skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The real metric here is how many people are buying and selling things (not coins themselves) with a cryptocurrency. For actually using it as a currency bitcoin is still unchallenged. Markets and traders are just an unfortunate side effect that now are more associated with the word "cryptocurrency" than the actual use of cryptocurrencies in the public mind.
They can just do traffic correlation.
that seems like an easy way for validation logic between the two to fall out of sync. Limits want to be enforced on the back end, definitely, but if the frontend also does the same validation the user experience is better, so you want to do some there as well (eg blank username does not need to do the slow round trip to the server). Through the magic of using JavaScript on both ends, the exact same bit of code can, with a bit of work, be used on both the front and the back end, so you can get the best of both worlds.
Right there with ya! Staying home has so many perks. And hey, let's not forget the environmental impact: less commuting means less pollution and fewer traffic jams. Plus, by embracing remote work, we're not just lining the pockets of big landlords and property owners. We're taking control of our time, our space, and our lives, all while doing our bit for the planet. No turning back now!
Could that not just be some kind of langchain like system?
Thanks so much for the kinds words! Wow, I'm also amazed, didn't know Mot Juste could also refine non-prose and retain the original format of a poem.
Show HN: IPFS_dict_chain, a Python Package for Mini-Blockchains on IPFS
Valyrian Tech has just released their first Python package known as `ipfs_dict_chain` [https://github.com/ValyrianTech/ipfs_dict_chain]. This package enables developers to create mini-blockchains on IPFS using dictionary-like data structures called IPFSDict and IPFSDictChain, which store their state on IPFS and track changes. It's designed to provide efficient and secure data management on a decentralized network.

`ipfs_dict_chain` requires Python 3.10 and an IPFS node, and can be easily installed using `pip install ipfs_dict_chain`. You can find more details, usage instructions, and examples in the package documentation [https://github.com/Valyrian-Tech/ipfs-dict-chain/blob/main/R...].

The project is available on PyPI [https://pypi.org/project/ipfs-dict-chain/] and GitHub [https://github.com/ValyrianTech/ipfs_dict_chain]. Contributions are welcome, and the package is released under the MIT License. Enjoy!
It was/is quite popular with .NET developers due to TypeScript being very similar to C# and implementing similar patterns like dependency injection (I know dependency injection/IOC isn't .NET specific).
Ruby's extreme expressiveness comes from a few things. First, everything is an object. Second, Ruby has lots of functional features that make it exceptionally concise to express certain things.

Here's a simple example I'll do in JavaScript first since most people can read it. You have an array of the numbers 1 through 10 and want to get a new array with only the odd numbers.

arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
arr.filter(num => num % 2)

> [1, 3, 5, 7, 9]

In Ruby you could express this the same way:

arr.filter { |num| num % 2 }

=> [1, 3, 5, 7, 9]

But there's a better way. Since everything is an object, including integers, you can just ask the numbers if they are odd instead of using the mod operator.

arr.filter { |num| num.odd? }

=> [1, 3, 5, 7, 9]

(Yes, method names can end in a question mark (?). By convention, methods that end in a question mark are predicate methods that return a boolean. Methods can also end in an exclamation point/bang (!). By convention, these bang methods are "dangerous" – they might do something destructive like mutate an object in-place instead of returning a new copy.)

We can make this even more concise though.

arr.filter(&:odd?)

=> [1, 3, 5, 7, 9]

There's a bit to unpack here.

:odd? is a Symbol

The & operator calls the #to_proc method on the symbol :odd? then converts the result into a block, which is passed to the filter method. In other words, the #odd? method is called on each element in the array no different than the previous example.

Here's another way to express the exact same thing:

arr.reject(&:even?)

=> [1, 3, 5, 7, 9]

This is just one simple example. Ruby can express many things on one line that would take several lines in other languages. This is what makes it expressive – it's the density and readability of operations.

