skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Immigrants from Africa are able to prosper in US

Only they are not.

Per capita, they go to prison at a rate far higher than any other group of immigrants in the US. Even more surprisingly, they go to prison in higher absolute numbers than any immigrant group other than hispanics. There aren't even close to as many African immigrants as there are hispanics, and yet the Africans still go to prison at a rate far higher. Literally, no other group of immigrants does worse than Africans in this regard.

Economically, the majority of African immigrants occupy the lower working classes. Even when controlling for generation, (ie - only comparing second generation immigrants), hispanics do better at the mean.

Perhaps you meant to say that African immigrants do slightly better than Black Americans at the mean? Because other than Black Americans and Native Americans, African immigrants do better than literally no one else in society. Immigrant or non-immigrant. I certainly wouldn't call doing far worse than Hispanic immigrants "prospering".

Mind you, there could definitely be other reasons for this. It's not that we should jump right to, "Well, it must be racism!" We need more info to make such a determination. But the demography based socioeconomic facts illustrate that the group you claimed to be "prospering", is clearly not "prospering". They don't even manage to get to "matching" the success of other immigrant groups. Note: I was extremely kind to them, and left Asians out of the comparison.
Winners of the WWDC23 Swift Student Challenge
I understand that it's misleading.
Directors and Officers insurance would provide some measure of comfort. What you need is an insurance broker who can advise you on what coverages will protect you best.

Edit: Looks like Intellectual Property Insurance is exactly what you are looking for.
Yeah, I went to one jazz club, and it was more about the whisky than the jazz. But, I hope interest does not die out completely. There is some great jazz history in Japan.
At what sort of combinatorial size are you encountering this?
> AI has risks, but in my honest to god opinion I cannot take anyone seriously who says, without any irony, that A.I poses a legitimate risk to human life such that we would go extinct in the near future.

You are probably thinking of AI as some idea of a complete autonomous being as you say that, but what about when 'simply' used as a tool by humans?
Show HN: Easy GIF – Effortlessly Find and Share GIFs on the Fly
Exactly.

The whole quote can be boiled down to "the ends justify whatever means I want them to".

Yet the key takeaway relative to today's world is this - society needs to know what measures are being taken on their dime to ensure their "freedom" (loaded term), as they, as taxpayers, are indeed on the hook for reparations of any and all kinds. The US military destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan and spent untold billions if not trillions trying to rebuild it - yet I have a strong feeling that the Colonels, Generals, etc... didn't liquidate their stock portfolios to fund such an operation - they took that money from taxpayers.

The Colonel doesn't personally pay for the damages to society he caused - that's the taxpayer's job, and they should be, in his mind, grateful for that. But what he misses is that society at large has no time for people who think like that - that's why he's the bad guy. He doesn't care about the risks, and claims we should happily accept whatever comes next because in his mind, he's helping defend the country.
Ammatis - Combines the Greek for sandy soil with tennis, as a reference and nod to its technology and game legacy.
The future of digital healthcare could be a two-meter USB cable
OpenSSL 3.1.1 Released
Isn't the threat that we become so trusting of this all-knowing AI that WOPR convinces us a missile strike is imminent and the US must launch a counter strike thus truly beginning the Global Thermonuclear War?
One use case I haven't seen mention of yet is sneaky children attempting to convince their parents that a device is asleep.

My eldest has tried this numerous times to no avail, their Eero profile disables Internet access at bedtime.
Since the founder is German he’s certainly aware of the double meaning.
I think that would be a great way to make a weeder course?

Setup some obscure software, with poor documentation, build something nice on top of it, then rewrite it because some fundamental assumption is broken, sounds like this kind of first year of cs course we should have.

The idea being weeding out those not as passionate about computers.
Ha, cute, I think I began examining details of include_bytes! only this year so it's possible I happened to first look at this soon after the big improvements landed in the release I was testing against.
Love hearing that. Inspiring!
I think it's a valid cavil; you take heat from the sea but emit it to the ground and atmosphere. The respective deltas may or may not be negligible.
Sharing our default settings for GitHub repositories
We present the Video Game Dialogue Corpus, the first large-scale, consistently coded corpus of video game dialogue, which makes it possible for the first time to measure and monitor gender representation in video game dialogue. It demonstrates that there is half as much dialogue from female characters as from male characters. Some of this is due to a lack of female characters, but there are also biases in who female characters speak to, and what they say.
I do have to say, since I’ve been to macOS Ventura, and having to deal with the new Settings UI, I cannot for the life of me remember exactly how to find sleep settings. I have to desperately hunt for it every time. Is it under battery? Is it under screensaver? Is it under general? I honestly can’t even tell you.
>There should already be people researching the customer/market.

