcoin(no not other coins, just bitcoin, no not blockchain, just bitcoin), something something federal reserve/fractional reserve banking, something something we are supposed to believe inflationary currencies are good for me.
Ask HN: GitHub Push Down?
I'm getting errors pushing. githubstatus.com was green for me.

$ git push --force
Enumerating objects: 17, done.
Counting objects: 100% (17/17), done.
Delta compression using up to 16 threads
Compressing objects: 100% (9/9), done.
Writing objects: 100% (9/9), 1.09 KiB | 1.09 MiB/s, done.
Total 9 (delta 6), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0
remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (6/6), completed with 6 local objects.
remote: fatal error in commit_refs
The cost for the subway could also be reduced the same way as the loop by the way. Here in Switzerland a km of train tunnel costs around 50-200M per km.

The 4,000 passenger number is afair only for the current section, the planned expansion will have a capacity of 2,000 passenger per hour.

The Las Vegas Loop makes sense as a vanity project.
On a previous team we did create a wrapper command around git which did the parent-child branch tracking and added some convenience commands. On my current team we don't and it's OK because conflicting changes are rare so merging in from master is infrequently necessary and our code review tool can't make effective use of the extra stack information anyways.

Suppose you have the stacked PRs in the following sequence: A, B, C, D, E, F

If you implement stacked PRs using branches in git, then they will be a series of branches. For example, A will be a child branch of master, and B a child of A. To bring new changes in from master all the way down to F requires at least three commands and a build per stack member:

git fetch
git checkout A
git merge master
build_and_run_tests
git checkout B
git merge A
build_and_run_tests
git checkout C
git merge B
build_and_run_tests
...

Failure to do this for every PR in the stack tends to create confusing diffs in the code review system. For example, if you only merged the changes from master as far as C, then the code review system will probably try to show the diff between D and C:head which will contain the removal of a bunch of new master code. The code review really should be showing the diff between D and C:d_merge_base, but some code review tools don't support that and others need help, like the wrapper tool I mentioned previously.
Yes. [0]

> Incident with API Requests, Codespaces, Copilot, Git Operations, Issues, Pages, Pull Requests and Webhooks

And as expected, something in GitHub goes down every month. [1]

[0] https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/c2jg911dtkjb

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35611862
I would bet money against that. Replicating GPT-4 pre-training with current hardware would cost about 40-50m in compute. Compute will continue to decrease in cost and algorithmic improvements may allow for more efficient training, but probably not 3 orders of magnitude in a few years. I think there will be plenty of open source models that will claim GPT-4 quality, and some of them will be close, but they will be models that used millions of dollars (probably from some corporate benefactor but possibly from crowdsourcing) in compute to train. You will probably be able to fine-tune and run inference on fairly cheap hardware, but you can't cheat scale. It's going to take a major innovation to move away from the expensive base model paradigm.
Sometimes you can't tokenize free of the parsing context. Is "MODULEPROCEDUREFOO" a Fortran statement that begins a new module called 'procedurefoo', or a reference to a module procedure 'foo'? Fortran compilers that use table-driven parsing typically feed state back to a "statement classifier", and the class of the statement determines how to tokenize it. Fortran compilers that use recursive descent typically just operate on characters; it seems to me to be more robust and error-recoverable to do it that way.
To get down to TBC's cost/passenger, they'd need to come down to $120M/mile.

Subways at $120M/mile would be pretty freaking awesome.
Ask a Republican what's more important: all civil rights or gun ownership?

I'm just kidding, there's no need to ask rhetorical questions.
We're seeing this from graphite.dev's API calls to GitHub
Bingo. I think that's exactly what tenants are really worried about. The "racist gentrifiers" narrative just doesn't hold up.
I've never been to Las Vegas, but every video I've seen of the Boring tunnels is either underwhelming or just seems plain stupid. It looks like something Tesla could use to get around their own campus as a fun PR stunt, not a city infrastructure project. It seems to have less capacity, be less safe, and more complicated than the alternatives. I don't even see any theoretical advantages, and the execution looks even worse. It's amazing that this got built in the first place, and now it's expanding?

