skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
a civilian dot-mil contractor in California said over beers that he was asked to place some code in some repo, with a misleading comment and untrue name.. he did it, so he says.. It was a brag. He is the president of his company, they were paid very well for many years. He has a custom built home in the expensive hills area here, where he sits in bed reading news every day now, due to poor health and painkiller use.
I would assume as a body the median English major, who is graded primarily on their ability to write English to communicate clearly and precisely on complex topics related to English literature are better at precise English communication on complex topics than people who are primarily graded on their ability to write math/code/etc and generally intentionally avoid writing and language classes. In my engineering cs program most of us took formal logic from LAS to satisfy our humanities requirement. Exceptions certainly exist but surely you don’t believe the mode favors engineering students here.
In my experience, English majors definitely communicate more clearly in English. After all, that's literally what they're studying.

While STEM majors often communicate more precisely within a domain-specific language (whether chemistry or code). After all, that's literally what they're studying.

And obviously these are both generalizations. You'll always find some terribly unclear English majors, just as you'll find some terribly imprecise STEM majors.

But we should hope that their education is having some effect here.
This is based on what we're seeing with our customers + our own experience. One example from a customer is that it was taking them 14 minutes to deploy one service to production. Combination of slow build pipelines + manual process to update a tag in a kustomize file and then manually trigger deploy. Given the automation we have in place, they're not pushing to prod in less than 3 minutes. Everyone's environments are a little different but we're seeing encouraging results.
I would argue that aggregate rating have always been (approximately) meaningless, and it's silly to assume they would ever carry a lot of signal. This is just an instance of Goodheart's Law[1] at work. Most of the financial incentives in these systems are aligned against sincere ratings - and this even applies to the companies building the rating systems. Uber doesn't want to kick off bad drivers, it reduces the supply of labor they can tap into. Airbnb doesn't want low-rated hosts, it reduces their revenue if fewer people stay there. There are long-term consequences, of course, traditional Taxis and Hotels never went away and still pose a competitive threat. But secondary effects like loss of trust in a platform take a long time to play out.

[1] "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
You can do that if the site remains small. Look over at MathOverflow and TeX stack exchange sites - they have fun questions. The key difference being that there is a much smaller set of people asking questions and of those who are active on the site there is a much higher rate of community moderation.

It is easy to moderate a site where you an read every post every day. Not so much when there's no hope of that.

The problem is that they aren't fun to moderate and without moderating them you end up with a site that is /r/programmingmemes making it less useful for the programming questions that you want to find and providing a place where people can ask questions of the subject matter experts.
Same in the USA, and it his horribly implemented.

Before this a Prius or any modern car would be dead silent at a stop because of stop-start technology. And even those small 1.6L don't make that much noise when idling.

Now you hear all these cars making their high-pitched UFO sound. And it is VERY irritating.
I'm pretty sure that the ML version of Rust is actually ATS.

https://www.cs.bu.edu/~hwxi/atslangweb/
They did an experiment with rats recently as well, where the experimenter played hide-and-seek with the rats (with his fingers in a maze of some kind). It turned out the rats were way more engaged versus when they did tasks for a reward.

It’s really fascinating stuff.

I wonder if the principle applies to dogs as well.
Er - I'm not sure about that. Toy Story 4 took in over a billion[0] worldwide. Coco and Inside Out did around $800m[1] each, but Luca did very poorly, taking under $50m.[2].

Turning Red appears to be the worst, on a $250m budget (and probably similar for marketing, it took $20m[3].

[0] https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt1979376

[1] https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt2380307

[2] https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt12801262

[3] https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt8097030
This is a civil complaint, but it describes things that can be criminal, e.g:

a failure to do KYC required to block transactions with sanctioned people/entities - that can very much be criminal with a max of 20 years iirc.
You'd be surprised at the vast array of PhDs who've entered this space through conversion courses from essentially non-technical backgrounds -- that end-up repeating essentially mystical pseudoscience.

There's lots of papers, vast numbers, that very clearly miss basic premises about the data generating process; and about what exactly we're modelling and how. Premises drilled into statisticians, and so on -- but omitted from a computer science education; and esp. from much of the route into these fields today.

Absent these, the process, i'm sure, appears very mystical.

This paper ought ask, "what assumptions about the data generating process ought we make such that these regularisation conditions work"

I really do think that the question isnt phrased this way due to "too much kool-aid" --- its a paper which seems, to me, to already buy into a kind of mystification.