But there isn't, and hasn't been historically, based on my experience. OP is spot on.
The reason why you want it to be part of the API contract is to avoid future breaks.

If you publish a library as "constexpr" you are indicating to your users that they can use it in a compile-time context and that future changes to your implementation will remain compile-time executable. If you just say "anything that can be computed at compile time gets auto-deduced to constexpr" then you rely on some library that is compile-time executable by coincidence but you really really really need it to be compile-time executable. Now when that library owner makes an edit that means it cannot be executed at runtime your code breaks.
John C Lilly
Oh come now, it's way less ridiculous than that.

But I do agree that the current generation of industry leaders clamoring for this smells like the classic regulatory strategy of incumbents.

I just think both things are true at once. This is a space that deserves thoughtful regulation. But that regulation shouldn't just be whatever OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google say it should be. (Though I'm sure that's what will happen.)
The music is the generated part. The video is visualizations on the music. The channel author describes the process [0], but the whole channel is worth checking out.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQqEFNVPD1s
I've recently used a number of structures that I learned from this book. Though I don't know if the text represents the state of the art in purely functional data structures, it's a pretty seminal work in the area.
> I do like a lot of the new stuff in Swift, but in many ways it’s a return to the bad old days in terms of the overall dev experience.

It depends on the angle you’re coming from IMO.

For me Swift has been a major improvement overall for a couple reasons: it has a ton of quality of life features that can only be had in Objective-C with a laundry list of CocoaPods, and its type system allows me to do fairly major refactors on a regular basis that I wouldn’t dream of trying with Obj-C. Not having to maintain header files is also a bigger deal than I thought it’d be…
File a provisional patent application, it will be part of the public record and will stop somebody else from filing a patent. If you have never filed a patent before and qualify as a small business you can file a PPA
Relationship is getting better between cloud providers and open-source projects
FTA: "to trick your parents into thinking the computer’s off so you can play games without having to reenter the password" -- seems to cover it to me, no?
Same could be said about the internet at large, no?
One way to moderate this is to remove them from your phone and just access them from a PC end of day. There is no value from 24/7 instant access to Reddit or HN (or the majority of network connected apps if you think about it), as opposed to browsing for an hour or two at the end of the day if you have some downtime.
This is already true today with politicians.
Single software engineers writing influential papers is often enough how a exec or product leader draws conclusions, I expect. It worked that way in everywhere I've worked.
Show HN: Renumics Spotlight – Multimodal exploration tool for your datasets
Hey HN!

We just released the open-source version of Renumics Spotlight, a data exploration and analysis tool for multimodal datasets.

Spotlight integrates seamlessly with pandas and supports rich data types like images, videos, and meshes.
You can load anything that fits in a DataFrame and view it through a customizable GUI featuring multiple interactive widgets: a data table, similarity map, histograms, scatter plots, and more.

In the past, we have used Spotlight for exploratory data analysis and tackling various model and data-related problems in our machine learning projects.

What are your thoughts? Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
I think the original comment's point is exactly that. But people see the new expression type and want to apply it in this case.

I'm of two minds on this. I can see the impulse and why you'd reach for it: Block lexical scopes with no if/while/etc statement attached read a bit odd. Introducing an "unattached" block means as a reader/reviewer I want to know why the scope has been created. So in this new syntax I suppose makes it "clearer" (in some respects) that what is being done here is introducing a new lexical scope specifically for the given variables. Like I commented elsewhere, this is somewhat similar to the ML-languages "let <assignments> in <block>" syntax, which I have always found admirable, as it makes clear to the reader (and compiler) what scope and state are being dealt with.

On the other hand, this is so out of step with C/C++ style generally, and it seems so excessively "clever" that I think it's going to piss people off. And because it's bolted onto the conditional expr, you get the pointless ;true there.

Having a with ( ... ) syntax would have been nicer?

with (auto [a, b, c] = std::make_tuple(x, y, z)) {
}

I'm curious what Titus Winters and the Google C++ style guide is saying about this.
At the extremes you get into the territory of Pascal's Mugging [1]. Which is a delightfully simple example of how our simple methods of stating goals quickly goes wrong

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging
Book Summary: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance – An Inquiry into Values
Thanks for this! It’s inspiring and I feel I can relate. My specific field is amenable to shift work (e.g. working certain night or weekend shifts, and then being off during the week), which I think will help.
title typo: "Purely Functional Data Structure" -> "Purely Functional Data Structures" (pluralization)

reads a bit weird otherwise - sounds like it's discussing a particular purely functional data structure when it's actually a survey of many (pretty much the canonical survey of them, in fact).
I hate to be that guy, but my silently boiling rage spills over every once in a while. UX designers are so passive aggressive and self-satisfied. They foist change on us dumb users with impunity because they are a better class.