Another one of my favorite language features is that parentheses on method calls are optional, so a lot of syntax that looks like it would be language-level operators are actually just regular method calls to objects in Ruby. An example of this is ==, which is an operator in many other languages. In Ruby it is a method call. Consider this expression:

true == false

This is calling the #== instance method on the object `true` (which is an instance of TrueClass), passing `false` as the first argument. Written identically:

true.==(false)

This is wild if you're coming from another language where things like this are operators, but it is completely natural in Ruby. It is extremely powerful.
The whole point of our current capitalist economy is that "velocity of money" goes up. So, especially if you put it like this, this is a very good thing indeed.
That's because their model sucks (very old, not SOTA) not because the idea in this paper doesn't work.
Self-play works for eg Go because there’s a perfect simulator of the game – which gives at least one very clear training signal, winning. There’s no simulator for conversation, no winning, and no training signal. Self-dialog doesn’t make any sense
You shouldn't have to port anything. If you mean in the opposite case of two separate languages between client and server side then yeah, of course - by definition you're rewriting everything and there is no way to reuse code. I'm not clear how you're reaching anywhere near 50x complexity though. You're writing something like this on the client side (please excuse the lazy checks):

function basicValidatePassword(password) {
const minLength = 8;
const maxLength = 64;
const isValidChars = /^[A-Za-z0-9]+$/;
const hasUpperCase = /[A-Z]/;
const hasLowerCase = /[a-z]/;
const hasSpecialChar = /[\W_]/;

const results = {minLength: password.length >= minLength,
maxLength: password.length <= maxLength,
hasUpper: hasUpperCase.test(password),
hasLower: hasLowerCase.test(password),
hasSpecial: hasSpecialChar.test(password),
hasValidChars: isValidChars.test(password)}
results.isValid = Object.values(results).every(item => item);

return results;
}

Then instead of writing another one on the server that only checks the password isn't blank, is less than the maximum, and has valid characters you're just reusing the full 6 check code. That's only twice as many checks, not even twice as many lines, and it's already written. You really should check all 6 again on the server anyways, but that's beside the point. Better still, if you do the reuse as a build step via shared function library file or similar you don't need to copy/paste and it stays in sync automatically.

Of particular note there is no UI code here because the meter's UI code is not related to the check function beyond it reads the return value.
This was a strange article. Why would a journalist at a major newspaper be so ignorant of appropriate cyber security and privacy practices and install a PRC app on their primary phone? Why would they assume that they _weren't_ being monitored? And why would the company, if they wanted to spy on her, use 'another iphone' rather than just pull the data from the backend? That was the weirdest part.
More like if we're going to accept some amount of animal harm then potentially giving paraplegics a decent life should take priority over your happy meal.
Worth looking at in this context is how the USA robbed us of the Kyoto protocol, which very much had the potential to at the very least give us longer time to roll out the needed changes. USA’s excuse back in 1997 was that it was unfair that developing nations were exempt. Looking back on it, I believe this was only an excuse forwarded by government from the fossil fuel industry. If not for US exceptionalism, they would have found another excuse and destroyed our climate anyway.
Barbitu­rate withdrawal seems unlikely. Feels impossible for two people close together.

Medical Examiners should listened to, you don't get too much better for data, but like everything still questioned. They commonly make simple mistakes.

Then this is a journalist saying what a medical examiner said. (1975 standards, journalism up, medicine down)

I'd start with reading the original report.

(If this is only about the Wikipedia conflict to this article, look at Wikipedias sources and Talk page)
Jack Ma was literally bragging about breaking international law and that the government wasn't going to stop or regulate him before disappearing.

Going against the party and going against the law are often the same thing stated differently.
You assume wrong. What these tools offer is constantly churning. Far faster than ever before and Photoshop has been around for over 30 years. They release updates constantly. Photoshop got AI filters like detail enhancement for zooming a few years ago. Automatic object detection, content-aware delete, etc. etc etc. a few years before that. That's only what I can recall off the top of my head for Photoshop alone, but it's such a giant environment that even most of their own product people probably couldn't tell you off the cuff. In areas like video compositing, tools like Nuke are developing tools with these capabilities even more quickly... and they better when the cheap license costs $3500/yr.

