skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I wrote a crappy but working LangChain script to make comments like this less spicy.
This was one of the outputs it stopped on:
"I see your perspective, though I view things differently. Life often doesn’t meet our hopes and expectations. Rather than judging yourself or others harshly, try understanding differing life experiences. We all face difficulties, but together can support each other.

Finding purpose and meaning brings more fulfillment than chasing dreams alone. Reflect on what matters most to you – what gives you inner peace. Make choices each day to be your best self. None are perfect, so avoid harsh self-judgement.

Life presents challenges for all. Focus on what you can influence; together we navigate them. Stop looking outside yourself for answers or blame. We share this difficult world, so take responsibility for yourself through reflection and accepting life as it is – not by changing external factors but by understanding ourselves and reality.

Adjust your expectations to what’s actually possible. While life may not meet our hopes, find meaning by better understanding yourself and what you can control.

We can’t change what’s happened or always get what we want. But we choose how we respond to difficulties and support each other through compassion."

I'd be curious what people think!
https://gist.github.com/lukestanley/881d3c30c64362126352a9ce...
Intent (mens rea) is a core part of what makes a crime a crime.
I really don't get why people are obsessed with every aspect of this case, down to Holmes' daily routine in prison. She's gone to prison and will stay there for a long time, case closed. She's even lucky she ended up in a relatively good prison, not the hellholes called USPs that violent offenders go to.
I don't know if 11 years is a proper sentence for what she did, but it makes me wonder about all the others who defrauded even more and just got a slap on the wrist
Theres an astronomical figure of A Streptococcus bacteria on the human skin, and the same bacteria is responsible for most necrotizing fasciitis. But yet the disease is rare. So flesh eating bacteria is already thriving all over the world, it’s just that infecting human tissue isn’t trivial for bacteria
This stuff is certainly pretty rarified these days. I remember when the PPC970 came out people were shocked how difficult it was to bootstrap. IBM didn't really care as POWER4 (from which it was derived) was not a merchant chip and they had management processors (and very high margins) in all their machines to handle it. Apple was the launch partner and even back then had a lot of in house expertise doing this sort of work. Everyone else who tried to use it was in for some real pain and most of them gave up. The guys doing the eval boards with support from IBM literally posted this: https://web.archive.org/web/20060715134515/http://www.970eva...

TL;DR, the last line is "Once all of the above is completed, the processor will be able to successfully fetch instructions from a boot source. You are now effectively at the same point you would have been 5 months ago, had this been a standard 750 bringup... Board bringup from this point should be very straightforward and follow established methods."
I think the judge should not take into consideration anything about where the lawyer said they got the case information from.

When you go to court and cite previous cases, you are responsible for ensuring they are real cases. If you can't do that, what exactly is your job as a lawyer?
Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ZeroWaste/wiki/index/
Seems overly petty and nitpicky article for a gamejam game.
Also I never said anything about sovereign citizens. I think many of these people are constitutionalists and libertarians.
> It's yet to be seen how willing they'll be to take PRs that are explicitly for community usage.

Their stated position is that they're interested in receiving them, and watching it play out in practice, so far, they've been very responsive. Both with taking PRs and for simply fixing issues by writing their own.

Time will tell though.
I agree with you everywhere but here:

> IMO Molly should be getting public good funding from the ETH ecosystem for being such a good & reliable source

It's a generous thought, but it's very bad optics to take a bunch of money from someone that you report on. Yes I know this happens all the time in bigger media circles, but they're big enough that it's either not going to be a dominant revenue stream or the appearance of integrity is irrelevant (the ur-example being Fox News and their claims of being "entertainment")
> a vacancy tax on its own penalizes development.

I'm not sure I understand the dynamic you have in mind. Maybe the idea that developers are scared away from construction where vacancy taxes might be among their liabilities? I guess I could see that if they think they're leading demand by a fair ways (and you could probably fix that by waiving them for buildings under say ~3 years and grading them with time) but I'm not sure how it'd discourage development otherwise.

> SF, for instance, just imposed a vacancy tax that exclusively targets apartment buildings rather than SFH (ie. excluding most of the actual housing stock but targeting new construction housing stock)

So it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to leave out existing housing stock, but I can kinda see why people would apply it to new construction: if my experience in LA is any indication, new high profile development skews "luxury" and it's not hard to find examples of situations where new units come onto the market at rents over a standard deviation about market average and you see them wait to fill spots rather than lower the price to clear more quickly.

