skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Aspirin is different - the US trademark for the name was explicitly expropriated from Bayer by the US government during WW1 and became a generic... that didn't happen to Kleenex or Pyrex.
+1 for supporting Elixir from the starting line
Sign up for volunteer work, athletic events or groups, hobbyist groups, go on hikes, etc.

Activities give the excuse for and take the pressure off of socializing and meeting people.
I don't know what would wake up people from their ego dream to see that in order to be a human, to be able to walk with your head held high and not live as a caged animal, you need to have certain basic things in your life. Free health services is one, a small space if you are homeless that is yours until you can get a better job/home/etc., where you can keep your things and the like is another.

It's just mind boggling to see how people do not give a flying fuck about others and only care about their very surroundings and well being.

MrBeast comes into this equation who earns his money by doing these stunts, but seemingly also gives back... I have ambivalent, but lopsided, feelings about creators who do videos about vulnerable people and playing the white knight in armor for who knows why. Anyway, it would be an interesting study how it affects those that are in need and I mean those who watch his videos and daydream away their life in hope for a better life.
> Buttons that change the timing are rare or maybe even non-existent

Buttons are old tech. https://www.flir.com/products/trafione/:

“The FLIR TrafiOne uses thermal imaging and Wi-Fi technology to adapt traffic signals based on the presence detection of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, even in total darkness or adverse weather.”

I don’t know how smart that version is, but there are versions that predict whether pedestrians have the intention to cross the street. https://www.tugraz.at/en/tu-graz/services/news-stories/tu-gr...:

“The innovative camera-based system recognises the intention of pedestrians to cross the road and switches to green automatically. What’s more, it optimises the traffic flow further, as Horst Possegger from the Institute of Computer Graphics and Vision explains by way of two examples: “The green phase can be extended in the case of large groups of persons, who require more time to cross the road. And if persons leave the waiting area before the lights have turned to green, this is also passed on to the lights. The traffic lights subsequently don’t switch to green and there are no unnecessary waiting times for motorised traffic.”

[…]

“Using the current configurations, our system signals that wish to cross three to four seconds before the button is pushed,” says Possegger.”
Apple especially. They've firewalled developers from developing meaningful extensions to iOS, threaten to sue anyone who researches their systems, and will die clutching their App Store revenue rather than defer to the user's choice.

Apple could easily be incentivized to improve the App Store and first-party software if they let developers compete with them. They don't, though. It's a deliberate, arbitrary decision made by a group of people who's primary motivation is to not disturb the profit margins. You can make of that what you will, but methinks their way of computing is due in for a reckoning. Someone had to blink.
My understanding is the opposite. The entire process results in a "score" over all output tokens, which is then converted into a probability of being picked, using a softmax that takes a temperature as a parameter. With a temperature of zero, the "best" token is always picked, but interestingly enough, that does not give optimal results. So sometimes you want the second or even third best. Thus, a "good" (GPT-like) LLM is intrinsically random.

To put it differently: You can make them deterministic by using a temperature of zero (then the output would be pretty bad and repetitive), or having a "better" temperature and fixing a random seed (then the output would be better, but it would only be deterministic in the same sense as a simulation of Brownian motion with fixed random seed).

https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/32477/what-is-the-tem...

Section 3.3 in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pHPmMGEMYefk9jLeh/llm-basics...

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-...
> people can do good and demonstrate their benevolent nature by (1) first making a lot of money and (2) then donating a percentage of that money to philanthropic organizations which will act to improve societal conditions.

But that entirely depends on how they make a lot of money. If someone has harmed others (or supported those that harm others) to do that, donating the money to philanthropic organizations doesn't make it right or good.
When I was a kid, we lived in an area the rebels were known to visit. I didn't spend much time outside our family compound or the school grounds and the area in between was pretty safe. But my mom made sure we had small maps with us at all times and knew how to read them. Areas to avoid like the edge of town were well marked.

I've always loved maps. There may be survivorship bias here. Had I hated maps as a child, would I have been less careful where I roamed? Probably not, but I can't say for sure.

Later on I discovered The Hobbit, which had maps of middle earth (The Hobbit had maps, right? I'm not thinking of LoTR, am I?) When we returned to the states, we always had USGS sectional maps around the house. I spent some time in scouting, mostly cause I really enjoyed camping and orienteering. I bemoan the loss of orienteering w/ paper maps and dead reckoning angles and whatnot.

In the military I would guess I was in at least the top 15% of the class on map reading and spacial reasoning. After 18 years of dealing with maps, it's no surprise. There were SO MANY people who literally could not read a map to save their lives. I have uttered the sentence "No Sir, If you travel town that road you will encounter land mines, as indicated on this map." -- The key here is if you're going to contradict your chain of command, do it respectfully.

