skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am increasingly skeptical that DEI programs in colleges actually increases Diversity, Equity or Inclusion - it often seems to play out as an increasingly tokenistic set of measures that make people feel good, over meaningful improvements in improving equity, and cross-cultural/cross-racial understanding and growth.

While I cannot speak to this case (and I'm somewhat skeptical being that its published in the form on a WSJ op-ed), I do think that in general terms the DEI Raj on campuses is just another way to increase the power of the administration over the faculty and raise the cost of a college education yet further.

As someone who is generally left, I'm used to the scolds being on the right, now they seem to be in my tent too, and I'm a bit flummoxed on how to make them either moderate or leave - overt actions to do so are often met with a virtual firing squad of people who I otherwise agree with 75-80%.

In the end, I think the new racialism (racial discrimination is at the root of all problems) distracts from the larger problem of poverty, which is so intertwined with racism that you cant begin to tackle the unsolved problems racism without making substantial progress on solving poverty first.
If a LC interview effectively serves as a proxy for an IQ test, then I think the courts might treat it the same as a literal IQ test. I wonder if we will see lawsuits testing this hypothesis.
we need to face the reality that in capitalism, anything you can get someone else to do* for cheaper than your own price should be outsourced. Hiring cheaters does select for someone who can take other's work and apply it for their own situation, whilst capturing the value difference (essentially capitalism).

Love it or hate it, it's actually a selected for skill perhaps immorally applied.

Additionally companies create their promotable skill set (both explicitly and implicitly), if their system is selecting for something, its not incumbent on you to break yourself against that system, play the game the way it's set up and allow the Executive class to reap the pros/cons of their setup.

Edit: One more thought is that when you look at an evolutionary style thought system, there's no "playing fair" in nature. Yes relationships and such have value, but being hired vs not being hired is a sort of reproductive event where whatever gets you hired means you get the experience/resume item and your competitors do not.

* do at a sufficient substitution equivalence
Lower cost perhaps? Canada being cheaper than the us it may be an incentive.
There's a Discord server for Bluesky/ATProto developers. I would try there.

https://discord.gg/3srmDsHSZJ
I'm talking about stuff like Bevy where the docs are scattered across multiple web pages. ChatGPT can still be helpful but typically copying/pasting a whole doc, asking a question, reading the answer, is slower than just reading the page myself. And if it's the wrong page, then chatGPT won't help.
The incessant Apple (iOS) / Google [and manufacturers] (Android) sniping is truly a sight to behold.

People going out of their way to declare (or at least make clear with varying degrees of intensity) just exactly which feudal overlord they're ready to "bleed for" (i.e., give money, personal data, and free promotion to). People who often act as if they have an appropriately suspicious view of corporations in just about any other interaction, come out boldly declaring that this company or that company is GREAT when it comes to privacy, or consumer choice, or <fill in the blank>.

One of the strongest and most consistent weaknesses of human psychology is the effect "flags" have on otherwise reasonable minds.
> Indians have a really tough time saying something isn't going well, or that we shouldn't do a project, for cultural reasons. That's great! Culture is great. For work though, something closer to the culture of the outsourcer makes it a lot easier to deal with.

It sounds like it’s not great. Indians are apparently losing business over it. And I suspect they’d be more efficient if they changed that aspect of their culture, at least for business.

I’m Bangladeshi and have the same inclination about bad news and saying “no.”[1] I’ve materially improved my career by channeling my west coast American wife in bluntly addressing bad news early, and saying “no” when something isn’t doable. (I still do the Indian “no” with my parents and it drives my wife nuts. “Why did you tell your mom you’d do that when you know you aren’t going to do that?”)

[1] I think it’s a characteristic of hierarchical, face-saving cultures in general, including the American south.
I've visited this crater. There were a surprising amount of gas tanker lorries driving around nearby. A friend suggested that maybe they keep topping it up to keep it burning to attract tourists!

(Not that Turkmenistan gets - or indeed allows - an awful lot of tourists).
I see your point. And I understand that the term is understood differently by different people. But there is a substantial fraction of people (myself included) who understands it the way OSI defines it.

My criticism is not that Facebook chooses to release the software under any particular terms (they are well within their rights not to release it at all). But the ambiguity of the term remains, and my belief is that Facebook is well aware of the ambiguity and nevertheless chooses to use it in bad faith, and that is what frustrates me.

A less-ambiguous press release might instead say "source released under a non-commercial research license" or more succinctly "model code available for researchers," which sounds just fine.
If we get fusion power and ai and longevity up in next 10-20 years it's going to be nightmare for ordinary people. Yeah, nightmare, not paradise.
I don't think allowing teenagers to access pornography would cause significant harm to them. The only risk is them carrying out unsafe sex practices from the porn, which can be remedied through education.

