skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think they were crazy to even try. Just let it exist within RetroArch - in-fact I hope it doesn’t draw attention to RetroArch after this incident
A bit of background:

I don't believe there's any official support from Raspberry Pi for using the Pico with Arduino. Raspberry Pi provides Micropython and a C/C++ SDK. My guess that professionals in the embedded space probably use the SDK directly (it's nicely documented) and do things themselves, but hobbyists like me would like a package manager so we can install libraries easily. Enter Arduino.

This isn't Arduino's official support for the Pico either. Arduino made a port based on mbed. It doesn't seem to be used much, based on my searches. Not much about it since 2021.

That's because Earle Philhower's "community port," called arduino-pico [1] is nicer. I switched to it to get good USB-Midi support, because it has an option to use Adafruit's fork of the TinyUSB library.

But, as a package manager, Arduino can be confusing and PlatformIO is supposed to be more sane. So, with the patch, you can do that, and the instructions are here [2]. It works fine. The patch isn't merged, but it works.

Somehow this is the unofficial, alternate choice in multiple ways, so it probably looks pretty dubious. But it's the one that seems best for me. Ideally I'd be using a language with a real package manager instead of Arduino or PlatformIO's embedded-only implementations. (I don't even particularly like C++.)

[1] https://github.com/earlephilhower/arduino-pico
[2] https://arduino-pico.readthedocs.io/en/latest/platformio.htm...
Thank you very much my friend. Be blessed in all that you do. <3
My first job out of college was a hybrid computer operator /programmer for a company that ran a state lottery. This was the mid 90s.

They had a complete backup site with redundant servers, modems (for point of sales systems) and a redundant staff because the cost of being down was so high.

We never had to use the backup site the entire three years I was there.
Picasso, by way of Fourier
Catholicon: https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Catholicon/4336
> If you are saying that no assurances were made by Western leaders, I am not sure you read the source.

No assurances were written or made in any way, Jeffery Sachs fever dream and Putins imagined grievances don't count as sources.

> I am unaware of assurances Russia made to Ukraine. I am familiar with the Minsk accords which were broken.

I see you’re not at all familiar with this conflict nor with the history of Russian Ukrainian relations then.

In fact considering Jeffery Sachs never mentioned this I’m starting to doubt his familiarly with this conflict and it’s history in general too.

The Budapest Memorandum (which is written down btw) was a international agreement where in exchange for Ukraine giving up there nuclear weapons and long range strike capability, Russia, the UK and The USA pledged to the following points.

>> Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[7]

>> Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.

>> Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

>> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

>> Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[8][9]

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

This agreement was signed in 1994, well before any invasion and well before any coerced Minsk accords happened.

So considering Russia has been fragrantly violating this agreement and how much you love to bring up agreements that don’t even exist, you must agree that Russia must leave Ukraine right?, under this agreement which is written down they agreed to never violate their sovereignty something they are doing right now.

> I read the two blogs which give different perspectives.

Those perspectives are called reality, something Jeffery Sachs is clearly not very familiar with.

> I do not see any problem with somebody from the US being interviewed by foreign press or vice versa. That does not make a person immediately sided with the government where that outlet is based or of the interviewer. I wish we would see more of this both ways.

To call Vladimir Solovyov media is incredibly generous let’s look at some choice clips from his show shall we.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTTGsOgxMd4

Talks about and to another Putin supporter about completely wiping out Ukraine from the face of the earth.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkTLKJt6K0

Here he talks angrily about Ukrainian refugees and about not even stopping at Ukraine, clearly a threat to the rest of Europe.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y0LQqAZHCw

Here he lies about only hitting military targets.

Theres thousands more clips, Solovyov is more akin to Jospeh Goebells than to any actual foreign press.
Anecdotal data warning but for context my research is in medical informatics and I've quite extensively followed publications on transformers dating back to the early BERT variants (including non-medical).

I'm making that statement as my experience (easily several hundreds of publications read or reviewed over 3 years) is that it is very uncommon to see TPU's mentioned or TRC acknowledged in any non-Google transformer paper (especially major publications) dating back to the early BERT family of models despite the fact that Google is very generous with research credits (they'll give out preemptible v3-32s and v3-64s for 14 days with little question, presumably upgraded now as I haven't asked for credits in a while).

Fully acknowledge this isn't quality evidence to back my claim and I'm happy to be proven wrong but I'm very confident a literature review would support this as when I tried to use TPUs myself I couldn't find much.

This doesn't account for industry use, there is probably a non-insignificant amount of enterprise customers still using AutoML (I can think of a few at least) which I believe uses the TPU cloud but I would be surprised if many use TPU nodes directly outside of Jax shops like cohere and anyone still using TF.

