skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Can anyone try to mitigate? Here I go:

Mitigating the risk of extinction from very few corporations owning the entire global economy should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.

Just to take an example from something inconsequential: the perfume industry. Despite the thousands of brands out there, there are in fact only 5 or so main synthetic aromatics manufacturers [1]. We, however this we is, were unable to stop this consolidation, this "Big Smell". To think we, again this we, will be able to stop the few companies which will fight to capture the hundreds of trillions waiting to be unleashed through statistical learning and synthetic agents is just ridiculous.

[1] Givaudan, International Flavors and Fragrances, Firmenich, Takasago, Symrise, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume#:~:text=The%20majority...>
"X degrees of separation"

IRL we typically have multiple degrees of separation from other people/things. You can be separated by distance/time. You can be separated by people, for example to have a party with Jon, you need to coordinate with Bob. Things like noise tend to obey the R squared law.

With the internet nearly everything is a single instantaneous hop away. The good things, the bad things. The same amount of effort is needed to access it all.
> your repair is fundamentally meaningless if you cannot communicate it (2 and 3).

I have spent significant amount of time working around bugs and limitations in proprietary software that could have been fixed easily otherwise, and simply being able to fix it for myself or our company would absolutely be beneficial.

This is so staggeringly blindly obvious that it pains me that this is even a point of contention. Of course things would be better if you can also share, but merely being able to repair is also useful in and of itself. This is exactly the sort of Stallmanistic attitude that's impeding any sort of progress, and why we'll still be having the same discussion 30 years from now with no significant movement in the grand scheme of things.
So, in addition to (E)fficiency and (P)erformance cores, it now seems pretty inevitable we'll be seeing (S)ecurity cores soon? Clocked at, say, 25% (or possibly 250%, since that makes them more difficult to observe, remotely?) of the lowest truly-constant rate available on the chip and designed/routed in such a way that side-channels are less attractive to exploit?
Show HN: Apple Watch Custom Complications – for programmers and automation geeks
Create simple text-based Apple Watch complications that are based on/refreshed from a JSON that you can host yourself.

This is something that I always needed but have not been able to find elsewhere - so I created it myself.

Feel free to share what you think about it, including ideas for improvements!
I hadn't thought about it before, but encouraging use of moderately weak encryption keys is an interesting way of balancing the needs of privacy and law enforcement.

On one hand, it protects against widespread warrant-less searches (stop and frisk, border patrol, etc). On the other, law enforcement can get access to the data before the statute of limitations runs out if they deem the case to be worth the resources (presumably with a warrant).
Same in the Netherlands.... sunday had some serious negative prices, at the lowest it hit -30ct/kwh. It was a nice weekend to charge my EV and get payed for it.
> If only we would fight for the real issues like...

I've heard these arguments many times and they never make sense to me. Most of the people I know working on AI do so precisely because they want to solve the "real issues" like climate change and believe that radically accelerating scientific innovation via AI is the key to doing so.

And some fraction of those people also worry that if AI -> AGI (accidentally or intentionally), then you could have major negative side effects (including extinction-level events).
> we had UI designers and engineers who through much research and trial-and-error produced very nice UIs for us to use.

I don't remember that era of great UI. Sites were still inaccessible except no one cared, multitude of dark patterns still exists, confusing design language, no information organization at all.

The "trial-and-error" approach was much more "error-and-error" based entirely on guesses by the designer or engineer. I'm an engineer and remember, working through that time period, the horrible sites we created. I had a part in implementing them.

Not to mention the idea of "Web Application" was still very much incipiente in the mid-to-late 2000s. Who had great design for that? Go back and look at Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace back then, hardly a great example to be had, regardless of how bad we might think it is today.
Absolutely. These are the types of pragmatic, real problems we should be focusing on instead of the "risk of extinction from AI".

(The statement at hand reads "mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.")
10 years, and yet any discussion on this site about front-end development will be filled with people complaining about how front-end development practices change too quickly.
How many experiments can I run at once?
I could down a meter long sub by myself, and I’m fairly certain my dog could too. No need to share.
Yeah, that's why I said that most things aren't worth producing in space without the ability to obtain resources from space. Kinda pointless if you just have to launch the water from Earth.
The worse thing is that WASI doesn't support browsers as a target anymore.

Edit: this supports browsers!!! Amazing!!!
I think at the heart of that debate, there lies a kernel of the essential progressive vs conservative debate on "progress" (and I mean these terms in the abstract, not as a reference to current politics). Even if you buy into the idea that the above (living forever as an AI / cyborg / whatever) is a good outcome, that doesn't mean it will work as planned.

