skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As a backend developer who didn't 'get' web development for many years. Learning react changed all of it. React was revolutionary, and just clicked for me. Combine this with frameworks like Material UI, Patternfly and many others and its almost like you have some super power. These days I can build fairly big sites with lots of stateful components quickly.

Most of my use cases is to build internal tools. But the pace with which once build things in react and its over intuitiveness just makes it special.

React is one framework which Im sure will be available for long time to come!

Thank you React dev team.
Theories around mindfulness are a good start, don't you think? What is missing?

I have some thoughts here. Traditional meditation practice is accepting of the tendency of the mind to wander. Such is the nature of our minds. Over time, we strive to improve our ability to focus / concentrate / redirect our attention.

But when it comes to socio-technical design we need more than infinite patience around distractions. We probably want and need to evaluate how we do. Tor example:

- how often are we distracted?
- for how long?
- why? (is it simply due to our 'wandering' brains? And/or it is more causally connected to environmental factors, such as attention-stealing devices?)
- what interventions work for certain kinds of distractions?

Sometimes people are drawn to the notions of metrics. There is value in metrics; there are clear mathematical ways to calculate them. Collecting, them on the other hand, can be quite challenging.

But let's not limit ourselves to 'metrics' in the quantitative sense. The reason is obvious: some of our most important goals are not easily put into quantitative terms. Luckily, with vast improvements in text processing, we need not limit ourselves to traditional metrics based on scoring. We must think bigger and broader.

With a good set of evaluation mechanisms (again, not just metrics), we don't have to fall back on some indefinite mindset about 'doing better'; we can actually demand that products and services be designed and adhere to basic principles. These principles will probably be somewhat subjective and culturally contingent, but that doesn't discount that they can also be grounded in neuroscience, broadly accepted notions of morality, and tunable according to cultural and situational factors.

Does this make sense?
I live in NYC and was recently surprised to learn that despite the population, we don't rely at all on desalination. Pure water catchment. Good YT doc on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDLkOWW0_xg
Isn't this how people started raising awareness for climate change - the scientists, engineers, and researchers are the most vocal to start with (and then inevitably politics and tribalism consume it)

Why not believe them now, assuming you believed them when they were calling out for action on climate change decades ago?
We didn't just dig nuclear missiles out of the ground; we used our brains and applied math to come up with them.
10 years and state management is still a mess.
Best I can figure, Big Oil pricing is based on what the market will bear. Versus in response to supply, demand, cost of production, and so forth.

Primary evidence is their profitability.

Every couple of years, some politician gets some press for initiating an investigation into price gouging. If a hearing actually happens, no one ever makes the mistake of saying anything concrete.

Nothing ever changes.

And now we have analysis which shows that 50% (?) of recent consumer price inflation is just Big Oil charging more.

And nothing will change.

Silver lining is that price gouging will hasten switch to EVs, so yay for small victories.

(FWIW, my uncle works in a refinery making diesel. He couldn't explain pricing. So what hope do noobs like me have of lifting the veil?)
> The racism comes from the fact non-white people were not properly considered

Is this the case? Do we even know for a fact that only non-white people were mislabeled as anything else?

Or are we just, you know, throwing out baseless speculation as fact?
Short term loss for long term gain.
What's the new way as of a few months ago? The docs way?
this is called market correction , even though soon this is going to change.
This reeks of marketing and a push for early regulatory capture. We already know how Sam Altman thinks AI risk should be mitigated - namely by giving OpenAI more market power. If the risk were real, these folks would be asking the US government to nationalize their companies or bring them under the same kind of control as nukes and related technologies. Instead we get some nonsense about licensing.
Right now, he's openly calling for regulation. That's a verifiable fact.

It's very possible that when specific proposals are on the table, that we'll see Altman become uncooperative with respect to things that don't fit into his self-interest. But until that happens, you're just speculating.
To use Eliezer's analogy, this is like arguing about which move Stockfish would play to beat you in chess.

If we're arguing about whether you can beat Stockfish, I will not be able to tell you the exact moves it will play but I am entirely justified in predicting that you will lose.

Obviously we can imagine concrete ways a superintelligence might kill us all (engineer a virus, hack nuclear weapons, misinformation campaign to start WW3 etc.) but given we aren't a superintelligence we don't know what it would actually do in practice.
I'd say it depends on the quality relative to the other options. In some areas near me, people will choose a Catholic school even when they aren't Catholic. My own experience with a public vs religious elementary school was much better at the public school.
Very valid point and very valuable question. In this regard it is clearly different from human cloning and I should have thought of that. Obvious in hindsight.