The reason we prohibit teenagers from having porn is likely from religious dogma passed down the generations without people questioning it.

Yes, trusting children to make decisions helps them grow, by allowing them to make mistakes and learn from them naturally.
And also schema.org: https://schema.org/
Thanks for the clarification.

The issues with vetting of nominees was also one of the factors Levitsky and Ziblatt identified in:

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/306746/how-democracies-die-b...

These are also global issues; because parties are doing poor job and media is lacking behind, people often elect candidates with harsh criminal records, known links to extremist organizations, or funding from foreign countries, etc.
I imagine you could ask general architectural questions and it would give you general architectural answers. And then you ask more and more specific questions and get more and more specific answers.
Domain knowledge of projects becomes effective when apps gets complex. Asking the right questions to ChatGPT will warrant you answers to help you tread unknown territory. To ask the right questions is to first understand how your app is structured, know it’s major components, what’s potentially missing. It gets technical.
It’s not. We have functioning institutions that generally perform well over long periods of time. People respect the rule of law and there is an expectation of justice.

Spend time in Honduras or Brazil to see what low trust looks like.
> I didn't look at it, took the challenge and gave it a lot of effort. I got a pretty bad mark and the rest of the class got top marks.

I am curious to know what conclusion you draw from the anecdote about the test?

Is it that you aren't good enough because you tried your best and failed?

Or is it that the test is a fallible instrument, designed by a human being who works within the constraints of an institution and has no choice but to treat education as if it is a magic juice that it's his job to squirt into the students heads and then administer tests to determine if the juice stuck there or leaked out, thereby identifying the defective and leaky craniums?

Or is it that you seemed out of touch with what every else intuitively understood? ie. That they're being evaluated and that a negative evaluation can have profound consequences for the rest of their life, regardless of if the testing procedure is fair or not?
Sooo, in terms of malleable wing sections there's some neat research done by MIT that might be interesting to you [0]. There's also some new work that pops up when I was searching for [0]; apparently the same researchers have been working on this idea for some time [1]. The idea is simple in concept, produce small building blocks and assemble large shapes from those building blocks. If you design your building blocks right and assemble them correctly you can achieve some pretty impressive macro properties, including compliant mechanisms [2]. And then there's this 3D printer I stumbled across yesterday that prints on successive sheets of carbon fiber [3]. This could be relevant for the manufacturing process (they currently use injection molding in [1]?) as it would offer composite material strengths at a high speed (they claim 17 seconds for a relatively complex part).

[0] https://news.mit.edu/2016/morphing-airplane-wing-design-1103

[1] https://news.mit.edu/2019/engineers-demonstrate-lighter-flex...

[2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240889

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BKzikfssTM
Can't wait for West World style sex robots!
It came from Zuckerberg hoping he'd control the next computing form factor after missing out on mobile. He thought backwards and came up with the Metaverse as the inevitable next form factor as a result.
You're ignoring several confounders and conflating several loosely related things that I'm not even sure what the point you're making is anymore.

To begin with, the split-brain experiments don't provide clear or strong evidence for anything given the small sample size, heterogeneity in procedure (i.e. was there complete comissurotomy or just callosotomy) and the elapsed time between neuropsychiatric evaluation and initial procedures which relies on the assumption that adaptation does not occur and neuroplasticity is not a thing. The split-brain experiments are notable because the lab experiments SUGGEST the lack of communication between two hemispheres and a split conscious however this is paradoxical with everyday experience of these patients, far from providing evidence for anything.

Ignoring that for a moment, how do the split-brain experiments support
'the brain has many semi-independent “interests” that are jockeying for overall control of the organism’s behavior'?

How is addiction self-contradictory exactly and what does this have to do with split-brain?

If your point is that different parts of the brain (e.g. the reward system and the executive function regions) have different roles this isn't really debatable, obviously different parts of the brain are all doing their individual jobs and the most widely accepted theory is that these are integrated in some unknown mechanism by a single consciousness which remains in control.

Your original statement of: does the brain know what the brain is doing. The answer so far does not seem to be "yes."

Suggests you're arguing that the brain has many different consciouses that are in a constant battle, i.e. there is not a unified consciousness in control of behavior.

To take your addiction example, the brain is very much aware of what it is doing and addiction is not self-contradictory because short term rewards are being valued above long-term ones and health of the organism. The reward system model provides an excellent neurobiological explanation for addiction.

This is not directly evidenced by either addiction or the split brain experiments and is at best a hypothetical model hence why it's a theory and my original response to your statement.
Show HN: Deterministic objective Bayesian inference for spatial models [pdf]
To give some context, objective Bayesian inference refers to Bayesian analysis (i.e. integrating over the parameter space) using a prior that is design to represent "minimal information" (see [1], [2], and [3] for an overview). Particularly in cases where a model's likelihood function is not strongly peaked about a point, objective Bayesian inference can give better results than methods based off of point estimates like Maximum Likelihood [4].

