skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I wonder if the Internet and AI generation will lead to a culture change where a picture of someone (real or fake) in a sexual situation will no longer be extortion worthy.

Seems odd that a picture of someone naked can lead to a loss of their job or social circle. I don't think that's a good thing.
Firefox reader mode works well here.
How is it fundamentally illogical? I mean I'm skeptical as hell, but one possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that there is no paradox because there are aliens here.
But that requires the developer to do stuff, right?

How's the support for d3d9 through dxvk like for end users?
I bought the same phone recently, and for my light usage pattern (some texting, the browser, Google Translate, Google Maps, a calculator app, and the camera), the battery lasts almost 5 days!

I had completely forgotten how it is to own a phone that doesn't need to charge everyday...
At some point then though, it's about faith. The data is noisy but we believe this hard to discern signal to be true even in the absence of statistical evidence because it's complicated.
The machines need lots of fuel which either needs to be chopped from forests or dug out of coal mines. Both those tasks were labor-intensive and costly.

Some water mills were cost effective though.
Now why the hell didn't anyone tell me, when I was say age 11 or 12 or so, that a career path existed whereby one might be able to get a job with the FBI which consists of deliberately trolling people into believing that UFOs exist, with access to effectively limitless resources to make it stick. For actual money, including a government pension.
Yeah, and the founders most likely wouldn’t be interested in that. Merging systems, sharing power, reconciling differences in vision, diluting stake all impossibly complicate option.
That reminds me of an amusing story I read in Analog several years ago. I don't remember the name or author.

It was about the first time travel trip. The team that developed the first time machine decided to send the first traveler to visit Shakespeare, figuring that Shakespeare had a flexible enough mind to not be freaked out by the visit.

When the traveler got to Shakespeare they were right that he did not freak out. In fact he took it entirely in stride. The time traveler was a little confused that Shakespeare was taking it so well. Shakespeare even asked what gift the time traveler had brought, saying that "all the early ones brought gifts".

The time traveler had in fact brought a gift--a nicely bound volume of Shakespeare's collected works. Shakespeare looked at it, said something about maybe he could sell the binding, then said probably not, and tossed it on a pile of books, which the traveler realized was a pile of similar books.

Shakespeare noticed that the traveler was now throughly confused and realized that the traveler was in fact one of the very earliest, and explained that most of early travelers brought books.

The traveler was still confused over the idea that Shakespeare had met other time travelers, saying "but I'm the first time traveler!". Shakespeare told him that he may have been the first to leave, but he certainly wasn't the first to arrive, and said at some stages in his life he was being visiting frequently by time travelers, which was actually annoying--although not as annoying as it was for Jesus, who Shakespeare says another time traveler decided to introduce them once.

At that point numerous other time travelers started arriving. They were reporters from throughout the timeline popping in to try to get an interview with the first time traveler. The first time traveller is now close to completely losing it, and Shakespeare says he can handle it and steps in to act as a press agent for the first time traveler.

If backwards time travel turns out to possible my guess is that there will be some limitation that prevents scenarios like the one in that story from happening. My guess is either (1) the time machine will only be able to go back to when it was created (think of it like going back to a save point in a game), or (2) when a time machine goes back to some point in spacetime it creates some sort of exclusion zone in a region around that point that precludes any other time machine from arrive at a point in that exclusion zone.
Eye tracking is almost certainly more accurate and faster. To the point where we make it an entire game to see who can who can move the mouse to what their eyes are already looking at fastest, in the form of shooter games.
Crypto is also good as a form of market speculation and to make gaming GPUs too expensive for gamers. Don’t sell it short!
I'm not sure anyone under the age of 70 has a Cupertino mortgage.
Or is this another instance of "UFOs appear when we are close to a nuclear crysis"?
I tend to do it with backticks, so

vi `cs`

would do the trick.
GGML is essentially a library of lego pieces that can be put together to work with many LLM or other types of ML models.

Meta's leaked model is one for which GGML has been applied to for fast, local inference.
Maybe check out this paper, the first page has a decent diagram and caption!

https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.06224
What do you mean by commodity hardware? Single server single CPU socket x86/ARM boxes? Anything that does not have a GPU?
Yes, I’m assuming they have some kind light or near-light propulsion capability here.
High-Compression Metrics Storage with Postgres with Hyperloglog
We, the general public, simply do not have enough information at this point to judge this man's testimony, or the evidence that he provided.
Windows works the same (for me at least), scrolling follows the cursor (but input does not).
With 7k satellites and growing, is space sustainable? An Ars Frontiers recap
I thought this was obvious...distract from the lizard people.
I find it useful from time to time. As for users... I am the main user of this tool. Its mostly built around what I want.
Oh dear.