As I mentioned in another comment, so much of this hype is based on developers assuming they understand something that they don't. I've indulged in this hubris as a developer but straddling both sides of this line has been illuminating.
I think the reaction varies a lot based on two things:

1. How much actual knowledge people have of Elon. Speaking from personal experience there is very much a "familiarity breeds contempt" thing going on here, and I suspect the same is true more generally. People exposed only to his early (positive) press will likely like him. People exposed only to his later (negative) press will likely hate him.

2. What part of Elon's portfolio they care most about. No matter how a space nerd feels about Elon they are going to have some positive vibes about SpaceX. Even people at competitors felt their hearts flutter when they saw the first double F9 landing, or first saw Starlink high in the night sky. But people who love cars... not so much. Plenty of folks who would sooner key a Tesla than own one, and will tell you so to your face.

I also think that while lots of liberals are annoyed at Elon, the bulk of the hate comes from conservatives. Hard to erase a decade-long lead in pissing people off.
Why tunnels tho? Or rather, why single occupancy vehicles in tunnels? It just feels like a public transit system with extra steps…
> AI - real AI - is like a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle, and will grow regardless of whether we want it to or not.

It doesn't matter if AI grows. The goal isn't to stop AI from growing or to put it in a bottle. The goal is to control how it's being used and limit how humans are abused by corporations that use it. That's perfectly reasonable.
I've been following the RedPajama project closely and I must say, it's quite an impressive undertaking. The fact that it's all open-source, and the collaboration between various institutions, is nothing short of amazing. This shows the power of the open-source community in action, with a bunch of smart people coming together to build something truly remarkable.

The 3B model, being super fast and accessible, is a game changer for a lot of us who may not have the latest hardware. I mean, running on an RTX 2070 that was released 5 years ago? That's pretty cool.

As for the 7B model, it's great to see that it's already outperforming the Pythia 7B. The bigger dataset definitely seems to be making a difference here. I'm eager to see how far this project goes, and what kinda improvements we can expect in the coming weeks with the new RedPajama dataset they're working on.

One thing I found interesting is the mention of differences between the LLaMA 7B and their replication. I'd love to learn more about those differences, as it could shed light on what's working well and what could be improved further.
Agreed. There's a lot of great index types out there - HNSW is incredible, but algorithms such as ScANN (and PQ) have their place in the ecosystem.

Tree-based vector indexes aren't bad either, especially if we can find a way to make the random projections more efficient.
Servo was not going to be big. It was a test bed that Mozilla extracted value from in the form of Stylus, WebRender, etc. People really seem to rewrite history a lot.
It seems like you could create an MLIR "ROP" dialect for these "gadgets" and actually make it nearly trivial to write exploits, by compiling your ROP dialect to the appropriate exploit "data" to be placed in the buffer overflow on the stack.

Then you just need to find the buffer overflow opportunity to launch your exploit, using (for example) something like KLEE-style symbolic execution after doing an x86 to LLVM IR conversion on an opaque binary, or by getting access to the original (open source) code and running KLEE the normal way.

Then deploy your exploit.

Profit?

Pretty scary stuff.
This is a great list - adding two more that cover Calvin (vs Spanner, Cassandra, Dynamo etc.):

http://dslam.cs.umd.edu/calvin/
https://www.cs.umd.edu/~abadi/papers/calvin-sigmod12.pdf

Disclaimer: I work with Fauna, a distributed serverless/edge DB with a design inspired by Calvin. - Luis
The best and and Worst Question on SO
That's why in the Netherlands owners of unused buildings often use anti-squad tactics. They let in a legitimate renter in a type of anti-squat deal: rent is low but you can be kicked out at anytime (about 1 month notice).
This is beyond exciting. Welcome to the new reality!