Though, this may just be a symptom of not thinking about the problem from the pov of formal/traditional stats. The paper seems to be wanting some sort of "cute conceptual answer" that might appear in a hand-wavey ML paper

But the answer is to specify families of distributions whose semantic and non-sematic structures are "accessible" by these unsupervised techniques -- find which families do not work, which ones do... and then formulate an essentially psych-social hypothesis as to why the people creating htat data have used those distributions
Every shelter will provide vaccinations, many shelters will also fix the cats or provide a coupon for an associated vet (so it only costs you the time, and tending to them during recovery, not money). It should not cost $900 in 18 months for a healthy cat (an unhealthy cat, on the other hand, may cost that and much more).
> For example, you don't get dumber because you read children's books, you just get better at understanding what makes a good children's book.

I don't think this is an accurate analogy. It's not books for children -- well-written material at a lower educational/cognitive level -- it's more like books by children -- which is necessarily lacking skill and background context (connection to reality). Think about how children constantly pass around misleading, invented, and incorrect stories among themselves -- and they don't do it maliciously, they just don't know any better. Legends like "Candyman"/"Bloody Mary" for example.

They need an outside influence, an adult or a book or website, to nudge them out of that knowledge rut.

(Of course the same thing can happen with a (closed) group of adults, too, but it's more of a "natural state" with children because they simply haven't had time to encounter as much knowledge.)
I think that the people who rate McDonald's 5-stars are probably being more helpful about the system than you are, because "restaurants" is far too broad a category to have a consistent scale within.

Instead, it's more useful to rate a given restaurant compared to its sub-genre (or at least its price band) -- was it good for a fast-food restaurant? -- so you might rate a disappointing experience at a Michelin star restaurant lower than you'd rate a clean McDonald's with fast service, just because of how they're meeting your expectations.

This results in usable review aggregates. If I look at a Yelp! listing for a McDonald's and I see it's 2-stars, I want to know that's because it's bad for a McDonald's, not just because the person rating it thinks that a McDonald's inherently has a cap of being "not great, but edible".
There is a massive difference between preference and avoidance of prolonged starvation.
If I take that viewpoint on everything I might as well live as a recluse in the woods and avoid people altogether. I have to believe that there are enough of us are out there that genuinely want to build better things for people.
that's untrue; this is what i am trying to communicate. all the post davinci 003 apis are heavily RLHFed and instruction tuned, preventing further capabilities research outside the bounds of chat.

in other words, there is a smol contingent of people who believe Chat Is Not The Final Form of generative text and they are slowly getting shut out from researching and putting in production different applications if they do not work at a large model lab (Anthropic also has similar chat expectations on their API)

see also https://twitter.com/deepfates/status/1638212305887567873?lan...
> What matters is if there is s significant niche where the language is a better fit than any alternative.

This is a wonderful comment, and puts into words something I've been thinking for a long time. The best general-purpose languages always seem to start out with a strong niche, then grow from there.
If you played by the rules, you would have already lost out to the cheaters.
Seems like nobody has mentioned a huge reason Usenet failed:

It needed a client program.

Digg/slashdot didn't succeed because they were flashier or moderated or had less illegal content or privately developed or any of these other reasons given, it was because people could just follow a link to a web page and they're in. Even today reddit or discord do everything they can to convert web users to app users for obvious reasons, but they must have that web version for casual users or they'll die off to whoever does have one.

So ultimately what killed Usenet was Section 230. Without that services could do simple copying/caching like NNTP (protected under telecom rules) but the actual presentation had to be done on the user's computer. And consequently were 230 repealed it wouldn't be the end of the social media world, but rather the resurgence of Usenet-like models where all the presentation is done by a client program.
You will be surprised then. Sandstorm utilizes capability-based security to grant access to applications, each app is only ever running when an authorized user attempts to launch the app, and each document within a given app is isolated to it's own only-run-on-demand container.

The core difference here is that for all intents and purposes app vulnerabilities are almost wholly mitigated. The only significant type of app vulnerability which Sandstorm cannot prevent is privilege escalation within a single document, where you've shared limit access of a document with a user, say read only, and due to an app vulnerability, they've figured out how to edit it.

Since all documents are private solely to the user who created them initially, and the process isn't even running until that particular user tries to open it, there's effectively no attack surface for Sandstorm apps most of the time. When they are spawned, they're spun up at randomly-generated ethereal subdomains, and authorized solely for access by the web browser that launched them.
When looking at the proposed rules, I think this is the problematic bit (search for "standing"):

"The changes under consideration would make clear that the Board would discretionarily deny any
petition for IPR or PGR filed by an entity that: (1) is a for-profit entity; (2) has not been
sued on the challenged patent or has not been threatened with infringement of the challenged
patent in a manner sufficient to give rise to declaratory judgment standing; (3) is not
otherwise an entity that is practicing, or could be alleged to practice, in the field of the
challenged patent with a product or service on the market or with a product or service in
which the party has invested to bring to market; and (4) does not have a substantial
relationship with an entity that falls outside the scope of elements (1)–(3)."
Double-click, as others have said was never something you did with hyperlinks, even before the web.