Edit: In contact with Tonic.to. They are looking into it.
Because that rhetoric is true. The number of deaths due to accidental discharge is fairly low.
The problem with just banning guns is there is no attempt to solve the underlying problem. That a person picked up a gun with the intention to harm someone else.
You take the guns away, that problem still exists, so people will find other tools to use.
This happened in Australia. After that great gun ban, the number of homicides remained mostly unchanged. The number of gun deaths decreased by quite a bit. But the number of homicides using other tools increased significantly.
There have been reports of aliens, alien crashes and recovery, etc. all over the world[0]. The reason it's primarily seen as an American phenomenon is that the whole culture and mythos originated in the US, first in the late 1940s with the Kenneth Arnold sighting[1] (where the term "flying saucer" originated) and later Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Whitley Streiber's Communion codified the "grey alien/abduction" motif (although there were prior stories like the Pascagoula abduction[2], notable for the aliens described as looking nothing like greys) and of course the X-Files. The rest of the world likely absorbed the UFO archetype through cultural osmosis. Also Americans simply aren't going to be aware of UFO reports from other countries unless they go out of their way to look for them.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanfretta_UFO_Incident

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B4nio_Vilas-Boas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varginha_UFO_incident

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Lake_Incident

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_Cargo_Flight_1...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold_UFO_sighting

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascagoula_Abduction
Add in HTMX is something I am seriously considering to add in to get an instant search over the webui.
Or maybe the USA has observed them more.
I'd be surprised if there is any mammal that doesn't.
It's a conspiracy theory that exalts the government/military and a narrative that they control. Why wouldn't you want skeptical populations thinking that they can trust you, that you're skilled and competent, and for whom you can use slight of hand to easily influence and distract?

US adversaries can easily turn their drones into a panic when they fly in US airspace, and I believe that the instances where actual drones are involved, those are attempts at adversaries to surveil our military and government and to scare the populace. That's to say adversarial drones have an additional use as psyops weapons against civilians and military members. Being able to send whatever you want into US airspace and the US being unable to do anything about it can be perceived as being threatening and scary.

A counter narrative to that involving some UFO/alien mystery can quell panic and instead foster wonder and distraction.
Not a list, but I've been trying out django-unicorn, which lets you build components in python and use things like unicorn:model and unicorn:click in your templates.
The title being a question is actually a feature of HN, which de-sensationalizes titles. The original title is “Why AI will save the world”.
... and immediately deported to Rwanda due to lack of papers?
> I don't know what it is about crypto that makes HN commentators want to make the most ridiculous, put-downy statements without evidence to back it up.

HN has many people who understand how technology work and a smaller but still large number of people who understand economics. Cryptocurrency has a few people like that but also a ton of get-rich-quick types who think their best work is making random claims until someone buys whatever they’re selling. We’re a decade and a half into that, with billions of dollars of real money pumped in and almost no benefit outside of some early investors being able to cash out before the inevitable dip.

At this point, the onus is on anyone promoting cryptocurrencies to show up front why they’re different than their waves of predecessors. One big challenge here is the inherent conflict of interest: unlike other things which have come in and out of popularity, someone who tries cryptocurrency but realizes it’s not really useful to them doesn’t have an option for getting out without a financial loss which doesn’t involve finding a buyer for something they know isn’t really worth the price. If you backed MongoDB a decade ago, you can just switch to Postgres without either eating a loss or finding someone to buy your old Mongo server.

This also leads me to your next sentence: for years, the claim was that cryptocurrency was going to transform the financial world and beyond. Sales guys went on at length about how you’d use blockchains to buy coffee and a ride to work, make sure the farmer who grew your coffee beans was organic, store your software licenses, record the deed to your house, etc. They couldn’t explain how any of that would work and dismissed criticism, and were especially upset if people said the only real use cases seemed to be illegal transactions. Now, in 2023 we’re back to the primary use being breaking laws, hoping that the government in question chooses not to monitor cryptocurrencies?

> Crypto is not mostly useless, it is just that people don't like the uses. crypto is absolutely massive for avoiding capital controls in countries with inflation, etc.
The problem then is not doing something, it's people not caring because they've done something. So I still don't understand why you take issue with this.
I'm going to presume the OP was hinting at people working night shifts are more sleep deprived, and thus more accident prone, causing the increase in emergency room visits.
For current Rust users, if Rust kicks the bucket, Swift is a good plan B.
There was a 2 decade gap between Computer Shopper's desire to go digital (they did create a fairly useless CD version later) and the ability of networks and browsers to even poorly render digital content. Even flipping pages today at the archive.org link isn't nearly as speedy as flipping real pages...
Oh I never said anything about them visiting us. Or finding us. Or wanting to.

