skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm going to assume you're saying this in good faith and aren't really familiar the gay community as a whole. If you were you would know that it contains plenty of intelligent, kind and deeply moral people. Either way the moral high ground you're standing on here is an illusion. Individuals are not groups, and you cannot rightly judge an individual based on stereotypes about that group.
There have been studies showing both dramatic increases and decreases in productivity after companies shifted to WFH throughout the pandemic. A common problem with these studies is that the pandemic itself is a confounding factor that affected employee morale and productivity very differently in companies with different management styles, yet this confounding factor is not acknowledged.

It is not impossible that, all other things unchanged, WFH would have a negative impact on productivity. That is because for WFH to work, many other things need to change. To illustrate this with a stupidly simple example — if you ask your employees to work from home but don't give them access to company resources from home, the productivity is going to tank. This extends to a hundred other things that need to be adjusted for WFH. You must necessarily manage the company in a way that supports WFH to empower WFH employees to succeed. But plenty of studies show that tremendous increases in productivity are possible, they have been de-facto achieved in companies that managed WFH right.
Someone made a SD/blender hybrid add-on where texturing will be based on a prompt.
Does this mean that we can now custom firmwares (e.g. coreboot) on those MSI boards?
If they just added some A.I. thing and the trifecta would've been complete.
It was amusing to read the end of the blog post with this.

> We fully expect to continue offering the Zulip Cloud Free plan indefinitely, and are excited to empower effective collaboration for teams large and small.

Until when?
“Sorry, we are going to take away that “indefinitely” plan next month”?

The “free forever”, and “truly unlimited” like statements should just be banned.
100%; we do that (see profile).
Most of the time the issue with bike lanes is really an issue of a bike lane network.

Where a wide high-quality network is deployed quickly, you do often see high ridership increases, but usually in the US what you see is a bunch of scattered lanes that barely reach anywhere in an unbroken link, and no one wants to ride a journey that is even 5% dangerous.

But for example, London has seen 25% growth since pre-COVID by deploying more lanes widely: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cycling-covid-...
HN could be a little less pessimistic. People aren't choosing microservices merely because of the hype.

Here's why I'd choose microservices for a large project:

1. People don't produce uniform code quality. With microservices, the damage is often contained.

2. Every monolith is riddled with exceptional cases in a few years. Only a few people know about corner cases after a few years, and the company becomes dependent on those developers.

3. It's easier for junior developers to start contributing. With a monolith you'd need to be rigid with code reviews, whereas you could be a little lax with microservices. Again, ties into (1) above. This also allows a company to hire faster.

4. Different modules have different performance and non-functional requirements. For example, consider reading a large file. You don't want such an expensive process to compete for resources with say a product search flow. Even with a monolith, you wouldn't do this - you'd make an exception. In a few years, the monolith is full of special cases which only a few people know about. When those employees leave, the project sometimes stalls and code quality drops. Related to (2).

5. Microservices have become a lot easier thanks to k8s and docker. If you think about it, microservices were becoming popular even before k8s became mainstream. If it was viable then, it's a lot easier today.

6. It helps with organizing teams and assigning responsibility.

7. You don't need super small microservices. A microservice could very well handle all of a module - say all of payments (payment processing, refunds, coupon codes etc), or all of authentication (oauth, mfa etc).

8. Broken Windows Theory more often applies to monoliths, and much less to microservices. Delivery pressure is unavoidable in product development at various points. Which means that you'll often make compromises. Once you start making these compromises, people will keep making them more often.

9. It allows you the agility to choose a more efficient tech/process when available. Monoliths are rigid in tech choices, and don't easily allow you to adopt a different programming language or a framework. With Microservices, you could choose the stack that best solves the problem at hand. In addition, this allows a company to scale up the team faster.

Add:

10. It's difficult to fix schemas, contracts and data structures once they're in production. Refactoring is easier with microservices, given that the implications are local compared to monoliths.
Do you take or make a decision ;)
Do you think your change in perspective is entirely from experience? Or do you think that the nature of working life has shifted during your career?

(I have struggled to temper my idealism with the increased cynicism that life/work experience has given me. In some of my positions, I have had sufficient authority and trust to create pockets of sincere idealism, but eventually friction with the system was my undoing. (Sorry, I'm having trouble articulating clearly.) This seems to have worsened over the years and I'm wondering if this perception is entirely from my sluggishness in shedding my naivete or if there is also a component that's the reality shifting.)
As long as we exist, our growing anthroposphere will turn this planet increasingly hostile towards us and our children, from whom we're borrowing the living conditions and nature's gifts as some would say. The most accountable thing is to not have children. To stop carrying firewood into a burning house and cease all procreation. Human life is a sexually transmitted disease as we continue to aptly demonstrate the longer we are around, populating the environment at the cost of other living things including ourselves as if it never had any other purpose. Though I am not too worried about the planet itself; it has been around so much longer than us and will continue to be long after we have stopped stinking it up and gone extinct. And it will be slightly better off for it.
Ikuradon 4.0 – Client for Bluesky, Mastodon, Pleroma and Misskey
Yes, but open ai is not an investor, it's the company. They don't have to follow this logic, they can build something without thinking of the moat, and succeed anyway.