Double-clicks were used with icons on the desktop because you could do more with an icon than just open it. You could move it, copy it, etc. Double-click was a convention for a shortcut to open the reference of the icon. A single-click would have not allowed those other actions.
That reminds me of that quote about bankruptcy from The Sun Also Rises:

> “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

> “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

It felt like that’s how IE lost its dominance.
> isn't enough sensationlist news, you mean. There are plenty of, arguably bordering on the infinite, interesting goings-on in the world around us

I don’t think unsensational is a fit for TV news. Maybe I’m wrong. But as someone who likes that stuff, I tend to get my news through text.
One « best practice » completely ignored by this document is how to ensure non-stochastic results (eg temperature=0), and better yet how to be « sure » which version of chatGPT you’re using (currently no way of knowing). I wish they would give more transparent versioning
If they cannot convingly explain this mishap, they need to recount the election counts. Austria is not 3rd world dictatorship as Turkey or the USA with such ridiculities.
Having flagged hundreds of such answers before SE suppressed LLM moderation, I can vouch that they stick out like a sore thumb:

- they're all written in the same style ("It looks like you're trying to do convert a string to an integer...")
- they have perfect grammar
- they're often/usually wrong
- they tend to be tone-deaf to the question or are answering a different question than asked
- their formatting is often poor by virtue of copy-paste from ChatGPT and the author's lack of familiarity with markdown
- they're usually posted by new or new-ish users that have few reputation points (ostensibly, their goal is to farm reputation rather than help curate a quality resource)
- they're posted in large quantities (a dozen or more in an hour) that'd be virtually impossible for a human to churn out (especially a brand new user!)
- they're posted in random tags that show no clear connection from one to the next--most answerers are subject matter enthusiasts or experts and stick to a narrow range of tags
- they tend to contain hallucinations obvious to SMEs, like invoking methods that don't exist
- the code is plain wrong when executed
- the code style is "boring"/"vanilla" and tends to steer clear of idiomatic language features that a seasoned programmer would employ and has few formatting quirks that a human might use
- the code is often heavily commented in a predictable and artificial manner
- the explanation after the code and overall layout/flow of the post is often the same
- they tend to be dramatically different than the user's normal answers, which have typos.

As you'd expect, it's difficult to _prove_ that a particular answer was generated by an LLM (the fact that LLMs can't reliably detect themselves is part of the problem--they're inaccurate!). However, the possibility of occasional false positives (SE has provided no actual evidence of this being an issue), seems a necessary price to pay, and could be solved in a more balanced manner than prohibiting all LLM moderation. SO would be unusable if it became a stale cache of mostly-incorrect LLM spew, which is what SE's new moderator guidelines seem to be OK with.

If I want an LLM answer, I'll ask an LLM. I can then prompt engineer and iterate. If I want a human answer, I want to be able to ask on SO so I can be guaranteed I'm "speaking with a human".

Disclosure/context: I'm a power-user on strike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_alternatives
The one I’m familiar with didn’t seem to factor in if you had other cats. The problem with pairs is that if one cat ages out, lots of places have rules about only two cats. So you either can’t get a kitten, you have to buy a pure bred, or you get two identical kittens, and hope one is shy and the landlord just thinks they’re seeing the same cat twice.
They are fixing it... it's just happening at committee speeds.

I would really like to be able to specify what prelude I want at the .cabal file. AFAIK, that's one change that wouldn't break anything.

(Anyway, Haskell is one case of a language asking for a fork. Maybe it takes the form of Idris or some other derived language having some sudden growth instead, but you are right, the committee currently isn't as fast as the community.)
Haha, that's largely my resume, but I write pretty hardcore high-performance multithreaded code in C++ every day. Reason: I started with C++, got a job in it, and still work in it 15 years later, having mostly not needed another language in my day job.

To be fair, I also write some Lua, Javascript, Python, and I have sideline love affairs with Rust, Zig, Scheme, Common Lisp and others. But I've never had to write serious software in any of these, so applying for jobs where that's the main language would at least require me to honestly say "it'll take a little while before I reach maximum productivity".
When stored on SharePoint, yes to version control.
I'm pretty sure the patent office is funded by fees, so its in their interest to keep the applications coming. They also seem to avoid penalties even when their bad patents are overturned.