Just the super fast super durable aesthetic spheres.
Science fiction, literally.
I didn't want to not reply but I also didn't want to be swept into a potentially fraught internet argument. So, I tried to edit my comment as a middle ground, but it looks like I can't, I guess there must be a timeout. If I could edit it, I'd add the following:

"I should point out that I wasn't personally involved, haven't looked into it in detail, and that there are many different perspectives that should be considered."
your post would be more convincing if it didn't entirely rely on the output of an AI model, something well known for being unable to distinguish correctness from sounding correct, and for hallucinating fake information and even fake sources

thus, the logical end of the sentence "So if the AI thinks eminent philosopher's have consensus on DFW's lobster points..." is "then we can make no conclusions solely based on that AI output, because of the aforementioned reasons"
You make a very good point, I’m going to stick with the grifter/liar/mentally ill thesis instead.
>The idea that any technical innovation can make it less so (or make war less likely) runs counter to all historical observation.

Does it? WWII was less bloody than WW1, and nothing since has had anywhere near as many deaths.
However, I hope it's not a strawman to assume you're arguing that there is no progress in warfare in the sense of harm inflicted upon civilians.

My point is specifically that progress in the technologies of war don't by themselves promise that things will be less brutal. Quite possibly other things have produced progress. I make that clear in my parent post.

I would also note that technology produces unpredictable changes in the strategic situation and the actual result from a changed strategic is itself unpredictable even from the strategic situation. So where a technology change might take us is unpredictable and unpredictable-over-time. Notably, nuclear deterrence has so far worked well for keeping the world peaceful and is something of a factor for the relative pleasantness of the situation you cite. But if nuclear deterrence were to slip into nuclear war, the few survivors would probably think of this technology advance as the worst thing the world ever saw.
I mean this is all textbook IPO nonsense:

Pump the revenue however possible (crazy API fees, push for native only) assuming that people have no choice cause it’s been so long

Slash anything that isn’t directly revenue producing

All to make the P/L look really groovy but more importantly as a loyalty test to your underwriters.
All the world's problems are caused by people trying to be more clever than other people. Therefor, no, AI is not going to save us.
So Apple can tell how you bio-physically respond to dynamic input. No worries though, we'll show a blend of an Apple logo and lock, which means all is fine. Go back to sleep, but we'll let you know if it was a proper sleep.
You are correct. The reactionary and emotional comments in here are extraordinary.

Sit back and enjoy the ride.
read tutorials authored up to wwdc(-2) then. tutorials cover the latest because that's where attention is.
>US is the only one winning Civilization Earth.

I don't know. I feel like the countries without constant gun violence, where the government is actually capable of passing legislation, where the people actually accept that they live in a society with some acknowledgement of social responsibilities, and can access healthcare and education without incurring a lifetime of crippling debt, are currently winning at civilization a bit harder.

Being the richest and the most capable at propaganda and world-ending violence isn't the same as being the most civilized.
I hate this "feature". It's grammatically incorrect and it's putting words in the mouth of authors.
Python _is_ typed. Python is Dynamically Typed. The word "Dynamically" does not suddenly erase the word "Typed". Even CPython is Dynamically Typed.

You presumably mean Statically, Manifestly Typed.

Assembly Language and Forth are Untyped. The closest thing they have to types are bytes and cells.

For examples of a language that is Statically but not Manifestly Typed, have a look at Shedskin (which is a dialect of Python) or Haskell (which is a fascinating Functional, Lazy language with a regrettably poor compiler).

I continue to see mypy, or something like it, as the best way of taking a medium sized Python project into the world of large projects. For smaller projects, ruff or pylint are sufficient, but for large projects, mypy and similar are the way to go.
Epic troll
Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty simple.
>Slaves were abundant and the practice was widely accepted in paganism.

Slavery in various forms was widely utilized across all of humanity until the last few centuries, and in some ways it still is utilized today. We just don't call it slavery anymore.

"Paganism" has nothing to do with it.
You are conflating two different (but related) concepts. The requirements for type system to be a type system have not changed. Neither have the requirements for soundness. Most mainstream languages have tacitly accepted unsoundness for decades, but newer languages aim to have type systems with fewer and fewer unsound rough edges.

For example, I would consider Java to be a strongly-typed language, but it has quite a few unsoundness issues that can come up in regular, non-contrived code. Scala's type system is stronger and more full-featured, but it's not clear to me that it's significantly more sound. Rust, perhaps, has a (strong) type system with fewer soundness issues than both Java and Scala, but some issues do exist.

C and C++ have comparatively weak type systems (though C++'s is certainly stronger than C's), and their type systems have quite a few soundness issues, many of which that can be exposed via simple one-liners.