The moat is a priority for rent seekers, but most successful builders didn't start by that.

Coca cola, Mac Donald, Gillet and all the Buffet favorite children didn't grow by thinking moat first. The moat was built on the way, sometimes very late.
> I don't know any amateur astronomer using a refractor, let alone one with this budget.

Refractors are very popular in amateur astronomy and astrophotography.

https://www.cloudynights.com/forum/67-refractors/

The pricing on this Hyperia is pretty silly though. You can get a Takahashi 150mm refractor for ~$15K (well, if you can get one) which surely is far better quality optics than this unknown brand, and adding all the extras for feature parity should still come in at half the price or less.
Mostly inoffensive...aside from the "sexy born yesterday" trope.
GPUs are not used to mine cryptos anymore, it's last year's news. There are much easier ways to launder money.
Plus, generally languages are comprised of, among other things, a hodgepodge of colloquialisms that add flavor to the discourse.
prescriptivists are a real bummer
I feel that this is less extreme than using "literally" to mean "figuratively".

Several words in English have multiple separate meanings.

> people say "break" when they mean "brake".

You were still able to understand what they meant.

Rather, instead of "should we accept", I'd ask "can people be expected to understand".

I'd think a divergence in language is more severe if it disrupts communication.
I can't figure it out, what's the license on the blob?
Yes, I would use gross value added to define productivity.

If I've understood you correctly, you're saying that the three factors you listed earlier will drive companies to have high GVA per labor hour, and that companies that lack one or more of those will have lower (or perhaps even negative) GVA per labor hour.

Is that right?
Can humans emulate chatgpt?
The presentation of the website is world class. Well done
Did it get hugged to death? I only see a runtime error.
> Not supply chain disruptions, closures, restrictions, actual sicknesses and bereavements, cost increases and accelerated inequality due to financial turbulence/bailouts, etc, etc.

The article said this:

> U.S. productivity plunged 2.7% in the first quarter of this year compared to last year, EY found.

Most of that doesn't really apply in 2023Q1. Even SVB hit late in Q1. You could argue that the stability in Q1 should have improved productivity.
While we're on trivia, the etymology of this word is the Latin for "leaving the flock." The Japanese word 抜群, meaning "exceptional," has this exact same etymology except by way of Chinese rather than Latin.
Why ban those statements if you can regulate them to truly mean what they mean? Have companies set up the appropriate legal structures and funds to ensure the service can continue beyond the lifetime of the company.
Tip: If you're loading these .glbs in blender, add an "Attribute" node in the shader editor, put "Col" in the name field, and connect "Color" to "Base Color" in the material to see the colors.
I didn't realise it was written by an LLM but it did come off as weird to me because it borrows phrases (most obviously the bit about a "2070 released 5 years ago") from the press release itself.
You don't have to be a citizen of the nation that does the spying for the data they collect on you to be harmful. Following your logic, nobody outside of the US or China has reasons to be concerned, which is not the case.

Governments—particularly those of the world's greatest superpowers—have influence outside of their borders, and can make your life hell, no matter where you currently live. They can restrict your freedom to travel, censor your public speech, and target you electronically in many ways. This can happen if you fall on their radar for whatever reason, including by mistake. Good luck getting off that list, and getting your life back after that.

If I'm rating which government I'm more afraid of, it would be the one that has a totalitarian control over its citizens, and no regard for human life. Otherwise, they're all equally harmful to my wellbeing.
I would leave the argument but tweak the example given to support: it "adds nothing to the language" that we have many more or less perfectly synonymous terms, such as purse/handbag, pop/soda, and so on.
I don't entirely buy the "no liquidity" argument. I can sell 10,000 ETH on-chain right now and have a 0.28% price impact. That settles in 12 seconds with finality in six minutes.

Guess how much Apple stock I can sell right now? Zero. Stock markets are currently closed and Apple cannot be traded. When they are open, I'm looking at a T+2 settlement window. That's not very liquid. One might even call it market manipulation to only open for trading 18% of the time, and of course to shut off trading at any other time on a whim.
Huh, good call; it was 2 years ago that I did it, and I've retried to test it; the values overflow an Int64 or a Uint64 for words like "abortiveness" (== 38199980262261136506). Trying in PowerShell that overflowed to a double and then errored assigning it to an Int64.