Maybe society bets the farm on this approach and it all goes horribly wrong, and we all cease to exist meaningfully and a malevolent super-AI eats the solar system. Maybe it does kinda work, but it turns out that non-human humans end up losing a lot of the important qualities that made humans special. Maybe once we're cyborgs we stop valuing "life" and that changes everything about how we act as individuals and as a society, and we've lost something really important.

Progress is a good thing, but always be wary of progress that comes too quickly and broadly. Let smaller experiments play out on smaller scales. Don't risk our whole future on one supposedly-amazing idea. You can map the same thing to gene editing quandries. If there's a new gene edit available for babies that's all the rage (maybe it prevents all cancer, I donno), we really don't want every single baby for the next 20 years to get the edit universally. It could turn out that we didn't understand what it would do to all these kids when they reached age 30 and it dooms us. This is why I rail against the overuse of central planning and control in general (see also historical disasters like China's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward ).
Ok well this makes some sense -- the Gitea business model, where a pretty complex piece of s/w is developed open source primarily funded by one or more business deploying said s/w as a commercial SaaS.

But...while QB is a dumpster fire, it has incredibly deep and finicky functionality. Accountants know how to make magic "integrity override" journal entries in its data. It understands how to electronically file a W-2 report in all 50 states. And on and on.

I'd be surprised if any OSS solution ever has this richness of functionality, with the level of trust in its correctness required for money and taxes.
The SaaS vendor might be able to produce such a thing but it'll end up being the "enterprise upgrade" that isn't available OSS.
I have no doubt the metaverse will be the future. Obviously it's hard for people to imagine the possibilities. It's also hard to explain it to people who lack imagination. I think it opens up amazing new horizons for humans to be a part of. From work to recreation. One example, you are working, writing code. You have virtual monitors hanging in front of you. No need to have a physical monitor with limited real estate. Your virtual monitors can be any width or height. They can be swiped aside or brought into focus. Your teammates appear and disappear as the needs dictate. You can have that virtual golden retriever you always wanted, lying by your feet. Music is playing in the background. This while you sit in the Taj Mahal. Later in the day you want to walk on the beach in Bali. One gesture, you are there. It's live and it's sunset. So yes, I want the metaverse sooner than later.
It makes sense for when a user claims there is a bug but then doesn't provide any evidence or other information than can be used to track it down and perhaps just disappears entirely. Happens often enough with any even remotely large project.

The problem is using without trying to triage the bug at all.
I think Intel's advantage in this hypothetical is access to foundry space. Porting their current CPU designs from TSMC to their own foundry is non-trivial (although it can't be that hard -- their integrated graphics are fabbed on their own process, and share quite a bit with their discrete units), but at least having completed that effort they have somewhere to go, instead of fighting over what will be extremely over-subscribed Samsung fabs.
Saudi Aramco is currently multiple hundreds of millions behind Apple and Microsoft.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/
Nobody is forcing you to use it.

The react devs made a bunch of code migration tools, used semantic versioning, slowly deprecated old APIs over multiple versions, maintained vids and documentation. Honestly compared with some projects they handled the changes and evolution of the API extremely responsibly.
Careful with this wording. They avoid shared memory mutations. They don't necessarily change data races. Rather, they just change them since, by definition, every edit is now creating stale data.

At large, in distributed software, this is a distraction. Since most passing of messages around from one distributed piece to the other was already doing a copy across mediums. Such that sent data was already immutable from the senders perspective. (Granted, the preparation step can have you step on your own feet.)
“~anything” is not an encyclopedia that comes up as a top search result for a huge share of factual queries. There aren’t many other sites considered as authoritative and trustworthy as Wikipedia either.

In my opinion this is a far bigger problem than many other fake news related issues that keep getting so much attention, including from regulators.
Drought-struck Barcelona quenches thirst with costly desalination
> The magistrate judge doesn't know anything about computer forensics or how long the brute force attack is going to take.

That's a bit ad hominem.

Let's look at it another way. Should warrants be issued for indefinitely long periods of time? If so, what would keep limitless warrants from being used to harass people? Imagine if the cops just seized property and said it's just going to take them literally years to access it, and the owner can't get it back in the meanwhile. Also, imagine if this is done to extend the statue of limitations. There are so many ways this could be abused.

Then it becomes not too different for arresting someone even when they've done nothing wrong - sure, the charges might be dropped, or no charges brought at all, but spending the night in jail and missing work still has deleterious effects.

> Requiring the government to exercise "greater care" to make sure it is keeping up with a series of requests [...] seems exceedingly odd to me.

So... the author is advocating for rules being too hard, and for the government to not be required to follow them? This is similar to the common response to the simple question about privacy intrusions: why not just have investigators get warrants? "But terrorism! It takes too long! Do you want the terrorists to win?"

