skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I could say the same thing about javascript from the early days, through Jquery, and beyond. Should I turn my nose up to modern javascript because of the past 2+ decades I've been working with it?

Yes. And I say that as someone who has been developing "modern" Typescript web apps full-stack for the last few years.

My issue with JavaScript are fundamental to language design decisions that can't be removed due to major breaking changes. Things like having to deal with `undefined` AND `null`. `==` vs `===` (more specifically, type coercion), prototypal inheritance in addition to ES classes in addition to TypeScript classes. Array.push causing mutations. Having `for of` in addition to `Array.forEach` etc. etc. etc.

And then you have the fact that it is neither OOP nor Functional. So you get people from both backgrounds, and ideologues from both backgrounds, trying to squeeze JavaScript into their preferred paradigm, within the same code-base ... and JavaScript obliges. Because it is neither.

Every single JavaScript application looks radically different from each other and, worse, in a large organization with many teams working on a common code-base, consistency becomes damned near impossible to enforce.

And so you start adding lint rule after lint rule after lint rule until you have an entire team dedicated to maintain your custom linting bullshit.

JavaScript is a complete shit show to this day even if it does have nice features and even if you can get up and running with it quickly.

If it weren't so popular, and if it weren't the "language of the browser", I wouldn't recommend it for anything other than small teams who can decide on which "version" of a JavaScript adventure they want to strictly adhere to.
It's somewhat dangerous, agree, especially if it was to be a commonly held opinion. But it's likely just another folly that (it seems) mostly the rich and powerful use to fill their minds with delusions of grandeur, but one in a long row of such delusions. I doubt it will be of any real consequence except as an elitist project.

That said, the article touches on the type of folly that this is: i.e. mixing the "goals" of the species with that of individuals, as if the trajectory of the species was like getting an education and a career. This leap is more common than we might imagine and I believe it is caused by an underestimated characteristic of the human mind: we take esoteric knowledge that has been presented to us by instruments of science and transpose these concepts onto familiar things: a planet is like an orange, the atomic system is like an apple with electrons like busy bees swirling round it, gravity is like a steel ball in a rubber net and so on. It gives us the impression that we know things when we (at least as amateurs) will likely miss out on essential properties that we have not yet grasped, because these things are so far removed from our everyday reality.

It is the same with the concept "species" in this case. It is a largely scientific concept, for the individual it is only really relevant if the other person is possible to mate and get offspring with. That's the concept of species we have had as humans for millions of years, it's likely to continue to be so, and who knows where that will take us. It's really none of my business.
I still use OpenAI’s APIs (in Emacs: lovely) and Bing+ChatGPT mostly, but Bard keeps getting better. Last night I asked it a question about one of my books (“ What example programs are in the GitHub repo for the book Loving Common Lisp the Savvy Programmer’s Secret Weapon?”) to see if it incorporates real-time web search, and it did. It found the GitHub repo and gave me a good summary of what the example programs were.

For a few months, I jumped really deeply into using LangChain and LlamaIndex but I am now moving more to writing my own LLM infrastructure and tooling from scratch - fairly easy to do.
The truest mark of an ideology is that its adherents don't even think they're being ideological, just reasonable.
Are you talking about JS the language, or the ecosystem?

JS as a language isn't nearly as big as C++ or, say, Swift... I'd say Python complexity is on par or even higher than JS, in terms of core language features.

There are some language features that are outdated but it's hardly like the C++ situation.
(Agree with you, but - sorry - as a practitioner in the law of armed conflict, I have to point out that the Biological Weapons Convention didn't take effect until more than a quarter century after the Geneva Conventions of 1949.)
The English translation would be something like, “all together, at the same time”. “In mass” isn’t an English idiom.
In my opinion ... a company cease to be a "startup" when several of the following are true:

- no longer running on funding rounds (ie, they're now profitable)

- no longer doing "major" new product development (not the same as not investing in R&D, new products, etc)

- mature into a "traditional" organizational structure (less "seat-of-the-pants", more "plan-and-execute")

- older than 10 years (though some startups transition at 3 years, and others might take 20...a decade seems a plausible age cut off)

- "adults" are running the place (this is not exclusively an age determination; more of a managerial/employee maturation indicator)

- no longer trying to "do the impossible" (beat MAGNAF, displace Uber, disrupt government...) - rather, working towards being "good" at what they're "good at", letting everyone else [more-or-less] alone
Gitea here. Should disclose that we ended up contributing to the project and developing an understanding of its code in order to integrate into our org, so ymmv. (but at least you can see the source).
We can move the fill to the style attribute and get it back down to 114:

<svg viewBox="-32 -32 64 64" style="background:#f60;fill:#fff"><path d="m0-5-8-12h-7L-3 1v16h6V1l12-18H8z"/></svg>
The NIH, the scientists doing the research, and most other experts in the field disagree. Partisan politicians are the ones yelling about how dangerous it is. I think I'll listen to the experts.
Even if that’s the case, which could be possible, it would be nice to have some accountability for the accident that led to the covid pandemic and lockdowns, and a transparent accounting of why even after all that, the risk from not doing this research is greater than that of restarting it
In practice or is that what the manufacturers claim?