In my defense though, if we can find a distinct clear line for AGI, my point stands that we can coordinate and regulate it. But yea... Your point stands that by the time we draw the line it might be too late.
How is this even comparable?

Not only React changed completely almost overnight, but the changes in the methodology were fundamental.
What are the clashing philosophies?
Your figures don't add up. Divide the electric car by 4 or 5 and it's still more than the electric Eurostar train, and that's a high speed train too.
>A flood of new research is overturning old assumptions about what animal minds are and aren’t capable of – and changing how we think about our own species
i was working at google at the time so the examples i saw were all in internal documents
I think we're always looking for the silver bullet that shall make computer software development easy.

The following technologies were all silver bullets:

* ActiveX, COM Object model, XPCOM

* Unified Modeling Language (UML)

* Extensible Markup Language (XML)

* Computer-aided software engineering (CASE)

* Java Virtual Machine

* Ionic, React Native, Qt, Gtk, Flutter

Something tells me that the problem is bigger than anyone can chew and the abstraction solution is sometimes more complicated than the underlying thing being abstracted.

I think WASI and WASIX is an EXTREMELY important API for the future of computing. It's a chance to create a superior operating system runtime interface.
So now all those ridiculous job postings requiring 10 years experience with React finally make sense?
The problem with shared spaces is always other people. This sounds nice if all the adults are actually parenting their kids, or are willing to surrender some oversight of their kids behavior to the other adults in the housing.

When you have a bunch of abusive alcoholic parents living there who let their kids run rampant and bully the other kids, what then? Do you discipline their kids somehow? How do you get those parents in order?

It doesn't take much for that living situation to go from sounding like a big happy community to a nightmare.

And let's be honest, society is extremely hostile towards adults going anywhere near other people'a children nowadays, so how do you even intervene if your child has problems with another kid but their parents are neglectful and don't give a shit.
Artificial Intelligence and Humanity
Yes this was a point of particular emphasis in swiftwater rescue classes since drowning is one of the mechanisms of injury for which CPR can work well to bring someone back who appears dead (not breathing, hard-to-find pulse).

It’s also a scenario in which the breathing part of CPR is particularly valuable. A lot of front-country CPR courses de-emphasize administering breaths in favor of sustaining chest compressions.
If your social support depends on your membership in that community, which depends on your kids attending a similar school, you’ll dig deep to preserve it.
What I wonder is why all these folks didn’t come out so vocally before? Say 3 years ago when companies like Alphabet and Meta already saw glimpses of the potential.
> 80k US$/year puts one above many top executives, doctors and other prestigious jobs. Not bad at all for a remote position in software development.

The real question is: Who is creating the most value here? The top executive at a local company? The local doctor or the software engineer shipping products in markets around the world?

It's unclear whether or not the local doctor's qualifications would even be recognized in the US, yet the remote software engineer's work is making money there and countless other high-value markets as we speak.
What's the point in dismissing the need for AI safety? Are you guys Russian bots, or do you genuinely see no reason to worry about AI safety?

But since I see these kinds of snarky responses often – we obviously do worry about climate change and various other issues. Continued advancements in AI is just one of many issues that face us which humanity should be concerned about. Few concerned about AI would argue it comes at the expense of other issues, but in addition to them.

If you're saying it's a matter of priorities and that currently humanity is dedicating too much of its collective resource to AI safety I think you're probably over estimating current amount of funding and research going into AI safety.

If you're saying that AI safety is a non-issue then you're probably not well informed on the topic.
If you shot an unarmed man in the back... would you not be punished for that? Or if you planted drugs on your friend? If you planted a microphone/camera in your friends place?
Either way, it's immaterial who does it, only the results matter. Though I agree, it either isn't done, or it's done poorly, with little rigor, or dubious research methodology.

The field of UX is very, very guilty of this as well. Some people seem to think that just because it's qualitative research, you can feel free to go with your gut, or rely on unsubstantiated data. The same methodology that would get you thrown out of a university can thrive in some organizations.
-> Quite simply: when was the last time you went in Twitter to see an intelligent argument that opposes yours? Never,

Strange premise. As a Christian I don't head to mosque or synagogue. Similarly, I don't use Twitter in that way
Space game sparked the creation of Unix (2017)
Meta's AGM |Assessing Allegations of Biased Operations in India
> Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Nobody is talking about that. Instead is about how these changes could be done without creating so much confusion in the community. In fact people embrace evolution of these frameworks but with clear changes in methodology, labeled as such and so on.
> I find it quite extraordinary how many on here are dismissing that there is any risk at all.

The fear over AI is a displaced fear of unaccountable social structures with extinction-power that currently exist and we allow to continually exist. Without these structures AI is harmless to the species, even superintelligence.