Most of the copterbation movies and shows on TV try to show us that cops often don't get the bad guy unless they're allowed to break the rules. It's all absolutely bullshit.
Attorneys may face sanctions for “bogus” cases cited by ChatGPT
I’ve vouched for this, because it brings up an interesting point (albeit, one that proven provocative and been expressed before). Also, many of your comments are dead.

Big O/algorithmic complexity is interesting in that it tends to abstract away the architecture of the underlying processor. A copy is a copy is a copy. Arithmetic is arithmetic is arithmetic. Regardless of what instructions/processing units the underlying processor has. Regardless of data access. Regardless of parallelization. Regardless of memory complexity. All we use are brutish units of “work” — despite not all “workers” being equal.

It reminds me a bit of scientific management: treating your “workers” as interchangeable units that carry out what has been decided to be the most efficient movements and processes — completely disregarding the individual characteristics of the worker. For a humanist example, consider the individual quirks of the physiology (not only in size, length, and composition of the skeletal system via the muscles, bones, tendons and so on that would necessitate there being specific movements and workloads that best suit them — but also in psychology; the brain as its own work-producing part that is uniquely suited and most efficient for specific workloads; rather than an all-encompassing abstract average “best workstyle” that makes no note of these characteristics, but simply decides to use external metrics like “time to pick up a box using X, Y, or Z form.”)

The same parallel can be drawn to computers: different processors and collections of hardware (what is essentially the “body and brain”) have different quirks and different workloads they perform best at. For example, GPUs are much more useful in the case of vectorized/parallel workloads where the operations are relatively simple (f.e matrix arithmetic). While you can run an iterative matrix multiplication algorithm on a CPU in n^3 time — your data access costs will be significant. Instead, running a parallel algorithm on a GPU, with RAM very close by, you can achieve log^2 n.

This is where CS research really shines: not running away from the realities of physical systems, but embracing them.
basically, "starship troopers", the book
> You’re complaining that they made changes to it half its lifetime ago after you walked away from it and now you can’t just go back to the way it was.

Wouldn't you expect jQuery to keep using the same fundamental methodology a couple of years later?
:D

It's better if all your experiments are independent from each other however.
It is deeper than that, the author appears to be a constitutional absolutist and is pitching a perspective that calls into question any law or condition that narrows or refines the conditions under which a warrant is issued. But this is obviously the case since the article is on a hyper-libertarian rag.
Private delegated computation is here, and there will be bugs
> Just post on HN and hope someone in the right spot sees it?

That's how a lot of Google tech support happens. If you get banned by mistake, you have far better luck making noise here or on Twitter vs actually going through support.

We had an app mistakenly banned that we only got human eyes on by calling in favors from old friends who work at Google. It's asinine.
Which is the philosophy behind Gerrit as opposed to Github.
Don't characterize the public as that stupid. The current risks of AI are startling clear to a layman.

The extinction level even is more far fetched to a layman. You are the public and your viewpoint is aligned with the public. Nobody is thinking extinction level event.
I'm wondering about platform limitations. A web browser doesn't actually let you listen on an arbitrary socket, so how does that work?

The supposed specification is more of an API reference and I don't really trust it to tell the developer what you can really do that works well on all platforms. It doesn't document platform-specific limitations, but I don't see it documented anywhere else either.

I also wonder about copying Unix semantics for fork and exec in a supposedly platform-independent spec. It seems like that won't work equally well everywhere.
Well, a large part of where UX design goes wrong, in my opinion, is because people keep trying to have a "one UI to rule them all" approach. What you inevitably get is a UI that isn't great on any device, or is great on one and really terrible on the others.

As an industry, we need to get rid of the notion that you can have a single sort of user interface that works on every device. A phone is very different than a desktop, and the appropriate compromises for one are not the same as the appropriate compromises for the other.
> How can this be the case? What decisions are being made that 14 / 15 people across tax brackets can’t save?

This isn't the correct grouping. It was that 1 in 15 were in one of the tax brackets, where savings was possible with disciplined spending.
Nuclear engineers are in the line of fire, of course they would care about safety. It's their safety more than almost anyone else.

Needless to say, this does not hold for AI researchers.
In theory you can synthesize petroleum, polymers, or any similar chemicals out of elemental hydrogen / carbon / oxygen / nitrogen / etc. It just takes enormous amounts of energy, some expensive catalysts, and an large heavy physical plant. So in practice we're not going to be able to do chemical manufacturing in space at scale for several centuries at least.
You characterize what happened as scientists making judgement calls, and others claiming they were lying. Some US political nut cases tried to spin it that way, but the reason why the post is relevant to finding the causes of the pandemic, is because the statements were biased from the beginning.