Either way you should take into account you lose about 40% of that by simply converting the fuel to electricity, which is kind of the opposite of what happens when moving from combustion engines to electromechanical engines.
homie it is literally the first sentence in the quoted paragraph

>PyTorch (and Chainer) *eschew* this tape; *instead*, every intermediate result records only the *subset* of the computation graph that was relevant to their computation.

>Either I am an absolute fucking moron

you said it not me
What about china, canada and nigeria? These protect at most half of what the uk does. Coincidentally germany is EU’s largest co2 emitter and a source of highly polluting cars. While it doesnt extract coal or other resources from its own territory it has no issue in using such resources from other countries. So while in absolute numbers it may appear better, overall it’s worse.
Transflective LCDs have piss poor contrast and generally they're only good in direct sunlight. Who would want to read on that indoors and why? See for example the comparison video your other replier posted: https://youtu.be/AXHzY1IgJWw?t=370 I also have watches with RLCD and Amoled, indoors even on a very sunny day RLCD sucks.
And 4k for 20 inches display? What for? Do you plan to stick your face in the monitor?
That is not what the author said. They said the JS Ecosystem was delightful. He then goes on to describe that Ecosystem. For some people that ecosystem is indeed delightful. They love the sheer complexity it takes to deploy a JS application these days. There is certainly a lot of choice and power out there for it.

I personally am the kind of person who tries to ship my stuff as a single statically linked binary that I can just drop in place so I look as WebAssembly as a way to participate in the browser ecosystem while avoiding the whole NPM/JS Tower of development tooling complexity. I don't begrudge others from wanting to play there though.
Self-Hosted Compilers and Bootstrapped AI
Weird that the supply has an opinion, right?
Still, even with raid1 for metadata and raid5 for data, the kernel still shouts at you about it being EXPERIMENTAL every time you mount such a filesystem. I understand that it's best to err on the side of caution, but that notice does a good job of persisting the idea that btrfs isn't ready for prime-time use.

I use btrfs on most of my Linux systems now (though only one with raid5), except for backup disks and backups volumes: those I intend to keep on ext4 indefinitely.
"en masse" is the term used in English as well.
If there is any technological progress trend, then in the long term people will be vastly, incomprehensibly richer than us and so they will be much more able to deal with problems than we are.

Ask not what you can do for the future, ask why those b*stards aren't helping us.
Writing is killing creativity.

Out of the dozen branches of thought, writing forces you to commit to just one and expand on it. That is nice for that one thought, but now you left unexplored the other 11 ones which will be forgotten.

When you are thinking you can jump between multiple trains of thought without friction.
See 4:00 in this video for punk music:

Explaining Deleuze with drum machines

https://youtu.be/iDVKrbM5MIQ
You can use this tool to figure out how to run again any currently running container https://github.com/lavie/runlike
“People simply do not understand what they are missing.”

I think you can say this about people who haven’t learned to write well. ChatGPT seems like a great thing because they can get it to excrete a content-like substance that reads well, and call it writing.

Prompting ChatGPT to produce a text lets you move faster when you have an idea and want to cut to the finish.

The problem is that part of writing is starting with an idea, thinking about how to express it, and then realizing that your initial idea might be flawed or need work.

Sure - ChatGPT seems fine for spitting out web copy or something where the role of the writer isn’t to examine an idea, but just to go from start to done as quickly as possible.

But I think he’s talking about the types of writing that involve wrestling with an idea and, for example, trying to persuade others. ChatGPT will happily spit out copy in that form. But it won’t trip over a paragraph and say “hey, shit, now that I write this out, I think it’s wrong or not well-expressed.”

People bemoan co-workers who coast by on people skills and bullshit over people who have expertise and do the work. ChatGPT is likely to be similar - helping people who can’t write (express or work with ideas effectively) sound authoritative and generate more content that they don’t really even understand.
> Are you using malten?

Not at this time. I only heard about it recently. I like that it can be self-hosted.
The clean room described above is a fairly bullet proof technique, but it's only been employed very few times and is not necessary to create an original work. Nearly every work was produced by people who were exposed to other copyrighted works. Unless something is a straightforward copy, it's a high burden to show that something is effectively a copy or translation. A lot of these kinds of things are untested in court probably because it's so difficult to make an abstract case.
Now that gitea supports act_runner (and hence a reasonably usable clone of GH actions), Jenkins is dead.
This wiki is out of date. It has lots of [comparisons to the PinePhone](https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Freque...), but none regarding the PinePhone Pro.