I think I may use Google Maps differently than most people. I'll look at the map to figure out where I'm going and what the major streets are and then just start driving. Looking at the map application constantly seems to get in the way of forming spacial memories. Though I really only do this in my home town. Turn by turn is quite useful if you're in a place you've never been to and probably won't return to.

But it's kind of funny... I took a 15 second gander at my child's college campus map and was able to navigate him to places he's never been to (on his own campus.) I probably should have given him a map and compass when he was a kid.

Anyway... big +1 on paper maps and compasses.
Yes, nobody (including utilitarians!) thinks you're actually able to calculate the exact number of utilons without omniscience. There aren't probes in your brain to determine what fraction of a utilon you get from looking at a cute puppy. Lots of utilitarians try to determine aggregate effects on utility given the data we have available, and then use that as input to make best-guess shorthand rules for maximizing utility. And generally, efficient charities > inefficient charities, and donating [from well-employed people] > fuzzy-maximizing hours. YMMV and it doesn't apply to every possible lawyer or situation, only the majority of them. (Critical thinking still required.)

Hence why so many utilitarians use contractualism/virtue ethics/etc for day-to-day decisions; utility is the "reason" that informs big-picture decisions, but it's too impractical to start crunching numbers at every possible crossroads. See also: the many, many warnings against "naive act utilitarianism" even from within big utilitarian groups (LW, EA, 80k, etc.).

Pretty sure we've veered off from the actual problem the original post is getting at, but if you want to talk more about the practicalities of utilitarianism, I'd be very happy to (or to link to SEP/LW/EA essays that dig more into this issue). :-)

One great book that addresses this issue specifically is Against Empathy, on the limits of reasoning by what "feels" best (while still respecting that it's impossible to perfectly calculate utility irl); would highly recommend if you're interested.
> 10000 possibilities for a dog

I suppose it's not your main point, but that number is off by... probably about 10,000 orders of magnitude.
Why zsh over bash? Just curious.
Maybe I'm a masochist, but to be honest it's a dream job. Working on such a complex language and history is really really fun.
To be clear, my shell doesn't take this approach. But I do completely agree with you. This was precisely I took a different approach.
A lot of those template systems you just mentioned require an email dev to create brand appropriate modules.

Once that’s done it does drastically improve the speed of email creation though.
Assuming that each email is about 10 KB in size, sending 1,000,000 emails with Azure would cost:

• $0.00025 x 1,000,000 = $250 for sending emails

• $0.00012 x 10 KB x 1,000,000 = $1.2 for transferring data

• Total cost = $251.2
Games of Best Action, Sport and Adventure Games
I get his point that most work that uses code is the combination of the technical structure/actual code and the creative elements that combines them in different ways. But I think it’s an act of hubris to assume AI (or whatever you want to call it) can’t, now or in the near term, do the creative part.
.DS_Store has a origin story though not as entertaining https://www.arno.org/on-the-origins-of-ds-store
I just tried this [1] and it still uses my CPU even though the prompt says otherwise.

[1] https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/issues/1433#issuecomm...
This is like saying, "I just learned how to paint and people keep scaring me by saying I can't eat the paint chips of older houses. What is lead anyways? Doesn't matter. Fear mongers."
My apologies for only addressing the premise of the article, and not the rest that derives from that premise.
> unskilled, underpaid employees who don’t care and are used to just following instructions

This is a pretty shitty assessment of places like DTIC, DoE, and NASA. Maybe there's another analysis that doesn't involve web forum commenters being the only wizards who can control the magic?
Criticism phrasing is important. Just because someone asks for feedback doesn't mean they're OK with an abrasive tone. Bugs happen -- I'm sure they didn't intend for the experience to be that way
Lol exactly - “logic”

Terraform can’t replace it well. Maybe facilitate the transition to more cloud native setups where you don’t need Ansible at all. But only within limits. If you’re asked to implement something there’s no cloud offering for, and it’s slightly more complex, you’re back to ansible.
Take a look at Jerry Thomas's How to Mix Drinks - available for free on Google Books or the Internet Archive. Mint Julep is on page 44.
Tips on Unionizing Your Tech Workforce (2020)
Industrial Next|Software Engineer(Python & C++)|Salem,MA or San Francisco(US)|Full-time|
Industrial Next is a YC-backed startup in the industrial automation space. We are a small, agile, hard-working team that values high-performance design and breaking old paradigms. Come join us in our offices either in San Francisco, CA or Salem, MA.
Job descriptions: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/industrial-next/jobs/D...
how about you drink a cup of shut up?
XORtigate: Pre-Authentication Remote Code Execution on Fortigate VPN
LLMs aren’t only chatbots. They can be used for semantic search, summarization, etc.
to be clear, PE isn't always purely extractive, but when it is, it can be highly destructive. sometimes a business is so mismanaged that debt (and the pressure it adds) and new management is all that is needed to right the ship.