"The USPTO is a demand-driven, fee funded, performance-based organization with a commitment to delivering reliable IP protection
and information to its various stakeholders; including serving inventors, entrepreneurs, and businesses in the U.S. and around the
world."
[1]https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy21pbr....
Sadly seen this all over my timeline today
Would love to hear your experience on why that‘s the case. Sounds like an idiot proof value proposition to me, considering the damages that could be avoided.
so which is it? "patents" being used by trolls? or American Corporations protecting their investments?

I remember when I realized why software patents are not going away any time soon; it was the same thought that I had when I tried to consider the quantity (amount) of dollars represented as 'valuable assets' in IBM's finances; assets which are just software patents.
>Which are...?

What is a smart pointer? Or if I'm sadistic, whats the difference between unique_ptr and shared_ptr? To me, smart pointers are one of the tells that you are actually writing C++, and not just C with classes.

That said, testing syntax is generally awful and I only use to gauge someone's familiarity with the language (same with Go, I'll say what is a goroutine, but Go is easy enough to learn that it wouldn't factor into my decision unless the candidate was brazenly lying about past experience).
>> That has never been a thing.

See Windows. See MacOS.
In what ways would a consumer be screwed if crypto payments become dominant? I'm genuinely curious
The problem is that it's not that simple to make it work nicely you need to design you language around such constraints. Trying to do it the other way around is even harder.

For example rust in it's current design relies quite a bit on the combo of: generics monomorphisation + inlining + dead code elimination. But this reliance doesn't play well with an stable ABI. Similar features like generic associated types and similar do not make the story easier. Like an rust stable ABI likely would only support `dyn Trait` and no generics or "on the fly" provide a `dyn` variant for generic method where possible. But even that isn't really good enough for a lot of use cases in a lot of different ways. Additionally a ton of important rust things are not `dyn` compatible at all.

Even some of the "easy" to solve things aren't that easy for non-technical reasons. E.g. a lot (but not all) of `impl Into<T>`, `impl AsRef<T>`, `impl Borrow<T>` etc. cases are best handled for a stable ABI context by aplying the single function of the trait (`.into()`,`.as_ref()`, etc.) _before_ calling the function and only having an ABI stable version for that. The side of which traits qualify for this is easy (you annotated the traits) the "when not apply it even if it seems valid" part isn't that easy not for technical reasons but for communication/documentation/avoiding unexpected outcomes reasons.
> The Citation 560 business cruises at 430 knots and can accelerate to Mach 0.755 and probably faster.

430 knots is about Mach 0.75 at the Citation’s cruising altitude of 45,000 ft.
As an irrational New Yorker who’s paid thousands of dollars in those evil yellow parking tickets, I’m for this and anything else that reasonably makes a traffic cops life more difficult and unfair on the job.
I agree with your sentiment, but that's not specifically a question of ownership of the device. You bought the hardware, and it's yours to do what you like with it. However, part of what you bought is a box with a padlock, and you chose to buy hardware that did not come with the key to that padlock. It's still your padlock: no one is stopping you from trying to open it.

I would instead frame it as another variation of open-source vs closed source. That would be more accurate, IMHO.
Few things are quite as annoying as seeing a 1-star Amazon review for a product that says "this was great, but it was delayed for delivery so I'm only giving it 1 star".
Imangine how terrible life would be without "Garfield" (sigh)[1]

[1] https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/
As the other commenter mentioned, I think that it's important to note that this Cessna is not a little prop plane, but rather a light business jet, likely with multiple people on board.
Not a dumb idea, but I'm sure it would just lead to further rating inflation. If there was a 6th star, guaranteed all the company's "measurements" would quickly morph to consider only 6/6 as acceptable and everything from 1/6 to 5/6 would be considered bad.
Any time someone knowingly, and with aforethought became a martyr. When death is inevitable but the sacrifice of one's life can save others (or is otherwise to the good).

SPOILER FOR THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE:

In the movie The Poseidon Adventure one of the survivors sacrifices himself as otherwise they all would have died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poseidon_Adventure_(1972_f...

> A ruptured pipe releases steam, blocking their escape. Scott rants at God for the survivors' deaths as he leaps across a pool of flaming oil, grabbing onto the burning-hot valve wheel to shut down the steam. Scott tells Rogo to lead the group on before falling to his death.

You can argue that instances like this aren't suicide, but this is only true because the deaths were good deaths for a purpose. You may say they aren't suicide, but I'd call them noble suicides.
Modern XBOX Series X and S has very nice hardware (custom AMD APUs) for a really really discounted price. I wonder when or if they can be bricked enough to be a viable linux computer that can be sold for ~250$ ish with a great performance.