The Pro has a much better hardware situation than the original PinePhone.
It almost sounds like the object-oriented database Jasmine that CA & Fujitsu (if memory serves) was pitching in the late 90s

Or an ER diagramming tool

Or UML-as-note-taking

I recognize none of those are the tool name, but maybe they'll help spur your memory :)
> It's not rechargable though.

Renewable though.
> that I would pay more for a Burrito if someone had not taken a shit in it.

It sounds more like you’re unhappy to be getting 2 burritos and you’d rather get only 1 for the exact same price.

Just don’t watch the shorts. All they are is a line on the homepage. I ignore it.
Did I ever claim that it created a tape?

If my comments implied that, then I am sorry for miscommunicating, but by calling it "dynamic" I meant that there is no compiling of a tape or tracking it as done with TF and the likes.

> I nternally, a Variable is simply a wrapper around a Tensor that also holds a reference to a graph of
Function objects. This graph is an immutable, purely functional representation of the derivative of
computed function; Variables are simply mutable pointers to this graph (they are mutated when an
in-place operation occurs; see Section 3.1).
A Function can be thought of as a closure that has all context necessary to compute vector-Jacobian
products. They accept the gradients of the outputs, and return the gradients of the inputs (formally,
the left product including the term for their respective operation.) A graph of Functions is a single
argument closure that takes in a left product and multiplies it by the derivatives of all operations it
contains. The left products passed around are themselves Variables, making the evaluation of the graph differentiable.

Please explain how it doesn't hold a graph when it literally says it is holding one, dynamically created and kept alive via ref counting.

I am losing my mind here.
Propaganda != something I don't like

It's propaganda because the primary goal of the economist is to convince you of something (that the status quo/neoliberalism should be enforced). Propaganda also doesn't mean nothing in this article was non-factual.

Mother Jones also has a lot of 100% factual articles, but their main goal as a propaganda outlet is to convince people to become socialists. I don't think that belongs on HN either, even though I love Mother Jones.

Is there value in posting a pure propaganda piece to HN? I don't think so, not unless the point of the post is to practice media literacy by looking at propaganda academically. I think it would be more interesting to post something more scientific without the narrative bias. More room for debate beyond the confines of what the author wants to push.

Also I never said The Economist denies climate change. They disparage green energy. All the people replying to my original comment never actually addressed the point I was making, they immediately jumped to "but the Economist doesn't do climate denialism" and got mad at my usage of the word propaganda

Either way, this article is crap and so is most of what The Economist comes up with because it--again--is propaganda.
Dev tools is at a minimum

https://chromium.googlesource.com/devtools/devtools-frontend...
Because it's not that easy and it costs money which they are likely no willing to spend. Also Microsoft took it over ~5 years ago an I guess we'll see the results of the different management style here.
Personalize embedding results with application data in your database
There is a lot of latency involved shuffling data for modern/complex ML systems in production. In our experience these costs dominate end-to-end user experienced latency, rather than actual model or ANN algorithms, which unfortunately limits what is achievable for interactive applications.

We've extended Postgres w/ open source models from Huggingface, as well as vector search, and classical ML algos, so that everything can happen in the same process. It's significantly faster and cheaper, which leaves a large latency budget available to expand model and algorithm complexity. In addition open source models have already surpassed OpenAI's text-embedding-ada-002 in quality, not just speed. [1]

Here is a series of posts explaining how to accomplish the complexity involved in a typical ML powered application, as a single SQL query, that runs in a single process with memory shared between models and feature indexes, including learned embeddings and reranking models.

- Generating LLM embeddings with open source models in the database[2]

- Tuning vector recall [3]

- Personalize embedding results with application data [4]

This allows a single SQL query to accomplish what would normally be an entire application w/ several model services and databases

e.g. for a modern chatbot built across various services and databases

-> application sends user input data to embedding service
<- embedding model generates a vector to send back to application
-> application sends vector to vector database
<- vector database returns associated metadata found via ANN
-> application sends metadata for reranking
<- reranking model prunes less helpful context
-> application sends finished prompt w/ context to generative model
<- model produces final output
-> application streams response to user

[1]: https://huggingface.co/spaces/mteb/leaderboard

[2]: https://postgresml.org/blog/generating-llm-embeddings-with-o...

[3]: https://postgresml.org/blog/tuning-vector-recall-while-gener...

[4]: https://postgresml.org/blog/personalize-embedding-vector-sea...

Github: https://github.com/postgresml/postgresml
Here and I was going to suggest they add a graham cracker crust.
>when would you ever have a website serve a request, and have to use gigabytes of memory to do so?