PE itself is a bloated industry because we have too much money being extracted out of the real economy going into the pockets of the already wealthy who don't know what to do with it, so they hand it to a money manager (i.e., PE) to make more money for them, not knowing what to do with those potential future earnings either. this is the kind of economic inefficiency that concentrations of capital brings, in direct refutation of the common economic argument that the wealthy are better at investing money (i.e., more capital efficient, which in turn supposedly adds more real productivity to the economy).

small, local amounts of wealth are more capital efficient, but large, distant amounts are not.
This also relates to vision models. The existence of adversarial attacks (e.g. imperceptable changes in the image drastically changing the output) essentially demonstrate that the model has not reached the point at which the network "understands" the generalized concept it wants to disinguish.
GPT-4-generated pitches are 3x more likely to secure funding than human ones
If you're looking for something like Yojimbo with near feature parity on macOS and iPadOS, take a look at DEVONThink Pro. I use it with a ScanSnap and ExactScan as my digital filing cabinet.
It’s even more nuanced. Airlines don’t make money on main cabin for the most part. They make money from business class

https://www.zippia.com/advice/business-travel-statistics/

and selling miles to credit card companies.

https://airlinegeeks.com/2021/12/17/here-s-why-airline-loyal...

If main cabin dropped by half, they would still fly the routes.
The next Enron.
Yes, me again!

> If you're going to say that I've never used the site, I've also established that I have.

So… you’ve no respect for your former self? You see how this works?

Nowhere did I defend cp. Those are your words about me, not my words about anything. And what about my username? Am I supposed to hide behind a throwaway for any sort of contentious take? Does that make me a man somehow?

Good day, sir!
Can you - by any chance - talk about the tooling you used in that work (as in: the tech behind https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2023-34416 ). I assume it's all custom but we're looking for something just like it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36311682

If you're willing to you can find my contact details in my profile. Thanks!
Nest.Js seems to be promising, but like you said, it has a long way to go.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36309291 got more traction.
We truly live in an age of wonders
Step by step: first remove software from the domain of patent law. That IS a heavy lift, but abolishing all patents is an impossible one.

Then the question of "OK, what IP protections should apply to software, if any?" can be addressed. I don't claim to have the answer all worked out
There is some confusion in this thread about what normalization means. Here's a quick intro for the young 'uns. It refers to a bunch of constraints or suggestions about how you should organise information in a relational database.

The basic requirement is that each logical attribute goes to a separate scalar-valued column. Keep zip code separate from address, for example. Don't have arrays or json-valued fields. If all you do is obey this constraint, the db is in a "first normal form".

The next set of constraints refer to the keys. As a mnemonic, you can think of it as a variation on "the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth". As in, "the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key".

"The key" refers to a constraint that all other columns must functionally depend on a singular ("_the_") primary key column. There is no point having two columns that are each unique ("emp_seq_number_when_joining", "emp_id") and can be used to look up the rest of the related data.

"The whole key". The dependency must need the whole key, not partial. For example, both employee-id-year and employee-id are unique, but the latter is sufficient to look up the rest of the employee info. Only have so much info in the key that makes the row unique; any extra goes into a separate column.

"Nothing but the key". There should not be any other dependencies on any other columns. For example, one can have "department-name and "department-id" as columns. This is redundant. Department-id is sufficient to obtain the name. In practice one has extra columns to avoid the expense of joins. This is classic denormalisation.

The is the basic set of requirements (called "third normal form" or 3NF) to call the database normalized. For the most part, most dbs are in 3NF. Denormalization is done for performance reasons, typically to avoid expensive joins. For example, one could squirrel away a tuple or an entire json document in a db cell. Or have redundant column info as illustrated earlier.

The article is simply a reminder to be serious about normalization, and cautiously introduce optimizations with appropriate justifications in documentation.
Ours is mainly a glorified rice cooker that sometimes does something else.