Looking what was happening, I find C# doesn't throw overflow exceptions by default and instead wraps around. That takes 0.05 seconds for all 172k words compared to 0.1 seconds for sorting all words so it ran a lot faster, yes, but it was wrong and may have clashed words. Same with Rust and overflows, it seems. Turning it to System.Numerics.BigInteger in C# makes it take about the same time 0.1s for both. In Python which handles any size integers it takes a lot more time, 0.14 seconds for sorting, 0.4 seconds for products.

That means my embedded arrays of products are all overflowed as well. What a good example for arguing that programs should be correct first, and fast second. (I remember being suspicious of overflows, but I don't remember what I tried to conclude that all the word results would fit into int64, but it must have been bad).
I'm not sure whether you're implying old people curse less or have less sex.
> reevaluate every single assumption

Oh wow, took a whole executive to figure that out /s
No it wasn't, much work was done in the Netherlands by researchers there and the original prototypes were made in the Netherlands and shipped as demos to the US! The idea that it was solely developed in the US is a MAGA fever-dream of American exceptionalism. The US only did very early research but never actually built anything based on the research, the Netherlands and ASML built on the early research, did more research on top of it, and then actually made it work.

ASML also created the deals with Zeiss and other European companies which were critical in getting all the necessary components created to make EUV happen. None of this would have happened with Jos Benschop and Fred Bijkerk (in the Netherlands).

I agree that some research was done in Japan, Russia, and the US, but this is the case for basically every technology, it's never the case that only one country is responsible solely for something. I'm pointing out (correctly), that ASML kicked ass with EUV tech in a way that no other company did, including Intel, which shows they have something that no other company has. Again, if it was so easy, why isn't an American company making those machines which are critical for the entire worlds security and productivity?
> you could switch who was in the seat

For others reading this - you can’t just switch back and forth a few times a week. A full platform user can be moved to a basic user only twice in a 12-month period.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iEUsXDZ4lNI the sunscreen marketing board
The long "S" was typically not used as the first letter, as I recall, but only mid-word.
You're too entrenched in a labour-centric model to be able to see these problems have solutions at all, let alone that crypto might be able to provide them.

When there's no labour to drive the economy, something else will be driving the economy. An economy, in it's purest form may be: a system that exchanges things, and also provides a store for latency in those events.

Note I'm saying "may be". We're talking about rewriting theory here. That is, we need to theorise, and hope we get it right, or at least come up with something useful.

Assuming that, what would be the value generated in a labour-less economy? Again, we can only guess at this stage, just as we could in the 90's about what impact the internet might have. Nobody predicted where we are exactly now.

The fundamental thing many can't seem to get past with crypto is that people involved in it seem to want to, and often-times succeed, in generating value for themselves, out of what's tantamount to nothing.

How people cope with this apparently alien concept (from the point of view of labour's value being an essential dogma), is to focus on all of the times that value was in fact generated out of others misfortune. (As happens also.)

But, it's not the whole story, and, misses the forest for the trees. You can type a sentence and create a beautiful work of art, or ask a question and get an answer that condenses years of knowledge into a reply. The same way an NFT creates money.

It's not necessarily always a "scam" that labour-less endeavour can create value now. It's where society and technology has been heading for decades. But it's a huge cultural, social, political and economic shift.

It is inevitable that such changes provoke visceral averse responses, suspicion, failure to understand, etc. This will likely go on for some time before the future emerges. Crypto pushing all these buttons is a good sign.

Doesn't mean it's definitely the future - but, is there another contender with similar disruptive characteristics in all the necessary areas? Only AI but as yet it doesn't have a transactional exchange or latency store for generated value as crypto does.

> If you look at that coin gecko graph and look over the last two years there has been no growth, regardless of the scale.

Look over it again, it does that regularly.

It's expected behaviour for a highly volatile asset to retrace its previous levels. The important aspect is that despite this, its linear and logarithmic trend are both constantly increasing across the time series.
I quite like Typescript's approach here, which is (a) to model that metaprogramming as much as possible with metaprogramming of types, and (b) to always give you an escape hatch so you can wrap type unsafe metaprogramming in a type safe layer.

For example, I recently wrote a function that takes an arbitration nested object and a list of paths through that object (e.g. "path.to.object"), and does things with the data found at those paths. For (1), I could write a type that, given an object type, would return all the possible allowed paths as types, basically preventing the function from being used correctly (and it already has helped me catch a few typos here and there). So now func({foo:...}, "bar") is disallowed directly at the type system.