Also consider that soundness issues are not all created equal. I would much rather see a ClassCastException at runtime in a Java or Scala program, than see memory corruption (with possible security or data-integrity consequences) in a "valid" C/C++ program when I misuse memory designated as one type, as another. Certainly the best case would be a compiler that wouldn't allow it in the first place, but the Java/Scala example is nowhere near as bad as the C/C++ example.
If you want to go ahead and remove again the specific context of my question/assertion after I re-added them back together, to emphasize how important that context was, go ahead and do it. I said what I said, in the order that I said it, on purpose.

I put the context back there together literally in the comment right above this one (and it was there in my top comment, too) because that was the context that I felt was most important, but now you've cut it right back out again. Are you sure?

Humalog as we know it today was first released in the 90's and it's still patented (or, at least Eli Lilly is the only company that can produce it, the specific "it" that we mean when we say Humalog and not "biosimilar to Humalog".) What are the actual enhancements that have been released in 2018-2019 to warrant the granting of a new patent for Eli Lilly's Humalog? Or is it out of patent? What's a biosimilar?

(Why can't anyone make Humalog other than companies that own patents on insulin, if Humalog has been out of patent since the mid 2010's?)
(For SQLite GRDB is more popular/refined)

I was all bought into RealmSwift, with iCloud syncing. Because I added a layer already that syncs Realm with iCloud, I expect transitioning to SwiftData (or from it to anything else) will work nearly out of box, without having to rip out the Realm code yet either. It'll receive the same iCloud data as Realm does.
If it was truly that cheap it would fundamentally change society.

Unless the field is incredibly competitive though it will cost orders of magnitude more than this.
J&J’s Covid vaccine is dead in the US; FDA revokes authorization
Global IQ getting lower at an alarming pace.
Fun to imagine in the abstract. I used to take classes in a building designed to have a certain appearance from above, and the user experience was definitely the worse for it
I'm not the one making trite paranoid helicopter parents comments. You can't just make up whatever absurd proposition and expect people to believe you.
Brave's reader mode wasn't shown as an option, though my BeeLine Reader extension was able to parse the text when I invoked its Clean Mode. I was a little surprised, since the BeeLine extension didn't detect/color the text inline, like it usually does.
> the premise is contrary to numerous, basic logical inferences

How so?

The argument for no aliens is lack of evidence, not evidence of their lack.
Not to mention members of certain "high-risk groups" getting their own AI police officers to issue warnings and citations. Obviously not based on race, just based on objective risk factors such as having a direct social link to someone with an arrest record...
Without a doubt. If you're lucky, they might know the difference between a JPEG and a PNG. This is a technical discussion at its core, you wouldn't expect Chrome's actual users to know about Flexbox or ES6, either. There's little you can't do without these, but things are transparently better with them anyway.
> The employer will either pay that worker more money as he is now more productive, or another employer will, purely out of self interest.

Complete hogwash. This has _never_ been the case, save for CEOs or other executive positions.

Pay for us plebs is and has always been a function of the availability of skilled labor. With AI, you’ve suddenly created _gigantic pools_ of skilled labor almost instantaneously, since you don’t really need to be skilled, just need to know how to ask a question correctly.

With that hiring power, I would bet both of my feet that wages will absolutely go down, especially in high skill industries. And people like Andreesen? Shrugging. “Oops, guess I was wrong, oh fucking well. Good luck with that.”

We should be creating AIs to replace or unseat rich assholes. I mean, is anyone really still wondering why some of the first “innovations” in AI have been mechanisms to replace some of the most highly paid workers in the world? People like Andreesen can’t wait to cut the legs out from the every day software engineer.
Some speculations:

To spook enemies of the US and create a mystical aura of superiority around the US military and its capabilities. They're literally creating the impression that the US military has technology beyond the "Clarke threshold." (The Clarke threshold refers to Arthur C. Clarke's maxim that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")

To shake out moles, spies, and unreliable people / leakers.

As a cover for very terrestrial extremely advanced technology such as hypersonic weapons, drones, laser and directed energy weapons, etc.

To repeatedly float the idea of "alien disclosure" and then dash everyone's hopes in order to discredit the idea of extraterrestrial life and visitation. Why? Maybe they're concerned that we will eventually detect aliens and they want to blunt the cultural impact by making the public skeptical. Maybe they actually do have evidence of aliens (but maybe less sexy than crashed UFO parts) and want to keep it quiet, so they want the topic to be discredited and marginalized. Maybe there's some ideology at play like religious fundamentalism. Why knows.
see: Voat
It actually has been improved. See discssion of isspace_l() elsewhere on this page.
Why do you think so? According to the dictionary, ironic could be something paradoxical or weird.
If that's someone's job specifically, it's probably a small part, and not at all fun, in-context. I think it's also safe to say they wouldn't have unlimited resources.