Your (reasonable) counter-argument might be that somebody (like, say, my dumb self) accidentally mixes their computers just right and creates an intelligence that escapes into the wild. The plot of Ex Machina is a reasonable stand-in for such an event. I am also going to assume the intelligence would desire to kill all humans. Either the AI would have to find already existing extinction-power in society, or it would need to build it. In either case the argument is against building extinction-power in the first place.

My (admittedly cynical) take about this round of regulation is about several first-movers in AI to write legislation that is favorable to them and prevents any meaningful competition.

...

Ok, enough cynicism. Lets talk some solutions. Nuclear weapons are an instructive case of both handling (or not) of extinction-power and the international diplomacy the world can engage to manage such a power.

One example is the Outer Space Weapons Ban treaty - we can have a similar ban of AI in militaries. Politically one can reap benefits of deescalation and peaceful development, while logistically it prevents single-points-of-failure in a combat situation. Those points-of-failures sure are juicy targets for the opponent!

As a consequence of these bans and treaties, institutions arose that monitor and regulate trans-national nuclear programs. AI can likewise have similar institutions. The promotion and sharing of information would prevent any country from gaining an advantage, and the inspections would deter their military application.

This is only what I could come up with off the top of my head, but I hope it shows a window into the possibilities of meaningful political commitments towards AI.
There is a general mythology that business greed is a new thing, and that it is an American invention. This is not the case.

I'd specifically like to call out the ancient slave trade as an example of business existing for profit at the great determent of communities. I'd also like to call out that the Europeans explores immediately starting exporting tobacco around the world when introduced to it, even though it clearly has negative health consequences. It was their learned behavior to make profits while harming the health of their customers.
What about the countries buying up Russian gas an reselling it to EU countries? Did they stop that or have those countries just gotten smarter in hiding the origins of the gas?
My favourite tool for this is the blame command in Magit (the Git client for Emacs). You can cycle between styles; one shows the commit message as a kind of header in-line with the code for instance. Another just shows a faint rule between lines that were changed in different commits. Then, one can press return to show the specific commit that the line was changed in. Well worth a try if you haven't already!
Are the 4 million truck/taxi drivers in the US white collar? Janitors? Fast food workers? Automation is relentless and not everyone can be a plumber.

Zoom out. It's a big problem that most people derive their social power from labor while the demand for labor is clearly on a long term downward trend. Even if progress slows way down, even if the next wave of progress only dispossesses people who you hate and feel comfortable farming for schadenfreude, we will have to deal with this eventually. Defaulting means our society will look like (insert cyberpunk nightmare world here).
I would also recommend Koen Claessen's simplified finger trees (https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3406088.3409026) and Zip trees (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.06726.pdf) for purely functional skip lists.
And still one of the worst European CO2 footprints..
Keep meaning to look into if you can get this through Stripe. :)
I don't know, people who say similar things imho haven't confronted death too much. When you keep examining "rewarding" things like that critically, I always end up realizing how temporary it is and how much I don't care about being remembered by people who would also be forgotten. I say you do you, whatever improves your experience of life without causing harm.
> The other option you may not have considered here is that you are immensely entertained by boring and derivative writing.

This. Whenever I see someone write glowingly of the output they get from generative AI, I know they are trying to complement the model, but my first thought is "wow, this person must have awful taste and embarrassingly little ability to evaluate quality."

It reminds me of the 7-year-old me who non-sarcastically called McDonald's food a delicacy.
I think these two are React's biggest lasting contributions. Describing UI in a declarative way, and introducing many functional programming concepts to the world's JS devs.

I myself fell in love with functional programming in part because of many of the concepts I was introduced to by the likes of Dan Abramov and company.

It led me down paths of research I wouldn't have known to go down, all the way back to the dawn of computer programming.
No it doesn't work like that. I'm amblyopic. I only have like 10 or 20% visual capacity on my right eye. Using those devices suck even more than a 3D movie.
On the other hand, I know dozens of people that left their life and higher salaries in the US behind to come to the EU for those stated reasons.
He doesn't deserve downvotes, he gave his assumptions and people can make their own judgements. His odds sound reasonable to me.
> Nobody is forcing you to use it.

This argument goes out the door if you need to adopt a library that has already adopting them.

Even reagent, an extremely conservative React wrapper, had to provide support for functional components, hooks and effects eventually.
No, I mean azure subscription, as in not tenant level.
Not being dependent from terrorist state for basic necessities like fuel is worth it.
It's idiotic to call it "racist", it's a shitty classifier

This is sort of like telling residents of a historically black neighborhood which just so happens to have been exposed to drinking water with dangerously high levels of lead since time immemorial (despite decades of complaints) that it's just "shitty pipes", and that it's "idiotic" for anyone to think this state of affairs could possibly have something to do with racism.