And by the way, if Tesla cars can't be autonomous in purpose built tunnels built by a sister company, then why would anyone expect them to handle traffic on actual roads? I consider this to be negative PR for them.
That's changing imo. There are a lot of women that identify as liberal who are morally conservative, but it can be reasoned that this is just the effects of patriarchy that they haven't chosen to prioritize addressing because it doesn't directly benefit them. Freedom from modesty will not be won overnight.
Eh, it's far enough west that you're not really connected to the east any different than if you had moved all the way to the west coast. Driving from Denver to Atlanta for instance is over 20 hours of driving. It's more to New York, Boston, or DC.

Piratically, you just fly if you go back to the east coast for some reason, just like if you were on the west coast.
Yes, hence comments like the one from the governor of the bank of England basically telling people that they needed to get used to being poorer.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-nee...
Data Modeling Approaches and Techniques
He doesn't have the power to do that. If he does and gets away with it, don't complain when that power is abused by other presidents in ways you disapprove.
Some of you may enjoy this fantastic recent paper on how to win both the comprehension benefits of splitting lexer and parser AND the performance benefits of fusing them: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jdy22/papers/flap-a-deterministic-...
My read was that part of the value add of these new institutes is paying more people to do AI work, thus creating a larger AI workforce in the US and giving the US a competitive advantage.

It seems like a no-brainer to try and make that growing workforce come from diverse backgrounds because that will just help AI skills permeate throughout society even more, thus increasing the workforce advantage.
Literally everything an LLM can do can also be done by a human (and substantially worse), but for some reason you inherently trust them?

Hammers are better at hitting nails into wood than a human hand, but we're not all losing our minds at the fact that you can also smash a human skull in with a hammer. The laws apply to the human not the object, and that remains true here.
Mercedes, in this particular case.
Sadly it's not that important, as the Labour Party position is this shitshow of a bill should be even worse.
It actually goes a lot deeper than that.

Companies like this helped organize cheap workers around the world to just put all that information once and for all, to train the AI and interpolate / remix the answers for people: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrickcai/2023/04/11/how-alexa...

OpenAI this year hired a bunch of people to just manually do the work of basic coding once and for all: https://www.semafor.com/article/01/27/2023/openai-has-hired-...

This is a story of using cheap labor to train machines at scale. OpenAI's content moderators have just unionized: https://futurism.com/the-byte/ai-content-moderators-unionize...

Moreover, this is a story of taking labor of artists all over the world, remixing it at scale and selling it, destroying any sort of scarcity: https://the-decoder.com/ai-images-sold-on-the-internet-artis...

More artist issues: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/arts/design/ai-art-class....

There's GitHub, which had tons of people contribute code, and then the AI just ingested all that work for remixing by Microsoft Copilot:
https://www.techtarget.com/searchsoftwarequality/news/252526...

And of course, finally there's Wikipedia, which had tons of people contribute actual changes, vet them for accuracy, etc. over 20 years, in many languages -- simply taken for use by AI companies:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bdba/ai-is-tearing-wikiped...

But once again, in 2023, where we are now, there is a staggering amount of humans just producing this kind of content, and the AI is mainly used to model and remix it. Perhaps to do so can form some sort of internal understanding of this text, and that's what's interesting. But even Sam Altman has lately said "scale is not all you need". So a new approach is here needed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI
Without weighing in on exactly if it is or isn't a "language", I think VHDL/verilog absolutely have a place in the list and are a fantastic thing for (some, particularly lower-level interested) programmers to learn precisely because it's such a different way of thinking about programming and huge piles of heterogeneous behavior happening concurrently. It really cooked my head for the first week or two and I think I came out the other side better. (I hated writing VHDL with a passion. It was painful medicine for a software person used to algol-style languages. But I'm really glad I did.)
+1 for an awesome interview experience. I had an offer last year which I didn't end up accepting (for various reasons) but I walked away from the process having actually enjoyed it.