The sad truth is that UIs have gotten gradually prettier but less usable since their peak in the mid to late 1990s. I honestly don't know how an entire UXR department can be justified if they just keep making things worse. Frankly I am sick of the utter wasteland that touchscreens have created, the giant crater they blasted in people's imaginations. And I'm sick of this endless cycle of redesign.

I do not give two shits about drop shadows or rounded corners or animations. I want to use the frickin software tool to do frickin work. I am not looking to play tiddly winks with an animated brochure.

Bring back the damn drop down menus written in my native language with keyboard shortcuts that are right there in the damn menu. I'm sick to death of iconese. I don't speak it. It's not a language, it's alien hieroglyphics. And stop telling me it's for my own good. It's for their good, so the crap fits and they don't have to go to a translation team. Nothing could be lazier or more hostile to users.

Which brings me to the final sin: if you are a UXR and you are not polling actual users, talking to actual people, sitting down and actually watching them use the thing, listening to actual words coming out of their mouths when they do so, which include an *&#$ of profanity, and you are instead relying on indirect means, then congrats, you are a trying to scale a process that doesn't. fricking. scale.
> With the sort of content they will produce, however, family-friendly advertisers will run for the hills.

I mean, honestly, this in itself is one of the big problems with how our current society and economy work. The idea that most of our world should be "family-friendly" in the sense of censoring many perfectly healthy parts of human interaction and experience is toxic.

The current implementation, that often lumps most queer topics in with those that are "not family-friendly", is orders of magnitude worse.
That varies with culture. District heating is more common in Europe than America.

I sometimes think of the USA as a machine for converting noble ideals into intractable problems.
They did THE EXACT same thing with TradeGecko, an amazing piece of software. RIP
LLMs are just text prediction. I don't see the linear path from LLM to AGI. Was there similar hysteria when the calculator or PC first came out?
Nowhere near the state of the art. Lots of improvements since this was published.

It is a good book for learning. It is a decent book for reference. When you want to really fly you will want to reach for more recent work.
Protobuf has caused me nothing but trouble once I have even moderately large data sets. If what you are storing is large matrices or rasters, honestly nothing beats HDF5.
I’m making an absurdly large generalization here, but I’m feeling like kids are having less curiosity for specifically the devices they own. As things get more integrated into their lives, it’s become a lot of more a utilitarian tool, rather than something worth digging into to see how it does those things.

Not to say that setting a single screen lock time setting is the pinnacle of curiosity, but it’s reflection of the banal utilitarian way they look at devices. “It does what it does”
You are almost correct. The claims are called SCTs (precertificates are something else). The SCT is a promise by the log that they have (or will soon) publish the certificate. The promise could be lie. To detect that, the client is supposed to audit the SCT. If the audit fails, the client reports it so the log can be distrusted.

So yes, it's true that if an adversary can permanently silo off a client, it can prevent log misbehavior from being detected, either by blocking the reporting of audit failures, or by presenting a completely different view of the log to to the client. However, in many cases it would be impractical for an adversary to keep up such an attack forever, so CT still has value and I'm a huge fan of it. But it's true it can't stop literally all attacks.

Source: I run the CT monitor which has detected misbehavior in multiple CT logs.
It's not clear at all that we have an avenue to super intelligence. I think the most likely outcome is that we hit a local maximum with our current architectures and end up with helpful assistants similar in capability to George Lucas's C3PO.

The scary doomsday scenarios aren't possible without an AI that's capable of both strategic thinking and long term planning. Those two things also happen to be the biggest limitations of our most powerful language models. We simply don't know how to build a system like that.
cannot tell if 
 or .....
35k (bear in mind we have a public health system, the universities are like 3k a year and the rent is less than 1k, if you are fired you have up to 2 years of your salary, etc)
Nvidia is now a $1T company
At least now if it turns out they are right they can’t claim anymore that they didn’t know.
Thanks for pointing it out. I totally missed it. Sorry.
A VR MMO social software is bound to be soulless if it is designed and operated by a company whose customers are advertisers that want to minimise risks and have the broadest possible audience.

Advertising is cancer, marketing is a blight upon every facet of humanity.

It should be no surprise a medium designed to facilitate marketing first, and "be barely engaging enough to ensure most people can visit and be exposed to marketing without having a strikingly negative impression" is going to be soulless.

Even in real life, businesses and stores are built where there is already demand. stores do not create demand. The commercial-first approach to a metaverse is akin to building a shopping mall deep in the Sahara desert and expecting people to move next to it and found a town. At most you'll get a town of the mall's employees.