I agree that the matter is quite nuanced, and there was no racist intent. However it's far from "idiotic" to address these issues directly. If anything it seems a bit obtuse not to address them.

Where there's smoke, after all, there's usually some form of fire.
How has it been a regression for the web?
What makes you think that an AI caused extinction event will somehow leave AI researchers alive?
If you consider a broader picture, unleashing a paperclip-style cripple AI (aligned to rising $MEGACORP profit) on the Local Group is almost definitely worse for all Local Group inhabitants than annihilating ourselves and not doing that.
So do you suggest throwing Ukraine under the bus for cheap energy?
Nice! It's very apple that the default recommend way is very restricted but there are clever ways to get around that restriction if you dive deep enough.

Also, Swift is so much easier to read then ObjC.
Why is it that when a new technology comes along for executing code, the first thing people do is say "this is great, but it would be awesome if it ran my 40 year old code without modification"?
Curious what primary use case you had in mind?
What? ChatGPT 4 can already pass the bar exam and is fluent in every language. It is super intelligent. Today.

No human can do that, the system is here, and so is an architecture.

As for the existential risk, assume nothing other than evil humans will use it to do evil human stuff. Most technology iteratively gets better, so there's no big leaps of imagination required to imagine that we're equipping bad humans with super-human, super-intelligent assistants.
High bandwidth communication to deep space missions can indeed revolutionize astronomy. The concept of linking multiple telescopes and synthesizing a view in software is known as interferometry, which has been successfully implemented on Earth and with Earth-orbiting satellites using techniques like Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) [1].

Placing telescopes in orbit around the sun, spaced half an orbit apart, could provide unprecedented angular resolution. However, the challenge lies in establishing high-speed communication links to transmit the massive amounts of data generated by these telescopes. Recent advancements in free-space optical communication (FSO) technology, such as the Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration (LLCD) achieving a record-breaking 622 Mbps downlink speed [2], show promise in addressing this challenge.

As technology continues to advance, it is not inconceivable that we will achieve the necessary bandwidth to support ambitious deep space interferometry missions, as I've learned from sources like MirrorThink.ai and various research papers [3, 4].

References:

[1] Space VLBI: from first ideas to operational missions - 2019

[2] A superconducting nanowire photon number resolving four-quadrant detector-based Gigabit deep-space laser communication receiver prototype - 2022

[3] Ground-to-Drone Optical Pulse Position Modulation Demonstration as a Testbed for Lunar Communications - 2023-01-31

[4] Investigations of free space and deep space optical communication scenarios - 2022-04-01
C source file, that is also a valid shell script
So this works:

./derasterize.c
I have a similar-but-different problem: a commonly used Gmail address that apparently someone(s) not me was using out in the wild for serious business.

Among other things, I received:

Interview requests for jobs to which I never applied
A background screening for a FL sheriff's job
Legal communications for buying a home
Business relationship emails
Account and subscriptions for a variety of services

Relevant point being -- every single one of these counterparties had no idea what to do with me responding "I am not the person who you've been talking with about this. They appear to be using my email. Please ask them to update their email."

It made me realize how shitty most people are at dealing with anything other than business-as-usual.
Again, are you claiming that it's impossible for a machine to invent anything that a human could? Right now a large chunk of humanity's top talent and capital are working on exactly this problem.

As for your second point, human cities also require a lot of infrastructure to keep running - I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

As for your third point - would a horse or chimpanzee feel that "we" were unbeatable in physical fights, because "we" now have guns?
See everyone tells me gaming is unhealthy but I loved doing it so much that I simply became a computer professional so that people can't stop me from gaming. It's a time honored tradition to game during downtime in many IT departments.

Seems a highly addictive and on paper "unhealthy addiction" was in this case quite gainful for me.
If you're trying to optimize the latency of a software system its helpful to make the speed of light your dominant bottleneck. :-)
It looks to be very relevant. CRLs are more frequently checked now due to bandwidth and compute becoming much cheaper. OCSP is a common solution for larger CAs. Cross-signing is becoming more common, and it still is a mess with clients validating it in different ways. Let's Encrypt used cross-signing when they rolled over to their own ISRG X1 root. There's a CA/Browser Forum group which defines rules and standards for browsers to trust public CAs and all major browsers use them to determine which roots to trust. Certificate Transparency logs are also a new development which is like a blockchain of issued certificates. CA/B Forum requires CT to be implemented by all publicly trusted CAs.
For me it's a Google worry. I'd be terrified they'd delete my Google (Gmail) account with no way to recover.