As a rice cooker, it cooks rice.
> Envy doesn't create rights for oneself nor does it impute privilege to other

I'm saving this for posterity!
This is quite possible. I use mine to cook wild rice, which takes awhile stovetop. And hard boiled eggs, which come out great. Everything else I've tried with it, I might as well just cook with the stove or oven. I don't like most recipes I've seen and am somewhat of a picky eater.
I've seen quite a few intersections (Germany) that only feature one car road, but a crossing pedestrian/bike street that after pressing the beg button immediately begin to switch the light, resulting in a consistent, short wait (apart from signal priority stuff for busses). But anything more complicated, nothing comes to mind.
Absolutely. I use ChromeOS (Framework Chromebook) now because I prefer the stability however I very much miss i3. The overhead of managing windows and workspaces completely and seamlessly disappears (for me at least). I'm not even that big of a power user, I probably only use 3-4 workspaces at once.
I expect the number of press releases put out by agencies and congressional offices to skyrocket tremendously. Press intern corps in shambles.
Yeah, maybe check back with the guy when they are 50 and see if they feel the same way about their choices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language
As a counterexample, I haven't needed regulations to be able to have great confidence that my Uniswap DeFi trades will settle within seconds. The system is extremely reliable, despite no other participant in it being regulated or even trustworthy.
Because no one else will... I encourage you to go ahead and start funding them or lobbying others to though.
AliBaba, Burger King starts accepting Floki, DOGE for payment, respectively
Apollo’s Christian Selig explains his fight with Reddit – and why users revolted
Wrong use case. It's a reverse engineering tool to extract firmware, secrets, and code to develop and exploit, not an exploit in and of itself.

This would be a horrendous way to recover user credentials but it's a great way to recover encrypted firmware, session/authorization/authentication keys derived in "Secure World" on embedded systems, and static runtime secrets decrypted using a derived key (key vaults, etc.).
But under Nadella, Microsoft is far more contemptuous of users than it ever was before.
I think the general trend is that blue collar government employees tend to be well paid and have good benefits compared to private sector but the converse is often true for white collar employees, particularly professional jobs (engineers, lawyers, doctors etc.)

If you disagree, take a look at govt SWE jobs postings.
Disclaimer : my career has mainly been on compiler/runtime and other infrastructure related stuff, so not much of a business logic/web dev kind of guy.

> The end of the day I think the way to get tech too scale, is for companies / academics / etc to really just put the work in.

This is true in the abstract, but my point is mainly about the comparative effectiveness of different strategies when it come to building scalable infrastructure (or scaling up infra): Keep the bulk of the existing code and invest in making the underlying compiler/interpreter/tool chain better or progressively migrate the code to a tool chain with better scaling capabilities from the get go.

From experience, the nature and semantic of a language severely what is "reasonably" possible in the runtime in term of safety (like code loader in java), performance (both CPU and memory) and tooling. Now improvement are possible, but they tend become exponentially expensive as time goes on.

Now, obviously there is always a tension between developer productivity and infra concerns, but i do believe that we have better compromise point on that line with newer language and framework.

I totally agree that in the 2000's the experience of most "enterprise framework" sucked very hard, and the emergence of language such ruby/python etc... was a god send : a response to the overly rigid and ceremonial way of the past.
But with time, we have been able to understand better what makes a good programming experience, distill that into better designed languages and framework which offer "better" compromises. For example :

- Instead of dynamic vs static type , we have progressively typed and type inference
- Instead of GC vs non-GC we have rust borrow-checker
- Instead of runtime meta programing with have DSL and macro's

Even more important, i believe that a lot of the experience come from the tooling around the language, and there again the "cargo/dotnet/go" cli approach with a single coherent entry point for both package management and framework scaffolding ease a lot of the pain of the old way.

With all of that we now have languages which offer a better compromise on the dev. prod vs infra/performance...

> JVM is blazingly fast

I would say blazingly faster... But compared to C++ (or even rust) java is still quite slow. Especially for anything compute intensive.
I disagree. The criticism is _not_ that basic building blocks cannot be combined to produce something richer. The issue is the "without any reference to meaning" part of the quoted definition from Bender in that article. Models which are _only_ trained on text do not have a grounding to relate linguistic forms to anything else. When you know what an apple is, it's in part because you've seen and touched and tasted and eaten one. The model only knows how people talk about apples, and which texts are plausible, but not which ones are true.

But we're already getting past this with multi-modal models! Some really great work is being done which ties language processing with visual perception and in some cases robot action planning. A model can know how we talk about apples, can see where an apple is in a scene, can navigate to and retrieve an apple, etc. This lets us get at truth ("Is the claim 'the apple is on the book' true of this scene?") in a way which text-only models fundamentally cannot have. The point is, the way you get past the "stochastic parrot" phase requires qualitative structural changes to incorporate different kinds of information -- not just scaling up text-only models.

> They can't prove I'm not a stochastic parrot anymore than they can prove whatever cutting edge LLM isn't.

I can't prove you're not a stochastic parrot by only talking to you via text. But in person I can toss you an object and you can catch it which shows that you understand how to interact with a dynamic 3D environment. I can ask you a question about something in our shared environment, and you can give an answer which is _true_, rather than which is a plausible-sounding sentence. This is the difference between knowing what English texts or English conversations look like, versus knowing what states of the world are referred to by statements.