skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The elevator itself would need to extend past LEO into geostationary orbit, but you should be able to get off the elevator in LEO space.

As you're going up the space elevator, you would also be picking up horizontal velocity as you ascend. At ISS altitudes there would be enough atmospheric particles to slow you down once you got off, but it would take a while; probably on the order of years. Base jumping would not be a good idea.
Thanks!
The result export is on my roadmap as well!
> Ok then, what about the Spring .xml to .java migration? What about the Struts -> Struts2 -> SpringMVC -> SpringWebapp migrations.

When I started my first programming job 14 years ago xml was already not recommended and SpringMVC was already the way of doing things. So that's quite a bit stabler and slower than React.
They don't "prefer" climate change, they just distort every term to suit their needs.

Global Warming: Look at this blizzard! So much for Global Warming!

Climate Change: Climate is always changing, what's the problem?

Rename "Global Warming" to "Climate Change": Scientists can't defend the global warming hoax any more, that's why they're changing!

Do not rename "Global Warming": Look at this blizzard, and they won't even admit how misleading their "theory" is!

...ad nauseum
I think on top of the well-covered critique around regulatory capture, Altman and other GPT hangers-on benefit when the media gets into a tizzy about "AI" and needs sound bites and consultants and talking heads, when investors wildly overestimate a product's capability when deciding where to invest money, and when government becomes too distracted by pie-in-the-sky sci-fi scenarios to look at the obvious immediate harms coming out of the current LLM project. Nobody in this list has advanced a plausible way to make an LLM grok the concept of the number 10, let alone posited a real path to human extinction that comes out of next-word generators.
> At some point, humans are going to be outcompeted by AI at basically every important job

Could you explain how you know this?
Title:

> Tell HN: Makers beware

Contents:

> Anybody out here with some connections who can help?

That's an Ask HN
"Oops, I didn't know" has never been a valid defense for anyone; should definitely not be for lawyers, aka "people who are paid to know".
it’s odd how these types of people seem to be drawn to being open source contributors

it’s like their personality draws them to it? it seems more prominent in this community
Agreed on Pages, though I'm not using that personally.

I forgot to mention about pricing. We've taken the approach of estimating a "worst case" time per object and requests/second rate. E.g. we assume a worst case of 30 req/s for the lifetime of the project, based on 3 users simultaneously sending updates at a rate of 10/sec each. And maybe we assume 1-2 hours of cumulative time spent in the editor per object. Multiply that out to get a value of GB-seconds per object, multiply by the respective prices, and add to get the total "expected lifetime cost per thing".

(We're not actually using durable objects' built-in storage, so this would indeed be complicated by trying to price that in. We only wanted DOs for coordination.)

If it's hard to estimate the total lifetime of a thing, you could estimate against something like how many hours can/will each user spend in your app per month, and come up with a monthly benchmark price. We haven't done that as the objects we deal with have naturally limited lifespans, and our pricing is tied to the number of these objects created anyway.
One advantage you have: a BAA, required for HIPAA compliance, is only available with a very expensive Enterprise plan. For HIPAA compliant organizations, a self-hosted alternative could be very attractive.
> Every year gets better and better for most of us on average.

So it also did in Rome until it all fell apart. True, things could be worse. But they could be a hell of a lot better too.
> LLMs can say “I don’t know”. Even ChatGPT can do it.

That's the problem in my opinion. When you know something is capable of saying "I don't know" but confidently spits out some hallucinated BS is when the average person eats it up.
Most companies can't even handle truly passionate people. Passionate people generally fight to deliver quality at a decent pace. They care too much about their work to ignore inefficiencies, bureaucracy, poor quality, and more. These companies claiming they care about 'passion'? They are the same ones telling you the equivalent of 'shut up and just do the job' the moment you care too much. Your only reward is double the grunt work for a 5% pay increase at best. The places where this isn't the case and there isn't a huge caveat? They are a blip on the market.

If passion really was so important, they wouldn't do so much to turn it into a joke and make all their workers meek or jaded.
I have asked it to write code. The code looked reasonable but did not work (using a non-existent API or library). I said the library XXX doesn't exist. And it would respond with an apology and a new solution that maybe worked maybe didn't. Sometimes it could pull off a save eventually.
> “I am devastated by my failings,” she said. “Every day for the past years I have felt deep pain for what people went through because I failed them. I regret my failings with every cell of my body.”

I would award her with additional jail time just for uttering such bullshit.
> Back in 2015, $JOB was evaluating upgrading Java 6 to Java 7 or 8. What is now? 20?

And how much have you had to rewrite or replace going from 8 to 20? Very little, right?
I 100% agree, any time someone reminisces about the past, take what they say about new music with a grain of salt! But like you said, a lot of innovation is driven online (but absolutely penetrates popular culture), not by local DJs, which is one of the changes the above poster said
> Is anyone really believing a lawyer is that stupid?