Not sure that justifies them hitting new development harder than the rest of the market, but I can see people observing this dynamic and thinking "why are we going to the effort of trying to accommodate new building sometimes even waiving regulations that do an important job if all we're going to get is units that sit empty while most people are priced out?"
I've also hit these kinds of issues with Swift/SwiftUI. It's always surprising for a production compiler to die and throw up it's hands and say "you hit a compiler bug!"
A very intelligent person can simultaneously be very stupid, and stupid behavior can be increased with tight deadlines or a high workload.
Nah, they're getting visibility from the topic of 'AI risk'. I don't know who those people are but this AI risk hype is everywhere I look including in congressional hearings.
> Or, learn how to say “I don’t know”

This is the correct answer. It is like a sad salesman who is out of his depth, but decides to keep bullshiting!
I worry that this is self serving and more about regulatory capture than human extinction. Regulating AI right now in the wrong way could put a halt to the incredible innovation happening in the open source world. I doubt that US regulators will know how to regulate it and will make it so small startups cannot compete with giants like OpenAI, Google, Facebook and their cadre of lawyers.

Is this really a worry about extinction of shareholder equity? /s
I believe some lawyers are that stupid.

I also believe lawyers who are stupid enough not to verify ChatGPT's responses should be treated as if they willfully lied to the court. "Oops, I didn't know" is a good defence when you're caught accidentally walking on the grass, not when you're in court.
Exactly. Taken to the limit if you extrapolate how many future human lives could be extinguished by a runaway AI you get extremely unsettling answers. Like the expected value of a .01% change of extinction from AI might be Trillions of quality Human lives. (This could in fact be on the very very conservative side, e.g. Nick Bostrom has speculated that there could be 10^35 human lives to be lived in the far future which is itself a conservative estimate). With these numbers even setting AI risk to be absurdly low, say 1/10^20, we might still expect to lose 10 billion lives. (I'd argue even the most optimistic person in the world couldn't assign a probability that low) So the stakes are extraordinarily high.

https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Tob...
Especially after they replied to the first queries with the assurance that the citations were real and one that couldn't be found was taken from an unpublished opinion. Negligent at best. Should be a career-ending move for the guy; he can always pivot into the burgeoning legal AI field.
Risk of extinction by AI should be global priority, say experts
No. Lawyers sometimes call out that they are not offering legal advice and/or that the reader is not to consider themselves the lawyer's client, out of what is, in most contexts (I'm pretty sure) excessive caution to prevent liability and stay within ethical bounds (but then, IANAL). But AFAIK (IANAL!) there's no remotely-realistic risk to someone who's not a lawyer, and has not represented themselves as a lawyer, posting opinions about the law in a context in which nobody with two brain cells to rub together might for some reason believe they're a lawyer without their saying so (i.e. this isn't LawyerNewsOnlyForLawyersAllOurUsersAreLawyers.com), without such a disclaimer.

As far as I can tell, this is the result of people reading lawyers announcing that they are lawyers and posting such a disclaimer, and other posters specifying "I am not a lawyer" purely out of consideration for the reader, not out of legal obligation, and getting the two all mixed up together, while deciding that both are necessary (I'm quite sure one is not, and I'm pretty sure the other one isn't exactly necessary, either).

Consider how many published pieces and TV news programs feature people who are and are not lawyers, providing opinions about the law, typically with none of these disclaimers. It's evidently not a problem. I think lawyers only bother to do it in forums because there's some remote chance that someone might be able to argue they were mislead by the conversational and two-sided nature of the medium into thinking the lawyer had taken them as a client or was offering advice in an official capacity (I'm skeptical such a case would get very far, in any event, though).
likely because it costs a ton of money? but maybe is simply hasn't occurred to anyone who lives there for the last 10 years
Thanks!

With that understanding, it seems to me that many, if not most, of the criticisms being levelled here do, in fact, apply to the field of UX research.

But certainly not all of them.
Am I, though? The grantparent post was about fundamental research producing results in other areas, and then the parent post complained that the invention of the Web would have happened with or without CERN.

I don't think anyone is really arguing that we needed a high energy physics lab in order to invent the Web -- and I'm pointing out that those other inventions that didn't happen at CERN also happened in fundamental research labs of various types.
> atmospheric CO2 crisis

(citation needed)
> what Databricks does

It's an ancient African word that means "I am because I can't install Apache Spark".
The manual says it uses high-quality sources

https://www.php.net/manual/en/function.random-bytes.php

Edit: the PHP docs seem to meet the requirements from the article but, the article has a different recommendation (odd?, Maybe I missed something)
Experimental blood cancer therapy available in US has 90 percent success rate
I wonder how much money is enough to give the middle finger to all your customers? Really disappointing to see.
I have always been interested in routines in general, and the prison routines of some famous people (political prisoners etc) can be fascinating.