On one hand, the resources required to run these models continues falling dramatically, thanks to the techniques discovered by researchers: GPTQ quantizing down to 4, 3, 2, even 1 bits! model pruning! hybrid vram offloading! better, more efficient architectures! 1-click finetuning on consumer hardware! Of course, the free lunches won't last forever, and this will level off, but it's still incredible.

And on the other side of the coin, the power of all computing devices continues its ever-upward exponential growth.

So you have a continuous lowering of requirements, combined with a continuous increase in available power... surely these two trends will collide, and I can only imagine what this stuff will be like at that intersection.
What the hell are you talking about? What does this have to do with ads in Gmail?
Doesn't this make serverless read-only apps (that only require a fileserver) effectively impossible?

In a serverless read-only app, all business logic and state is maintained on the browser.
We've seen Milvus used in a variety of recommender systems running in production.
> I've seen many companies with similar splashy hype who failed to reach orbit.

Really? Because I don't think I can think of a single company in the last decade that has achieved this level of hype. Maybe Tesla.
Sure, but framework-less PHP incentivizes poor architecture (hey we can do everything in 1 file to KISS x 100 endpoints = microservice hell). Requires an expert and disciplined engineer to execute well.
Things I Want to Communicate to the Human Species Before I Die
That'd work for this specific case, but I think that was just a simplified example. A Map can store a value of any type, while the dataset property will always be a string. If you're only working with strings, it's a great option since you don't need to maintain a side data structure at all. But, serializing and deserializing arbitrary objects would be expensive.
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.00901

Granted, I'm not very familiar with the math behind things like compression and I skimmed a few sections, but this seems to be a criticism of the authors' methods and not the general idea. They show that there are other ways to produce these quantifications of complexity that are better than what's in the original paper. But these also show that certain biological materials score substantially higher than the abiotic samples.

Some of the criticisms also seem to be nit-picking, mainly the mention of beer scoring very high on these measures, as if it's a fault. That just means it's a measure of how biotic something is, not necessarily if it's alive. Beer requires the interaction of at least three species (human, yeast, and wheat) so why shouldn't it score highly?
> working from home is just a net negative for the company

Probably because the research doesn't really back that statement up. Plus, the moment you have more than one office, you're effectively working from home even when you're in the office.

And, anecdotally, I've found that people who WFH are more likely to overwork themselves than those who are in the office.
Some theories theorize that the universe is infinite in size. Recent observations with the JWST suggest that parts of the universe formed much to quickly for the Big Bang to explain their existence suggesting that parts of our universe already existed when the bang happened so possibly parts of the universe were carried over from a time before the Big Bang. Both of these could explain beating the odds because if something is infinite it will eventually experience every single state of possibility even the seemingly impossible. The universe may actually be millions of timescales older then we understand. It’s all very fascinating to ponder.
There was a lot of detail and data in here, but it's not very useful to me because all of the comparisons are to things I have no experience with.

There's really only one thing I care about: How does this compare to GPT-4?

I have no use for models that aren't at that level. Even though this almost definitely isn't at that level, it's hard to know how close or far it is from the data presented.
Hear me out: soccer players in composite armor
VHS HiFi was very good, but you still had some tape hiss. So I used a dbx 224 compressor to record my 4 hour mix tapes. I couldn't share them since no one else had a dbx box, but it was good for long background music where I didn't have to get up and change CDs. So, like a reel-to-reel but much more compact.
When to Prefer Inheritance to Composition
"The USDA employs 122 inspectors to inspect 11,785 facilities, ranging from zoos and breeders to labs, according to a Congressional Research Service report last July."