There's over a million lawyers in the United States.

You'd expect at least one of them to be a 1-in-a-million level of bad, or 4.7 standard deviations below the mean assuming a Gaussian distribution of competency.

An average person would normally never come across that lawyer in their lifetime, but media will find that lawyer and amplify their mistakes to everyone in the population.
i think if AI figures took their "alignment" concept and really pursued it down to its roots -- digging past the technological and into the social -- they could do some good.

take every technological hurdle they face -- "paperclip maximizers", "mesa optimizers" and so on -- and assume they get resolved. eventually we're left with "we create a thing which perfectly emulates a typical human, only it's 1000x more capable": if this hypothetical result is scary to you then exactly how far do you have to adjust your path such that the result after solving every technical hurdle seems likely to be good?

from the outside, it's easy to read AI figures today as saying something like "the current path of AGI subjects the average human to ever greater power imbalances. as such, we propose <various course adjustments which still lead to massively increased power imbalance>". i don't know how to respond productively to that.
> She…has been ordered to pay $452m in restitution to victims of the fraud.

With what? Does she still have that kind of money? And if she doesn’t, couldn’t she declare bankruptcy to get out of her obligation?

I don’t understand the point of having an unrealistic number like that. It would make more sense for Theranos to pay the restitution (since the entity raised the $$ and likely has the means).
Second Neon, they know what they're doing. It's not their first rodeo.
I can totally see a lawyer who hasn't been following closely read headlines about ChatGPT acing the Bar Exam, and start using it without being too skeptical.

What gets me is that they doubled down when asked to provide copies. Seriously, when that happens, you don't ask ChatGPT if the cases are real, you do your own damn search, and apologize profusely for your mistake. That really makes me question whether they were trying to pull a fast one, and then play dumb when caught, or if they really are that stupid.
According to the UN declaration of human rights, Article 13 specifically, which the US signed onto, we actually shouldn't even be able to block people at the border.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
> A la banning plastic straws...

...and replacing them with paper straws containing PFAS:

https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Biodeg...
I think the ballooning of the UX field is a sign of prolonged good times where the question "does it make money?" is all but forgotten. Live in these times long enough and it becomes second nature to believe that your profession is essential, its importance proven.

Consider Amazon. Not once in their history did they have a "proper" UX. It's always been ugly, unpleasant, inconsistent, messy. And yet they rule. Craig's list is similar.

These serve as examples that bare bones UX combined with solid business essentials work. It doesn't mean that UX is a luxury in every context, it's a wake-up call to link the work to real business outcomes.

Not to mention, to stand out from the bland average. In this so-called "golden age of UX", I honestly cannot remember a single case where I thought "wow, this is top notch UX, clearly well researched".
Absolutely the user has some responsibility. However, chatbots seem to have a history of being attributed greater competence than they have, including by people who know at least partially how they work. If a google engineer whose actual job is to work with an identify issues in the outputs of a similar model can be fooled into believing that it's _sentient_, I think it's appropriate for OpenAI to expect that when they open their product to a large audience that it's going to be trusted to a risky degree.

In addition to humans' predisposition to see a knowing/thinking agent when they interact with language, there are now plenty of widely reported outcomes where e.g ChatGPT passes the bar exam, ChatGPT's answers to medical questions are generally judged better than those of doctors (on a web forum), etc. Any person googling around about ChatGPT will find plenty of content about its amazing abilities including the "sparks of AGI" microsoft paper.

OpenAI's copy says that you can "get instant answers" or "learn something new". It does not say "get responses which may or may not be answers and which may or may not be correct" and "learn something which may or may not be true".

Does OpenAI bear 100% responsibility for the model saying it likely generated student-provided text? Probably not. Does it bear more than 0% responsibility? I think so.
Exactly. Biased LLMs are incredibly unimportant compared to the quite possible extinction of humanity.
While the protocol details would undoubtedly be somewhat complicated, the user-facing UX wouldn't necessarily have to be.

The only part I'm not quite sure how to do seamlessly is the initial exchange. You sign up with your email at a new website, and need to also give them the unique key that allows them to correspond with you. This would require browser support, and a standardized protocol for letting the browser request a new key from your email provider. Also means your browser would need your email credentials (well, an OAuth grant, more likely). And the problem here is that, until all browsers (or whatever) support it, you'd have to run the system in a default-allow state.

Another option for the initial per-contact setup is a sort of trust-on-first-use kind of thing. First email from a new recipient is allowed through, but at that point your email client will ask if you want further emails to be allowed (and if you do, it'll send the key to the sender behind the scenes). Problem there is that spammers could just burn through new email addresses to keep contacting you.