PyTorch XLA has just breaks too much otherwise and when I last tried to use it in January of this year there was still quite a significant throughput reduction on TPUs. Additionally when using nodes there is a steeper learning curve on the ops side (VM, storage, Stackdriver logging) that make working with them harder than spinning up a A100x8 which is relatively cheap, cheaper than the GCP learning curve for sure.
What Physics Teachers Get Wrong About Tides (2015) [video]
So far I've only found https://nic.eu.org/ but it works, and I assume it's unlikely to go anywhere for the foreseeable future.
Wedding guests + drinks + a platform with a rapidly-spinning arm: not advisable
Much improved. AoM has some buggy pathfinder edge cases still but its enough that its an annoyance not a mainstay.
https://play0ad.com/game-info/project-overview/
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.”

Yogi Berra
I was expecting the opposite, mostly sans-serif with the occasional serif, but the keming didn't disappoint.
The industry disagrees with you

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42938734/tesla-best-selli...
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/tesla-is-americas-best-selling-...
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-y/

I don’t see Hyundais in Palo Alto. I see Teslas. Perhaps you consider valley middle class.
Now that you mention it: if they were all recording video you probably could adjust speed and pan around freely in post...
(I did not downvote you.)

The person you're replying to is definitely overly flippant, but you've taken a sort of Gish gallop approach where you think if you list enough individual things that have to be done, that'll be overwhelming evidence that it's impossibly difficult. But the things you've listed aren't as hard as you want them to be on reasonable small business scales.

We are a company with 4 IT employees including myself, and two of us alone (both full-time programmers) handled our hybrid cloud migration. We rented a rack in a colocation facility. I learned how to design racks in a couple days and did the rack design myself. We bought servers from Dell and network equipment from Meraki. The colo facility found us an inexpensive contractor who racked and stacked everything to my design, and remote hands does any ongoing hardware maintenance. The other guy had an old, outdated CCNA and he designed the network. We got a fiber connection to AWS up and running for a hybrid cloud approach. All of this was very doable for a part-time two-man team with other job responsibilities and we're saving a ton of money for database and workstation hosting--big, expensive, totally static workloads. Perfect for on-prem. The ongoing savings vs. pure AWS exceeds my own salary.

It was clear from the outset that we could accomplish this. I wouldn't have signed us up for a boondoggle. Certainly, there are more demanding configurations where the complexity would be too high, but people act like on-prem is literally impossible without a team of dedicated staff in every case. It's not. It can be doable.
> Whilst PlatformIO come across as the villains in this story

I find this to be a bit misleading.

My take is that the RPi foundation wants PlatformIO to do support work for RPi for free.

At no point do I see the RPi foundation saying "Hey, we'll allocate programmers and resources to maintain this code for our chip."

Open source means that you get the code and that's it--open source doesn't mean that you get any say whatsoever over the developers. When did everybody start being so damn entitled that everybody thinks they can tell maintainers what to do?

Don't like it? Shut your piehole and roll up your sleeves. Quit bitching, fork the PlatformIO stuff and do the work yourself. If the fork is sufficiently popular, it will yank enough people away from the original that they'll cave. And if it isn't sufficiently popular, well then that's an answer, too.
Not this again :(
I don't know if the NXP ColdFire CPUs are available anymore, but they continued development for a while.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NXP_ColdFire
I imagined they found Encino Man while they were running out of oxygen and Pauly Shore was making squirrel noises.
The DMCA was for the private encryption keys included directly inside Dolphin source code [0]. I am not defending the DMCA at all, I think it's a shit law, but let's be clear, I can't think of a clearer example of a valid DMCA violation. It is circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a protected work [1]. Defending it by saying the work is non-infringing is fighting a very losing battle, you would have to attack the DMCA at its core in order to come out on top here.

[0] https://github.com/dolphin-emu/dolphin/blob/master/Source/Co...

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
Oh, it wasn't just the satnav.

When GM developed the Epsilon platform for small/midsized cars, they knew Saab was onboard to use it for the 2nd-gen 9-3. Saab also always had a 900/9-3 convertible, so it was assumed that other GM divisions could borrow from Saab's work for their own sporty/convertible Epsilon-platform models.

Nope.

When the GM North America guys saw the BOM for the 9-3, there were enough changes from the shared Epsilon components list that there was no economy to be gained by sharing the parts with the Pontiac G6 convertible. Saab made lots of expensive changes to the structure, supposedly.
But...people seem real happy with their 9-3 convertibles; happier than the few I've met who've experienced the G6.

I think Bob Lutz, in one of his books, talks about how Saab insisted on doing lots of things themselves or going with a different vendor than GM NA or GM EU. Like the previously-mentioned satnav, HVAC components, power window regulators..
things where some other part of GM would have a cheaper part that was better tested and likely more reliable, and that the customer would never see. Of course, GM should have let Saab continue doing its own interior trim, including its fantastic seats. And they did make Saab their center of engine control electronics and turbo powertrain development, for a time.
> It's a good thing that isn't the argument I made, then.