I'm pretty sure that PHP is not only used for web sites otherwise comparing to Go is simply meaningless. There is little to no point in using Go to build something with a relatevely low load.

>Again, why would you ever have an HTTP server do so much work in order to serve a request?

http server != website. You can have two services somewhere down infrastructer that communicate via http(s).
No, I agree with you! I'm not trying to simplify things by saying it's a tool. As you use the tool, it changes you as well. I think the chatbots are particular technology that will have a lot of that effect.

One of my favorite ramblings on this is Wendell Berry's essay on "Why I Am not Going To Buy A Computer".

I'm just saying that there's an obviously bad way to let this tool have an impact on you, and there's a way to use it that won't ruin you.

It's important to be vigilant, and not to abuse GPT-4 and, i.e., replace all of your own writing with AI.
Javascript benefits from the major efforts put into its JITs. No other scripting language really has that.
One does wonder when all these longtermist people tend to be already pretty successful and rich in their own personal short terms.. Not to mention how all these longterm ethical guidelines seem to validate or forgive their lucrative enterprises. Perhaps even in the best of intentions they aren't epistemologically equipped for this kind of thinking!
What would it even mean if we created covid 19 in a lab and it was accidentally released? Would it change anything? Would anyone be held responsible?
Thanks, always open to feedback on it. I think we're due for a decentralisation kick but anything we run needs to be drop dead simple.
At what point does a conspiracy become a fact? This results in another pandemic, it's not going to be pretty when gov't demands lockdowns.
He bases this argument around the fact that IQ scores are not very predictive of income/wealth which I don't find very convincing as an argument that it's a "pseudoscientific swindle." Anybody who has been in the real world for a while and thinks that having a high IQ is the best/easiest way to make money isn't very smart.
We already have one. Now we have something else, too.
Hmm, it's a shame that Little Javascripter is not mentioned: https://www.crockford.com/little.html That is really the only positive reason to use JS.
Sure, but then if we're gonna create and study viruses that can erase significant percentage of our population, why not do that on some remote island with one month of required onboarding/offboarding quarantine for all of the scientists involved?
It is those situation where the government should just get people to bid on supplying a steady amount of non-fossil fuel energy for a given period in the future, and whoever bids lowest wins.

If there are companies willing to sign a cheaper contract that provide equal stability of a nuclear power by using a combination of fossil free storage and renewables, they should then do that.

The requirements are fairly simple. Provide energy when people want it with the capacity that people require, and supply it as cheap as possible with as little subsidizes as needed. No fossil fuels allowed.
Stands for GL Transmission Format if that helps.
That's secondary to the internal cost of demoralize 200K people.
> That only makes sense if you assume they are superior. In which case, there isn't really anything to discuss because you've obviously already made up your mind and you will take anything anyone says as some desperate attempt to twist the truth for the sake of survival.

:-) I haven't decided anything of the sort. Alas, there is nothing divinely given in me. I'm made of the same matter than you and those computers, and if I can think, so can other arrangements of atoms and molecules. LLMs? Maybe not yet. But the issue is that we are getting closer. Should we dilute ourselves in our own supposed exceptionalism until it's too late and we stop being the masters of our fate?
This would work in Magic: Arena digital-only formats using the perpetual mechanic plus a variation of the text on a card like Magical Hack.
"...Once you try to build something that does not fit the confines of the framework..."

Can you provide an example of that? In my experience people think too quikcly they're smarter than the community behind the framework and that it doesn't fit their use case, and the real cause is just that they don't "like" the recommendations and think they can do better. Plot twist: They don't, and usually end up creating a terrible mess. What would be the alternative? Building your own in-house undocumented, untested, unproven framework and/or tying together 100s of libraries? Are you convinced that's going to lead to a better result for all use cases of your application? And that once you leave the company, the next developer will think "Oh, this custom framework is great... I'm glad they didn't use Rails/Django/Laravel"... not my experience... at all.

I think that these frameworks are the best choice for most project, and if they're not (Like.. you're building Google Earth or Figma or something really different) then the problem is that you picked the wrong tool from the get go.

I don't think that "this one special case" is special enough like to not use a batteries included framework and go wild with your imagination. Unless you're a FAANG, otherwise you're wasting your employers money.

As an anecdote, I once worked for a shop that used Django. One of the developers before I was there "decided" the Django ORM was bad and promoted bad practices, etc, etc... so he wrote his own "better" ORM on top of a postgresql library. You can imagine how that went, specially after he left and the second gen of devs arrived to deal with the monstrosity.

This happens a lot more frequently than you think.

We should stop thinking we're "so special". We must focus more on providing business value by writing product code, tests and documentation and less rewriting the world because it's cool.