But working with those exact types inside the function would have been too complicated, so I also did (2): inside the function, I just treated as the strings as normal strings (which, to the runtime, they are!) and did normal JavaScript metaprogramming to get arbitrary keys from arbitrary objects. I then have less type safety inside the function, but I can test that part more, while still leaving the caller of the function with the exact correct types.

In fairness, there are other ways to solve the same problem in other languages, with similar type safety. And JavaScript natively is not that high up on the metaprogramming scale. But I'm always impressed in Typescript how much a powerful type system and metaprogramming can dovetail into each other.
Pray tell where exactly are we supposed to find a cluster of A100s available at a reasonable price? RadioShack?
> Reaction gifs constitute a kind of primitive post-idiomatic hyper-language comprising stock phrases and non-verbal whole-body communication fragments. Imagine a world a few centuries in the future, where humans look back on the era of reaction gifs as the beginning of the world after language.

> Now that a future beyond language is imaginable, it suddenly seems to me that humanity has been stuck in a linguistically constrained phase of its evolution for far too long. I’m not quite sure how it will happen, or if I’ll live to participate in it, but I suspect we’re entering a world beyond language where we’ll begin to realize just how deeply blinding language has been for the human consciousness and psyche.

I think the LLM revolution tell us something else - it is language that crystallises and captures almost all the human intelligence. By training a random initialised transformer on language you get chatGPT. Doing the same to a baby leads to a modern human. It was not the brain or the transformer that are intelligent, it is language running on them that is. Language is a self replicator, but it needed humans, now it works on LLMs too.

In the long term I expect AI will discover things that are hard to express in our language and probably need to develop and teach new concepts to us. And of course AI can help create languages, it can do that quite well, if that's our thing. We can develop private (hyper-)languages and have it translate back and forth.
> () If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English?

Well, a lot of things. You can't say "the baby seems drinking the milk." Even though it's perfectly comprehensible, every English speaker will agree that "the baby seems to be drinking the milk" is the correct way to express this. Avoiding "comprised of" is a "rule" where we can't identify any dialect where everyone agrees on it.
The next super Scribblenauts game is going to be wild.
This statement is true only if it is not possible to tell from the context if the noun refers to a specific/previously mentioned thing or not.
It would be possible to measure the amount of information contained in these articles, Shannon style, by taking a body of text, removing the articles, and then asking a bunch of english speakers ( that can possibly be approximated by a LLM ) to put back in the correct articles. Any uncertainty or variation would point to information being lost by the removal.
The mention of .plan and .project brings back memories. You used to be able to do things like finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu and see if I was logged on and what I had to share with the world (which was a long series of quotes that ran several screens). I remember learning that the AMS had shorter hours on Fridays thanks to Barbara Beeton’s .plan file.
You would think it would be relatively uncontroversial to anyone who's read an older text full of "thous" and "yes" that sometimes the way English is used changes over time.

That said, I think McWhorter's observation that much fulminating over language usage is sublimated classism is an astute one.
The cleansed version actually looks like an encyclopedia article, whereas the original just looks like a data dump.
I have the same exact concern.
How far back into the past do you want to force society and culture to revert?
No one uses "literally" to mean "figuratively".

When some say "I laughed so loud I literally rolled on the floor", they do not, in any way, mean "I laughed so loud I figuratively rolled on the floor". Instead they mean "I laughed so loud, that it was almost like I was literally rolling on the floor". It is merely used as a generic augmentative: the phrase has the same basic meaning with or without "literally", but it gains more emphasis with it. The fact that it happens to apply to a figurative usage of "rolling on the floor" is mostly a coincidence.

Its just like "very" (which is a contraction of "verily", truly) has been adopted as an augmentative and lost its original meaning of "truly".
What you call feminist writing has been around in academic circles for a long time, it really burst out recently with woke movement.

I like the idea about Académie, at least it defines a way to write new words. Some are picked up by people, and others are ignored, but that's ok too.
Immediately throwing generic into the ring feels wrong to me. So I want to ask you first: What is the motivation or personal need behind your idea that you want to specialize?

- Becoming famous/known in a tech niche like Uncle Bob oder Martin Fowler?
- Founding a tech-driven unicorn?
- The feeling of admiration of your colleagues and potential employers?
- A high salary and high paying job over the next 10 to 20 years?
- The intelectual stimulation most of us tech people feel when we play with new shiny things?

I feel like all of these reasons are valid, respectable and OK. Different answers/picks/strategies might apply though.

Seeing forward for you reply. I'm happy to help!
Essential complexity can also be created and destroyed, though sometimes it happens earlier in the design process. Picking the problem you choose to solve is how you control essential complexity.
Nope, I’m pretty familiar with it
> Not everyone agrees "comprised of" is wrong, but no one finds it better than the alternatives.

Brilliant way to make a decision in a community. I wish more discussions had room for such thought patterns.