Well it could perhaps be accused of being a reductive summary, but surely you see how it could have come off like that?

> The vaccine was tested. It's safe. No, that doesn't mean there isn't risk, there is always risk, but risk doesn't mean it could be poison for all anyone knows.

There is a vast bit of difference between no risk and poison for all anyone knows. Safe (as in unlikely to kill you or cause you lasting harm in the short term)? Yes, that’s evident. Worth the risk over the disease for those not at risk? By my reading of the data that’s far from clear. And again comparing 50 years to a few months of data.. I just don’t see how you can’t see the difference.

Again, your position doesn’t resemble anything scientific.
It only needed to be, what, 30-50x bigger to be sustainable?
I find the healthcare applications of this stuff so interesting.

On the one hand, there are SO many reasons using LLMs to help people make health decisions should be an utterly terrible idea, to the point of immorality:

- They hallucinate

- They can't do mathematical calculations

- They're incredibly good at being convincing, no matter what junk they are outputting

And yet, despite being very aware of these limitations, I've already found myself using them for medical advice (for pets so far, not yet for humans). And the advice I got seemed useful, and helped kick off additional research and useful conversations with veterinary staff.

Plenty of people have very limited access to useful medical advice.

There are plenty of medical topics which people find embarrassing, and would prefer to - at least initially - talk to a chatbot than to their own doctor.

Do the benefits outweight the risks? As with pretty much every ethical question involving LLMs, there are no obviously correct answers here.
I have a Mach-e friend owner and his home charger needs prayers to work too
The annoying thing about using cloud infra is finding that all your skills and knowledge have to be relearned N times over for N different cloud vendors for a huge array of their services, mostly to do basic things that you already know how to do anyway in traditional environments.

The fact they all offer similar but subtly different versions of every type of product and that cross platform tools like Terraform etc have some ability to paper over these only makes it worse. (Your google cloud bucket is just like your S3 bucket right? Until it's not). When I rant about platform independence people think I have a philosophical objection to lockin, but its really much more basic than that. I just don't have time to learn thousands of vendor specific APIs, bugs, constraints etc on top of the perfectly good built up knowledge I have from 25 years of working with software systems already. I am busy using all that time and brainspace trying to keep up with the fundamental knowledge that is actually important.
Although one way to generate HTML is to construct a structure with objects and then walk it to produce text, an alternative approach is possible whereby our HTML-in-Lisp syntax is a macro language that compiles to code that directly generates HTML without the intermediate object. This could be quite optimized to coalesce the text where interpolation isn't happening, and do constant folding in general.

E.g. using Common Lisp as an example, this:

(html output-stream
((a href "https://example.com") "foo"))

could translate to the code:

(write-string "<a href=\"https://example.com\">foo</a>" output-stream)

which just dumps a string literal to the stream.

One issue in Common Lisp html generators is that if you want to use the backquote syntax for it, you're steered toward an implementation that just lets the backquote do its job of constructing the list, and then walk the list. The reason being that backquote expands in an implementation-defined way. If backquote expands to a macro syntax like Scheme quasiquote, you can suppress its evaluation and then walk it yourself to give it your own meaning:

(let ((url "https://example.com"))
(html output-stream
`((a href ,url) "foo")))

Here, html could intercept the quasiquote syntax, walk it itself and spit out code like:

(let ((url "https://example.com"))
(html output-stream
(write-string "<a href=\"" output-stream)
(html-write-attr url output-stream)
(write-string "\">foo</a>" output-stream)))

Historically, an example of a Common Lisp HTML formatter which walks a constructed nested list object is Tim Bradshaw's htout library. An example of an efficient generator of write-string calls is CL-WHO.

CL-WHO doesn't use backquoting for interpolation. The code template uses keywords for indicating expressions that are HTML tags. Other expressions are implicitly Lisp to be executed. Inside evaluated lisp, the htm macro switches back to HTML templating. E.g.:

(with-html-output (*http-stream*)
(:h4 "Look at the character entities generated by this example")
(loop for i from 0
for string in '("Fête" "Sørensen" "naïve" "Hühner" "Straße")
do (htm
(:p :style (conc "background-color:" (case (mod i 3)
((0) "red")
((1) "orange")
((2) "blue")))
(htm (esc string))))))

which, according to the documentation, generates code similar to:

(let ((*http-stream* *http-stream*))
(progn
nil
(write-string
"<h4>Look at the character entities generated by this example</h4>"
*http-stream*)
(loop for i from 0 for string in '("Fête" "Sørensen" "naïve" "Hühner" "Straße")
do (progn
(write-string "<p style='" *http-stream*)
(princ (conc "background-color:"
(case (mod i 3)
((0) "red")
((1) "orange")
((2) "blue")))
*http-stream*)
(write-string "'>" *http-stream*)
(progn (write-string (escape-string string) *http-stream*))
(write-string "</p>" *http-stream*)))))
Per the article, the margin was negative, they could only produce 86% of dietary needs.
I know there's a lot of acrimony surrounding this fellow; the top comment is an excellent perspective on it, I suppose. That said, as awful as this may sound, that type of behaviour is indicative of exactly the sort of turbo-autism that I want aimed at hard problems like GrapheneOS.
1. What was on the phone that was so valuable?

2. Do they have enough water? No, but supposedly an "overflow section" of unpotable water.

3. Did they find the phone?
I wondered too what Webb was referring to, and didn't find a hint of it either.

"The known history of supernova observation goes back to 1006 CE. All earlier proposals for supernova observations are speculations with many alternatives. " -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supernova_observati...

There's a rock drawing in Kashmir, India of what might be a supernova (HB9) dating to -4600BCE ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/10/two-suns-no-it...
You can grep the source code (or more expeditiously, unpack the omni.ja and grep that) for all occurrences of the functions that retrieve the preferences: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3796084/about-config-pre...

Figuring out what they do is a different story, but at least that's one way to get a list of all of the possible ones.
What's your threshold to acknowledge this as intentional, intelligent behavior
I can't speak for others, but at least for me, an omnivorous diet is not suboptimal.

It may have higher emissions, but that's not the sole metric I use when deciding what to do. I think that would result in clinical depression, because I could always ratchet down my emissions by, for example, buying fewer board games, until I just don't really do anything.

Can't even go camping with a gas stove!

In everyday life I don't generally discuss my diet beyond small talk.

So you'd probably lump me in with that 95% of irrationals, because in person, I'd just try to change the subject.
> Why?

Because the researchers found it to be an interesting problem. Using an AI to beat Minecraft has been an active benchmark in the ML world for some time now.

> Who wants this?

Me, as well as the many others who have liked and shared the paper.

> To what end?

Furthering our ability to create autonomous agents. If we can get it to work in Minecraft, that's one step closer to getting it to work in real life.
My campervan (Promaster 2500) has rear windows, but it isn't like I can see anything out of them when I'm driving. Usually just leave them covered anyway.
I mean, they use Google sheets or another web app already, so....
I guess it varies somewhat, but how much does an average competitive mouse costs?
> Literally everything you said is the opposite of how I've seen people use "cloud" in the real world.

I’ve been working in SaaS since 2008 and in cloud providers since 2012. And the use case I see over and over is people who don’t think they need or want geographical redundancy, until they do, and then they want it yesterday. Typically they are running fine for months or years and then there is an outage - maybe an AZ or a network partition - and then all of a sudden they’re scrambling for failover. Cloud often (usually?) has higher availability than the infra they migrated off of, and they grow addicted to it while not wanting to pay the dev cost for true high availability.
I second the recommendation to start with Lifschitz and move on to the Potassco book from there. To add: One does not need to know Prolog to get into ASP, the semantics are unique and more minimal. That said, I personally struggled with ASP before it clicked, it takes time to grasp the lingo and grok the semantics if you have never worked with something similar. Best to have a guide that introduces the concepts one at a time ("What do you mean, there's more than one type of negation?!")
Are you threatening to turn off my power again, Hans?
Terrible by what metric? I'm sure it's generated many ad views.
Or these vertical ceiling fans: https://www.lostcanyonwoodworks.com/x/cdn/?https://storage.g...
The article is definitely not saying “it’s a myth that chess masters have great chess memory”. Anand is pushing back on a common layman perception, that the chess master’s excellent memory for chess positions is just an instance of their excellent memory for everything. He tries to show that ‘chess master memory’ is quite narrowly limited (when there is no logic to the position, masters perform no better than amateurs) and also quite effortful (many hours of preparation and revising required to keep that information in their mind).

More broadly, I’ve always found it interesting how chess tests very specific mental faculties. Memory of course, but the other big one is visualization. For most of the great players, when they are calculating many moves ahead, I believe they are visualizing the board in their mind and literally moving the pieces around so they can “look” at the resulting position and analyze it just as if it were laid out on the board in front of them. Those “blindfold simultaneous” games where a master plays against several people at once without looking at the board, they are holding the state of multiple full boards in their minds eye throughout the game.
Yes, crypto is definitely not the solution to this. This was a transient problem, that was resolved within the week. Everyone got paid back. An issue with the EVM overcharging people is irreversible. Those funds would be lost for good. At least with trad-fi, you can click a few buttons and revert payments.