On the issue of masks, here is a detailed and fair assessment of what happened on his statements on masks:

"Anthony Fauci May Not Have 'Lied' About Face Masks, but He Was Not Exactly Honest Either" - https://reason.com/2021/06/04/anthony-fauci-may-not-have-lie...

"Politifact labels the claim that Fauci "lied" when he changed his advice as "false." But it seems fair to say he was less than completely candid about the reasons for his initial position and the reasons for abandoning it."

Again, speaks to the core of being economical or biased with the truth, for reasons we will keep learning about day after day.
Isn't being CapEx heavy a sign of constant expansion, though?

I would think that selling (or choosing not to buy) a stock because their P/E is low because their CapEx is high is short-sighted unless you don't think their CapEx spending is going to pay off.

It's like...back in 2012, I was talking to one of my wife's relatives at a Christmas party. He said he'd never buy Amazon stock because they've never been profitable. I said they're not profitable because every dollar they make, they put back into R&D. He would have 10x his money now if he had bought their stock.
> These APIs are exported from the react package

You can still write React the old way.
I have the same question about Google's TPUs (ie, why is Google not selling them, as opposed to just access to them).
Well, in this case, we have the ability to invent chess (a game that will be popular for centuries), invent computers, and invent chess tournaments, and invent programs that can solve chess, and invent all the supporting agriculture, power, telco, silicon boards, etc that allow someone to run a program to beat a person at chess. Then we have bodies to accomplish everything on top of it. The "idea" isn't enough. We have to "do" it.

If you take a chess playing robot as the peak of the pyramid, there are probably millions of people and trillions of dollars toiling away to support it. Imagine all the power lines, sewage, HVAC systems, etc that humans crawl around in to keep working.

And really, are we "beaten" at chess, or are we now "unbeatable" at chess. If an alien warship came and said "we will destroy earth if you lose at chess", wouldn't we throw our algorithms at it? I say we're now unbeatable at chess.
Religion, huh?
You seem to have a very incorrect view of things. Probably biased to press-friendliness.

For an example, materials technology gets way more inputs from high-energy physics than from space programs.

High-energy is one of the very few fundamental frontiers we have to push for discovering new things. (And we are certain what we know is broken somehow.) So, IMO, it's really, really important. I'm firmly on the camp that is against investing in higher-energy accelerators right now, but from that to "high-energy is useless" there are light-years of distance.
Check out Hydra for Postgres, its an extension to create columnar tables for data warehouse type of analytics. Disclaimer: I’m associated with them as they sell managed services, but the extension is open source.
But then what if his Twitter account was hacked and he really didn't resign? You can speculate all you want, but journalists need to base their reporting on facts.
WASI is not meant for browsers, it's for using WebAssembly as platform-independent bytecode in non-browser environments.
People are forcing you to use it. It's called employment.

God forbid you're a principal running into some junior engineers and they don't understand that you've forgotten more than they know, and the migration to functional components is just another part of your extended career timeline.
“Like Uber, but for hospice care, our network of independent service providers will transport your loved one to the afterlife(*) cheaper, faster, and in better comfort than traditional services!

(*) Afterlife not guaranteed.”
Just to be clear, a "heart attack" commonly refers to a myocardial infarction (part of the hear tis being deprived of blood, generally due to an obstruction in a coronary artery). Someone in the early stages of a heart attack will generally (but not always) experience chest pain/etc, anxiety, shortness of breath, etc.

A heart attack can lead to cardiac arrest, where the heart stops beating effectively and the patient loses consciousness. Cardiac arrest is the scenario you're talking about (where CPR is indicated)
I once tried to learn what you would call "proper React", only for some Googler to tell me I wasn't even using React. Despite the fact I was using it back when hooks weren't a thing, and I had built multiple apps with it. There are many things I can stand in a community, but gatekeeping is not one of them.
Most moral and legal systems hold genocide in a special place, and this is natural, because systematically killing all members of a religious or ethnic group is more damaging than killing some members.

Eliminating a disease like smallpox is a much more significant achievement than simply mitigating it or treating it. When we really eliminate a disease it may never come back!

This list of experts is worried about us building something that will do to us what we did to smallpox. For the same reasons as above, that is more worrying than extreme poverty and the comparison you are making is a false equivalence.

Another way to look at it is, you can't fight to end poverty when you no longer exist.

We can argue about whether the risk is real, but if this set of experts thinks it is, and you disagree for some reason, I would spend some time thinking deeply about whether that reason is simply based in a failure of imagination on your part, and whether you are sure enough to bet your life and everyone else's on that reason. Everyone can think of a security system strong enough that they themselves can't imagine a way to break it. Similarly, anyone can think of a reason why superhuman AGI is impossible or why it can't really hurt us.