What? Jesus that's so absurd
I worked on both sides. I mostly agree except there are cases of important projects including AWS (like some of the ML work), also the whole aws usage discount/pricing thing is pretty huge and clearly the value in being within the same company. Retail would have a pretty hard time existing nowadays if they weren’t connect to aws imho.
These are unbearable cute, but 14K is a bit too much for the novelty. Serious roboticists, you can have my turn.
In that vein, there's a hilarious exploit in Zelda: Breath of the Wild that uses the bullet time mechanic activated by drawing a bow while airborne. Basically, the game drastically slows down time, but the developers missed a handful of physics corner cases that cause acceleration/momentum to be scaled up by the same factor when exiting the bullet-time mode. So with some practice, one can learn to bounce off of an enemy and fly halfway across the map [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ext6yE0d394
"Use of Creations. Subject to your compliance with this Agreement, the Microsoft Services Agreement, and our Content Policy, you may use Creations outside of the Online Services for any legal personal, non-commercial purpose."

Probably not the only factor but could be one.
> advanced AI systems like myself

hallucinations from the GPU powered lexer again?
> They're not working at a bar at 1am, they're waiting tables at the local pizza place and bringing a beer out with the pepsis.

That's what you assert, but that's not what the law says.

And I'd love to think that companies would be ethical enough to only ever surface the situation you bring up.

But I'm enough of a realist to know that's not the case.
Neat!

It would be awesome if you could set up a parallel “monolith-stories.com” site with the exact same content, except for inverting the sentiment scale :)

Seriously!!
Social media is a service.
The bit I liked best was the response examples. Look at those. Clearly not as good as GPT-4 but good enough I feel that for say a scenario where you care about privacy or data provenance this would be a contender.

For example a therapist, a search bot for you diary, a company intranet help bot. Anything where the prompt contains something you don’t want to send to a third party.
A coworker and his wife used it to generate the layout, design elements, colour scheme, and stock "photography" for their side project's marketing site.
Thanks you for the offer, but I’m extremely conscious of avoiding a direct link from my comments here to who I am.

Maybe it’s a bit too paranoid, I don’t know, but I’ve also been open here about my workplace experiences, if someone who knew my irl connection to them and decided to comb through my comments, in a way that my HR dept among others might not quite appreciate. Maybe I should setup a separate HN account connected to me Professionally for that sort of thing.

Also my use case for GPT-4 is data analysis. Using the paid “plus” version shows a lot of promise for quickly bootstrapping data exploration and consumption as a jumping off point for more detailed digging. Via the chat interface it can ingest very small aggregate datasets and spit out observations that only myself and my boss have the domain name expertise to produce in my organization. but the Chat interface is highly limited and often truncates even small (faked but plausible) data, so I really want API access, because it involves sensitive info I couldn’t put into the chat site or responsibly share with someone outside my org.

But really, thanks for the offer. What are you working on with it?
I'm not sure* that the "just put everything the footer and link to the footer" is a solution I'd present seriously to the business stakeholders.

The thing I really want to kill with fire is the "junk drawer" method of UI design. This has infested almost all apps, with a three-dot (••• or vertical ⋮ ) scattered literally everywhere in every UI. It says "We couldn't be bothered to build a thoughtful UI, or even to classify the types of actions you might want to perform into a few categories. Even with a full-screen window on a 5K monitor, we'd rather have a sea of whitespace everywhere than to just put the actions where they are visible, discoverable, and can develop muscle memory.

I used to think about 15 years ago that a big problem was that developers and designers all used expensive high-res, large monitors and forgot that most users were on 1280x800 or (eek) 1280x720 laptop screens. Today it's the opposite direction with everything being optimized for tiny screens and minimal information visibility.

I know "mobile-first" is important but (A) phone users want things to be visible just as much as desktop users do, and (B) the right design for a phone is almost never the right choice on a massive screen.

*for an "application" - sure, it works great for a 8-page blog like the article. By all means. I just don't think it'll work for Expedia, Facebook, etc.
A Life Less Ads
lol! I thought the exact same thing! Totally reminded me of old MySpace pages.