Reference priors provides a general approach to construct so-called noninformative priors that are suitable for Objective Bayesian analysis ([5], [6]). The approach takes a practical viewpoint of noninformative priors and looks to build priors that are both tractable and provide good performance on frequentist coverage simulations. See Section 2 for a description of how the process and frequentist simulations work and [7] for examples with some basic models (e.g. why 1/σ^2 is the noninformative prior for the variance of normally distributed data with known mean).

[8] was the first to develop reference priors for Gaussian processes models, and [9] extended the work to handle Gaussian Processes with noise (or nugget effects).

The project I'm working on provides software and algorithms to do deterministic inference using the prior from [9]. Typically, such inference has been done using MCMC sampling algorithms; but my belief is that deterministic algorithms can give results that are more consistent, less sensitive to parameter tweaking, and more efficient, at the expense of some engineering cost and loss of generality.

For an example of how the algorithms work on a real-world data set of zinc measurements in a flood plain along the Meuse river [10], see
https://github.com/rnburn/bbai/blob/master/example/11-meuse-...

References
[1]: https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/jonw/files/2015/04/Berger2005.pdf
[2]: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/bayesian-analysis/volume-...
[3]: https://www.uv.es/~bernardo/OBayes.pdf
[4]: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/statistical-science/volum...
[5]: https://www2.stat.duke.edu/~berger/papers/ref-development.pd...
[6]: https://www.uv.es/~bernardo/2009Annals.pdf
[7]: https://github.com/rnburn/bbai/blob/master/example/09-covera...
[8]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/0162145017533822...
[9]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047259X1...
[10]: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gstat/vignettes/gsta...
What’s even more depressing is when these liars and cheats ultimately run out of time (people start realizing) they just hop ship.
> Changing it, a Cigna employee estimated, could save more than $98,000. (Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the insurer only suggests changes when clinically appropriate and that cost is never the sole determining factor. She said Cigna does not directly benefit from such savings.)

Emphasis mine.

Can... someone explain how that makes any sense at all?
I was going to write a "this may sound dumb but..." comment along these lines, thanks for taking the hit.

As users we're forced to browse the Web with a million agreements that say "by using this site you agree to our Terms", what stops you from saying "by crawling this site to train your AI you agree to share profits with us" or whatever, particularly if you can prove that your data ends up being used?
Diamond types author here. I’m working on another blog post - I had a big breakthrough getting collaborative text editing many times faster again using some new ideas. I’m in the process of writing up our new work now.

And there’s another hard problem I’m stuck on: so, CRDTs like mine and Yjs use (random agent id, sequence number) as unique IDs for operations. But a troublesome user might reuse an operation ID, sending different operations to different peers and giving them the same (agent, seq) pair. This results in really awful, weird bugs. Martin Kleppman wrote a paper about BFT in CRDTs. His suggestion is we do what git does and use SHA hashes for IDs instead.

But there’s two problems:

1. We don’t want to store a hash for every keystroke a user makes. That would get big, fast. We want a DAG of hashes like git, except a hash is generated with each keystroke. How do we build an efficient system that can query by hash, without storing all of the hashes?

2. I want users to be able to permanently delete inserted text. If I accidentally paste an AWS key into a document, I don’t want that key in the document history forever. How do I enable that while still getting all the benefits of the hashing system above? (Note if your hash includes the typed character, even if you delete the character itself from disk, you can trivially brute force the hash to recover any typed characters).

Each of these problems in isolation has a solution. But the real prize is how do you solve both at the same time? I think this problem has a solution but I don’t think anyone has solved it yet. Want to name an algorithm and get my eternal respect? Here’s your chance.
Yeah, but it is weaker and provides different, more search focused, results than ChatGPT4.
Are most fusion reactor designs a national security concern? I am not a nuclear physicist but from my rudimentary understanding of most modern approaches I don’t see how they would help with bad stuff (other than creating material for a dirty bomb through waste perhaps)
If you must make progress locally (not just globally) the guarantee you need is wait freedom which is even stronger than lock freedom.

(All wait free algorithms are lock free because necessarily if every thread is guaranteed to eventually make progress then overall progress is definitely made)
>Tutoring me on how to use poorly documented APIs

Can you elaborate on this? I would find it very useful.
It may be my own bubble, but it feels like Rust left that niche around 2019?

I would've put Clojure on the list around 2010.

Elixir feels like a right answer today. Maybe Zig, too?
Why so many red flags on the State Department website then? Are you saying they're just wrong? https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...
Migrate Your Amazon EC2 VPC from IPv4 to IPv6
Not fully automated luxury space communism?
> the intermediary is far too slow.

target that, everything else is "patching"
Quite marginal?