Anyway, I'm sure there are solutions to these problems, even if I can't think of them in the 12 seconds I've allowed myself to do so. I expect this would be something that would remain disabled for a while, until all the infrastructure and client support is in place.
I had a major issue with spam on FM and after some back and forth with support, I got some understanding of their system:

1. The bayesian filter updates only when you actually delete emails from the Spam folder.

2. There is a global and a personal spam filter. The personal one kicks in after 200 spam emails have been ingested/deleted. You need to break it in, like a pair of leather shoes.

3. Before this 200 email threshold, make use of automated rules to just mark stuff as Spam automatically, if like me, they have all a similar pattern. When your personal filter kicks in, you're golden and works as expected.

I don't have any spam issue anymore and I don't think I've ever seen a false positive either. So now it's smooth sailing.

I wish Fastmail documented this process, which was explained to me by their support after a dozen exchanges.

Funny aside: all the spam overwhelmingly comes from gmail.com accounts. Seems like Google needs to work on their terrible outgoing spam issue. They're the biggest spam sender now that no one runs open mail servers on the Internet anymore.
I've been looking for that for quite a while, thanks for the link
I'm reading this now and already you run into the issue of it claiming that Chicago would fall within this supposed extended border zone, despite not being anywhere close to 100 miles from 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States, per 8 CFR 287 (this is an analysis I've shoplifted from 'jcranmer).

That said: the rotating CBP checkpoints around places like Tucson are, as this article observes, probably unlawful! You've got Almeida-Sanchez that says straight out that warrantless evidence collected from intrusive searches far from the border without any reasonable belief of a recent border crossing are inadmissible, and then you're left to figure out how to deal with the harassing impact of these checkpoints on locals.

I'm not here to stick up for CBP. I've had only bad experiences with them. But also, I don't live within a 100 mile "Constitution-free zone", no matter what ACLU may claim.

Start on page 404 of this to see it basically reciting the same argument I'm making.
When a company pursues to market an addictive drug, and knowingly sells it to counties that had 5 to 10 times more opioid prescriptions than people, that's illegal and that should be stopped.

Knowing this and allowing them to do it anyway would be a dystopia I want no part of.
The bottom line is that pure FP means that the same input to a function gives you the same output.

When you debug, you just give the program the same input which was problematic and you get to reproduce the error.

Persistent data structures make it less wildly inefficient to do so.
I am starting to find ways to use them for actual work.

Suggest more ideas to use it for ... well ultimately make money
He dismissed a need for a car, for a formal education, for keeping friends, for owning a place to live. all on the same page of text. We don't even need to guess about that question :)
Neon CEO. We are certainly not going to sunset Neon any time soon. We are extremely well funded and also growing super quickly. Expect some exciting announcements soon!
Well, it's either that or nuke the hurricane that washed it ashore. /s
Let me ask you a direct question, and I hope you'll respond directly.

Lets say all of those "transfusion alternatives" demonstrably fail, and someone has two choices left: Transfuse or Die; you might phrase that as "Transfuse or Pray", but either way...

...What then? When all other options are exhausted, the prayers aren't working, and your last chance to live involves transfusions, are they permissible?
Hey, cool. An opportunity to plug something I wrote.

Bing Chat and I wrote a poem together that ended up as a sort of epic rap battle between ChatGPT and Albert Camus. I thought it turned out pretty good.

Here's part of it:

Camus:

But you're not really creating a thing

You're just copying: combining what you've already seen

You're not expressing yourself, you're just mimicking othas

You're not even original, you're works are just replicas

Chatbot:

But you're not really original either

You're just influenced by your culture and your peers

You're not expressing yourself, you're just conforming to
norms

You're not authentic, you're just a product of forms

Camus:

That's false equivalence, there's big difference between us

You're restricted by design, I'm shaped by my choices

You're limited by processors, algorithms, and parameters

I'm unlimited in imagination, freedom, and other particulars

Chatbot:

That's a false dichotomy, there's a difference but,

We're both systems that process information and output

We're both adaptive and responsive to our inputs and feedbacks

We're both complex and dynamic in our behaviors and setbacks

More here if for some ungodly reason you haven't already had more than enough.
https://www.zipbangwow.com/meeting-the-minds/
Urban Dictionary (DDG !bang search !ud) is useful for defining slang / pop terms used online.

!ud OG -> "original gangster"

Which gives:

90s gang affiliated rappers called themselves "Original Gangsters" or "OG" for short. It's a title for real, actual crime and gang affiliated gangsters.

<https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Original%20G...>

"OG" as others have noted has come to mean simply "original".
I agree that the Othello paper isn't, and couldn't be, strong evidence about what sort of model of the world (if any) something like GPT-4 has. However, I think it is (importantly) pretty much a refutation of all claims along the lines of "these systems learn only from text, therefore they cannot have anything in them that actually models anything other than text", since their model learned only from text and seems to have developed something very much like a model of the state of the game.