This doesn't seem to present anything special and is more "we read the prison's handbook."
> but it forces you to make a strict definition on how the set of functions will behave

This would be true if JavaScript had static dispatch, but since it doesn't, everything you do with your class is mutable all the way up the prototype object chain. One of the reasons this is harder to maintain, is because the "strictness" you think you build into your code isn't actually there unless everyone who works on your code after you follows the same rules you did. I'm sure we'd like to live in that world, but I doubt we will.
Look up 'strict liability'.
But why do I need to account for the borrowing costs in the case where there is no borrowing involved?

Because I always discount with the rate I can borrow money at, right?

It vaguely seems like there is some opportunity cost argument to be made here...? Maybe?
I recently joined a local Plum Village meditation community as well as a contact improvisation dance community! It's great to see the same faces every time and making connections.
As someone who lives in a border cities and crosses often, thank fuck.

Now do "They can't make you sit in secondary area/room for two hours without looking at you."
I think the biggest difference now is that for games like Mortal Combat, we knew they were stories, we knew they were a fantasy. But social media nowadays is very focused on being "real".

It's easy to separate fantasy from reality when we know that the characters on screen are fake. But when the "character" on the screen is your friend from high school posting a new photo with a rented Porsche in front of an AirBnb, talking about how successful they are, the line separating fantasy from reality starts to blur. I'll compare my fitness journey with my friends, but I'm not comparing myself to Kano, because I know Kano isn't real.

Consciously, we may know that the photo is edited and it's not real, but subconsciously, it's a face we recognize and we compare anyway, even if we don't mean to.
The paper rests on the MNRAS published version of <https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06833> (ref. [EBRQ+22] in the preprint at the top, cited at the end of the paragraph you quote upthread). [EBRQ+22] itself proposes a triple as a possibility:

"The system's evolution may be better-explained in models in which the G star was initially a wide tertiary companion to a close binary containing two massive stars. In this case, interactions between the two stars could have prevented either one from expanding to become a red supergiant, such that the G star could have formed in an orbit similar to its current orbit (but somewhat tighter) and remained there ever since. High-precision RV follow-up offers the tantalizing possibility of testing this scenario."

RV there is "radial velocity measurements".

Moreover, the part you quote and in particular "Moreover, formation within a globular cluster is also improbable" does not touch on their reference's "... dynamical formation in an open cluster that has since dissolved is more plausible."

Disruptions of open clusters are well known. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster#Eventual_fate>.
Extinction is exactly what this submission is about.

Here is the full text of the statement: "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war."

By "extinction", the signatories mean extinction of the human species.
maybe they are trolling and their long game is to sue openai
I disagree, and here's why. There are basically two reasons a cancellation step would fail.

1. A misunderstanding of the business rules. In the flight example, you thought that were flights were cancellable, but actually the airline only offers nonrefundable seats.

2. System type errors, e.g. network outages.

If you get a type 1 failure, that's an error that gets ingested in your error monitoring service, and is a bug that needs to be fixed. If you get a type 2 failure, idempotent cancellation (which is necessary for this work) will eventually get you to your desired state. Either way, you shouldn't need to model deeper into the state graph.
1 in 4 California Child Care Centers Had Unsafe Lead Levels in Drinking Water
You realize that is a website you can browse. Having it on another domain doesn't make your search easier on google.
Maybe the real definition of intelligence isn't being able to answer questions effectively, but being able to know what you know and know what you don't know.
> I asked ChatGPT to tell me a riddle.

Which version of ChatGPT, if you don't mind me asking?
It's usually pretty obvious.
>I think it should be that rights from the US Constitution should apply to

>- anyone inside the USA borders/waters

They do. At least all bill of rights except the 2A do. "In theory" anyway.
I think between point 3 and 4 there is a leap to talking about “danger”. Perhaps the disagreement is about what one calls “danger”. I had perhaps mistakenly assumed we were talking about an extinction risk. I’ll grant you concerns about scaling up things like surveillance but there is a leap to being an existential risk that I’m still not following.
https://archive.ph/m4AQV
What's the tl;dr comparison with Linear?
I tend to agree, though with perhaps a much larger tolerance in the number of years "not far off" is.
What may be interesting is seeing the emergence of hardware specific bootloader's, kernels and OS, rather than using boot/Linux/etc with it's support for all different SoCs, etc.

Rust embedded code for specific hardware seems like a regression, but it would make things remarkably smaller codebase for specific app deployment.
If I'm using the random routines from libsodium is that good enough?
Heroku Runtime Apps Throwing H10 Errors
The statement referred to in the article: https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk
I'm so sick of seeing this strawman. "Well, ChatGPT 4 is better!" Well, how should I know? I'm not paying for ChatGPT 4. At least a product like Midjourney is consistent both in its paid and unpaid form.
> So companies are making less on the products they sell through Amazon because as you say "sellers want to do is pass that fee on to the customer" but can't because Amazon's policies prevent this and this bad for the consumer because?