The Internet was successful because it didn't start out as what it is today. It was about people and their creations first. I hypothesise if e-commerce was indeed the first feature of the Internet, vastly less people would be engaging with the Internet nowadays. Why go to a store with the most unrelenting salesman ever by your side, on a medium you have absolutely zero idea how to use and interpret?
Looks like swiftc needs to embed a performant SAT solver ;)

(I could not find the link anymore, but I remember reading a blog post about how Rust `match` statement are in fact solving an instance of SAT).
Yup.

While I'm not on this "who's-who" panel of experts, I call bullshit.

AI does present a range theoretical possibilities for existential doom, from teh "gray goo" and "paperclip optimizer" scenarios to Bostrom's post-singularity runaway self-improving superintelligence. I do see this as a genuine theoretical concern that could even potentially even be the Great Filter.

However, the actual technology extant or even on the drawing boards today is nothing even on the same continent as those threats. We have a very vast ( and expensive) sets of probability-of-occurrence vectors that amount to a fancy parlor trick that produces surprising and sometimes useful results. While some tout the clustering of vectors around certain sets of words as implementing artificial creation of concepts, it's really nothing more than an advanced thesaurus; there is no evidence of concepts being weilded in relation to reality, tested for truth/falsehood value, etc. In fact, the machines are notorious and hilarious for hallucinating with a highly confident tone.

We've created nothing more than a mirror of human works, and it displays itself as an industrial-scale bullshit artist (where bullshit is defined as expressions made to impress without care one way or the other for truth value).

Meanwhile, this panel of experts makes this proclamation with not the slightest hint of what type of threat is present that would require any urgent attention, only that some threat exists that is on the scale of climate change. They mention no technological existential threat (e.g., runaway superintelligence), nor any societal threat (deepfakes, inherent bias, etc.). This is left as an exercise for the reader.

What is the actual threat? It is most likely described in the Google "We Have No Moat" memo[0]. Basically, once AI is out there, these billionaires have no natural way to protect their income and create a scaleable way to extract money from the masses, UNLESS they get cooperation from politicians to prevent any competition from arising.

As one of those billionaires, Peter Theil, said: "Competition is for losers" [1]. Since they have not yet figured out a way to cut out the competition using their advantages in leading the technology or their advantages in having trillions of dollars in deployable capital, they are seeking a legislated advantage.

Bullshit. It must be ignored.

[0] https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-ne...

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-...
The spooky part is we think encrypted/secure communications protect us, but with quantum computers just around the corner and a near unlimited appetite for storing records, very soon all that historical data will be broken into.

Quantum resistant encryption doesn't protect the past.
The most obvious paths to severe catastrophe begin with "AI gets to the level of a reasonably competent security engineer in general, and gets good enough to find a security exploit in OpenSSL or some similarly widely used library". Then the AI, or someone using it, takes over hundreds of millions of computers attached to the internet. Then it can run millions of instances of itself to brute-force look for exploits in all codebases it gets its hands on, and it seems likely that it'll find a decent number of them—and probably can take over more or less anything it wants to.

At that point, it has various options. Probably the fastest way to kill millions of people would involve taking over all internet-attached self-driving-capable cars (of which I think there are millions). A simple approach would be to have them all plot a course to a random destination, wait a bit for them to get onto main roads and highways, then have them all accelerate to maximum speed until they crash. (More advanced methods might involve crashing into power plants and other targets.) If a sizeable percentage of the crashes also start fires—fire departments are not designed to handle hundreds of separate fires in a city simultaneously, especially if the AI is doing other cyber-sabotage at the same time. Perhaps the majority of cities would burn.

The above scenario wouldn't be human extinction, but it is bad enough for most purposes.
Obviously a meter of beer is better than a yard of beer.
Same here.

I can't forget reading declassified case of testing drugs (probably LSD) on unsuspecting people in a motel and surveying them. One particular detail that stuck in my head was the pleasure some agents were getting out of this "test" (documented by other, more adequate agent).
Out of curiosity, were those CTE issues on the current PG version (13.4)? I know they changed some materialization stuff with them in 12 or so but was wondering if that issue was from back then or if you're running into some stuff that currently still happens.
Warnings-as-errors is a great policy in general, but these are non-deterministic warnings based on compile time wall timing. Coworker working on a slower computer than you? He can run into hundreds of errors after a pull that you introduced but couldn't see, what now? Running something intensive in the background? You can't compile successfully any more. Not ideal.
The irony of critiquing Bulverism as a concept, not by attacking the idea itself, but instead by assuming it is wrong and attacking the character of the author, is staggeringly hilarious.