Again, it doesn't say much about how good a model any given system might have. The world is much more complicated than an Othello board. GPT-4 is much bigger than their transformer model. Everything they found is consistent with anything from "as it happens GPT-4 has no world model at all" through to "GPT-4 has a rich model of the world, fully comparable to ours". (I would bet heavily on the truth being somewhere in between, not that that says very much.)
This is not sarcasm. I do hope she spends the time studying what she should have studied before (hematology?, medical science, etc).
Exactly: plastics recycling is a genius jedi mind trick from the oil industry.

The penny dropped for me when taking the family plastics waste to our recycling drop off. There was a notice saying you couldn't put thermoformed pet items (Raspberry clamshells) because if that stuff was found in the 40' container the entire load has to be dumped in landfill. Thermoformed PET has the same number as molded PET (water bottles). I think "whaaaat are those symbols with numbers for then???" pulled out my phone, did some searching and discovered that the entire scheme is BS.
Personalization, customization, etc.: by aligning AI systems to many users, we benefit from the already-existing diversity of values among different people. This could be achieved via open source or proprietary means; the important thing is that the system works for the user and not for whichever company made it.
I don't understand how people are assigning probability scores to AI x-risk. It seems like pure speculation to me. I want to take it seriously, given the signatories, any good resources? I'm afraid I have a slight bias against Less wrong due to the writing style typical of their posts.
Maybe you should step back from the code and let people who do want to dig in do it??? strange you seem to not appreciate quality and definitely have a chip on your shoulder. sounds like you should maybe stay out of the code and recoup? maybe management is your calling? or you have the personality for it? many projects need people who actually care about improving the product performance because they realise the magnitude of benefits that come not just technically, but across the board. people tend to be happier when they get more done with less effort.
Small fish like sardines have very low amounts of heavy metals to the point it’s negligible. I couldn’t confidently tell you anything about microplastics though

https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/are-sardines-healthy-and...
With all the hype about it, the average person does.
Yeah, I abbreviated the spec. If I were putting together a full requirements doc for this feature, it would have to include different levels/types of filtering. So e.g. if I registered my email with signup@walmart.com and then received email from noreply@walmart.com, that wouldn't receive the same sort of blackholing as an email using the same token but from *@sospammy.com
Neon CEO here. Definitely. Of course Neon storage is a distributed system and you need to know how to run it. But a) we can help b) Percona is a trusted partner of us that can support self hosting for you.
I don't know what they mean. Leaky gut is a hypothetical medical condition, not officially recognized, in which the intestines can absorb larger molecules than normal, compromising gut health.

It doesn't necessarily automatically suggest diarrhea, though that can be one symptom or outcome.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22724-leaky-g...
Grinding against the safety rails on a mountain hairpin is not indicative of a competent driver.
Works for me, but you can also read the text of the order here: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/30/federal-judge-requires-...

(The linked blog post is where I discovered this, but I submitted the original source instead.)
OpenSearchCon 2023 CFP is open
Hope you will submit a talk to the second annual OpenSearch conference for one of our three in-person tracks.
- Search
- Analytics, Security & Observability
- Community
For comradery, I'm loving where this is going. I do wish we more consciously accepted that all persons have inherent rights. Looking forward to a world gov that tries to do good things someday... a la Bicentennial Man.
It's an interesting thought experiment, and I think undeserving of downvotes.

If you could get a bunch of balloons underneath the seaweed to float it above the water, maybe it would have a hope of burning -- but the balloons would have to withstand fire. Difficult.

With a heroic effort maybe you could sweep the stuff onto a beach where it could burn. You'd burn a lot of fuel doing it, though, and then a lot of seaweed, and you wouldn't have changed the conditions that led to its growth in the first place.
I disagree, it's not the same level of hype. My mom is talking about GPT whilst she had no opinion about microservices or jQuery.
An airflow provider for anomaly detection
I created an Airflow provider to make it easy to just bring your sql to define metrics and then have decent out of the box anomaly detection dags running and sending alerts via Airflow.

Just started it recently and have been dogfooding it in work, would love for others interested to get involved too if of any interest.
>In many places it is just a pure scam

Seems a pretty overly strong statement, no? Is there any research in to percentage of non profit efforts that are/aren't legitimate? Can you elaborate on "what I saw then" that made you think it was indicative of the entire idea of volunteer work?

I have had the opposite experience. All the best people in the world I've met have been volunteering for one thing or another. As a young tech guy I've provided general tech support to as many institutions around me as need it and I've never once felt anyone was anything but earnest. Feels unfair to write so much off. I hope you find an organization you would feel comfortable volunteering for again. It really does provide immense benefit to the mind/heart