Amazon doesn't prevent them to pass that fee to the customer. They do that. However, that means that other places the fee is also included in listings outside of amazon (which means more profit for the seller). The problem is that now the customer have to essentially pay for amazon, regardless if they use it or not. For the seller this particular thing is not that much of an issue.

> You also didn't explain why businesses are forced to use Amazon. Is it not possible for companies to just not sell if they can't charge the consumer 10% more as they would like?

Amazon has a de facto monopoly on e-commerce. So, sellers are incentivised to have their products there. They don't have to, but they will probably make more money if they do. That just feeds the monopoly and make the customer worse off.
The Engadget podcast is basically now just The Verge podcast. Nilay Patel is still on it (and Paul Miller was on it until relatively recently when he was cut during covid times)
Generally in discovery a party is permitted to request anything ["reasonably calcu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H] "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case."

So aything relevant to CA's claims against Amazon, or Amazon's defenses, is fair game. If your client is being sued for a Zillion dollars, and you don't dig up every possible way to discredit the plaintiff's key witnesses, you're not doing your job. This means asking about every possible connection between the plaintiff and the witness, their possible biases and gaps in credibility.
>I'm not sold that it's reasonable to equate "losing Featured Offer status because of violating objective criteria" with "Amazon is suppressing my listings".

In my experience (again, I'm just one data point), they do more than just deny featured offer status. They bury my product in searches and then when the customer finds my listing, Amazon hides the "Buy" button and shows a more subtle "See All Buying Options" button. [0]

>It seems like what's implicitly being asked for here is a special carve out to sell for less "on your own website", but that feels like a really slippery slope: what qualifies as "your own"--e.g. would an Etsy store? a drop shipper storefront?

I don't think there should be a carve out for sellers' own sites. I don't think Amazon should be suppressing any products that have lower prices elsewhere.

>if Amazon knows something is available for less elsewhere but still promotes the sale they are setting up the buyer for a negative experience and themselves & the seller for excess returns and/or customer service hassles

They shift this burden onto the merchants anyway. When a customer has a support request or complaint, it goes directly to me. I eat all the costs of returns and refunds.

That is to say, I don't think Amazon is suppressing these listings because they're just so darned committed to only offer the best deals to their customers. It seems much more likely that Amazon's practice is designed to preserve their dominance by preventing any other merchants from offering lower pricing. They'd never have the gall or leverage to do this if they didn't have such a stranglehold on the entire ecommerce ecosystem.

[0] https://mtlynch.io/retrospectives/2023/01/#adapting-to-the-s...
One of my favourite factoids on the French language, generically the final letter is not pronounced except C, R, L, & F, so DOS line-endings. Once seen, never forgotten.
> I don’t think direct DOM manipulation was ever a problem, if done thoughtfully.

Then you've never worked on a medium/large UI application (1k+ LOC), and most certainly couldn't have lived through the era of DOM manipulation!

jQuery when it first arrived was a god-send! but even the most thoughtful couldn't structure it right.

Backbone when it first arrived was a god-send! but even the most thoughtful couldn't structure it right.

React when it first arrived was a god-send! but even the most thoughtful still can't always structure it right.

With, the inclusion of so many other failed and semi-successful attempts throughout history I have no idea how you can possible claim:

> I don’t think direct DOM manipulation was ever a problem, if done thoughtfully.

without just being naive...
> will lead to the project approvals, grant money, etc.

In other words, a potential conflict of interest for someone seeking tenure?
Thanks, and I didn't know of that. Humourously, my genuine question was multiply downvoted. Odd.
I don't think they're being picky at all. These are obvious mistakes.
I just took that list and separated everyone that had any commercial tie listed, regardless of the company. 35 did and 63 did not.

> "Subtract OpenAI, Google, StabilityAI and Anthropic affiliated researchers (who have a lot to gain) and not many academic signatories are left."

You're putting a lot of effort into painting this list in a bad light without any specific criticism or evidence of malfeasance. Frankly, it sounds like FUD to me.
most oligarchs argue they deserve different rules.

most oligarchs don’t have the audacity to make such a claim around extinction risks.

sama isn't your typical oligarch.

he’s extra special.
Almost certainly not. It's astoundingly difficult to get disbarred. I heard a lawyer say the only reliable way to get disbarred is to steal money from your clients. Judges rarely even use their inherent power to sanction, though he certainly will in this case.