Here is a video compilation of just cases where MSNBC promoted just the Hamilton 68 dashboard, which supposedly tracked "Russian linked" bot and troll activity. It's 11 minutes of clips:

https://www.racket.news/p/eleven-minutes-of-media-falsehoods

These people couldn't stop talking about Russian bots. Listen for yourself and you'll see the claim is made regularly. Later it was discovered that these hundreds of accounts were all ordinary westerners, and the Hamilton 68 people admitted that they'd never really had a reason to think they were Russian. That's just one TV channel, referring to one source of misinformation! There are far far more such clips available.

This sort of thing was totally normal outside the media too. Look at how many papers have come from academics writing about this supposed widespread problem:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22s...

Over 14,000 papers on bots that don't really exist!

And that's just a tiny fraction of the misinformation pumped into society regularly. Again, if Hinton actually cared about misinformation, he'd have cared about that. He doesn't. Like everyone else claiming to care, he's simply a bitter partisan, hence his comment about Biden at the end of the interview.

My point is that these claims all revolved around the idea that the internet was being flooded with bots that spoke and thought just like Americans, so similarly that people couldn't tell they weren't human and would even be highly persuaded by them. Yet the tech to do that didn't exist at the time. People who observed this fact were of course attacked as spreading misinformation themselves, which is why the whole concept is just a joke idea.
Somehow this stuff is always aimed at men.
I'm more of the opinion that no deep skills is no skills at all. Similarly, a wide range of experiences from a blank slate without the necessary effort to connect the dots might as well be no experience at all.

Often an inheritance comes with an upbringing full of entirely different experiences, culture, and values from those who do not inherit much if anything. Deep knowledge and skills are naturally imbued into the next generation without much deliberate effort despite the fact that someone did put in much deliberate effort to manifest that situation. Every lineage begins with someone who had to learn it all the hard way.
My money is on a larger iPad (think Microsoft Studio) that takes the place of an iMac. Likely 15” at first, larger later. I really enjoy a keyboard and trackpad with an iPad and an external monitor. This would be my only machine if I could run Xcode/Terminal on it.
The "boots on the necks of workers" metaphor has been used over many generations as a reflection of the hostility that working people endure in the capitalist workplace. Complaining about the metaphor itself being "hostile" is just laughable. Sticks and stones, my friend.
F2FS (Flash-Friendly File System)
It is already possible to get ESP32-C6. There's some devboards in aliexpress.

VisionFive 2 is also easy to purchase there, as several stores carry it.
Yeah I don't believe trying to contain cheating and dishonesty to specific contexts can last, from my limited experience for people who do this it inevitably starts to leak to other aspects of their life. Shielding behind organized structures is an illusions (also the root of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_evil), in the end you are deceiving other human beings.
A bit like in europe with eastern europe. Fun part is that given the lower taxes and cost of living people there earn more than those in the uk even if pay is lower is 20-30%. Thanks to ir35 and an insane drive to increase taxes that’s becoming more and more common. More expensive than india but also higher quality.
Can we start changing our licenses to prohibit usage of a project for training AI systems?
What you have described is something akin to what meta tags are for. Do we need another method at a domain or subdomain level? Plus, robots.txt, etc. is limited to domain and subdomain managers.

ai.txt is useful, but I am not sure we have nailed down what it can be used for. One use is to tell AI not to train on the content found within because it could be an AI generation.
Credentials and test were seen as a way to remove interview bias from the process. So instead of cheaters you would end up with nothing but code bros
"Fake it till you make it" has been a thing for a long time -- hence the catchy phrase.

When did this wonderful meritocracy exist? Where?

I think back to Jobs and Woz, and how he got him to hack a project to win a contest, and then didn't tell Woz and kept the money. It's been here since day 1.
Something I wonder about is how many people you can get on these relays without saturating it.
That defeats the purpose of a vendor-agnostic, platform-agnostic web graphics API.
This seems to be assuming a very different purpose for ai.txt than the OP proposed. It sounds like they are intending ai.txt to give useful contextual information to crawlers collecting AI training data. Robots.txt does not have any of this information (although I suppose you could include it in comments).
it seems that running an anticheat is greater priority than a linux client

{{Even Wine support is difficult because of anti-cheat. As wonderful as it would be to allow Roblox under Wine, the number of users who would take advantage of that is minuscule compared with our other platforms, and it’s not worthwhile if it makes it easy for exploiters to cheat.}}

give cheaters a cheat server to cheat on, get harsh on cheating in the no cheat server, get rid of anticheat, loose its problems
Thanks for sharing! It's always the project that takes off people notice but they miss the years of experimenting and learning.