skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh yeah, people have finally realized that you can _punish_ companies that pull this BS, or in the case of stuff like Twitter's mass layoffs the individual claims are large enough to warrant legal fees (because twitter is run by unethical scum) and the mass nature of the layoffs means that twitter's malicious behavior is going to cost twitter money.

The end hope is I guess that mass arbitration will cause those companies to settle. Of course the immensely corrupt nature of the current Supreme Court mean Musk will probably just need to write a couple of checks to buy a ruling that say people forced into arbitration are required to pay the costs of arbitration and put up the funds ahead of time. Maybe won't even need a check, just a fishing vacation gift.
Compilers generating stack probes for large stack allocations has been a thing for decades. It was required in Windows 95 for 32-bit applications, and you'd do that on a page (4k) granularity.

I am still in the dark as to what the bug was here. Did Firefox stop doing probes for JIT code? Not do them at all, because most JS stack frames are small?
Wasn't the point of the experiment not that you could come up with answers that seemed sensible to you, but that different people came up with different answers that seemed sensible to them? I too felt the line was fairly clear in this case, but I was very surprised that others thought differently.

It isn't mentioned in the discussion on the results page, but one facet of effective moderation this shines a light on is as follows: each of us may find the moderation task easy, but few (or none) of us would be a moderator who would be universally trusted.
agreed...at what point should I provide remuneration to my professors? Should those professors / staff provide royalties upstream? I fully agreed with citation _but_ to claim that AI is derived work / needs to return royalties based on the materials it learnt from seems a step too far IMHO. It read material and put it back like everyone else.
Could be an exception... or not. Some prohibitions come from hazards like "this won't hold your weight" or "this could flood unexpectedly". And there's no emergency vehicle exceptions.

I had my closest park in mind when answering. It has a river and multiple wooden bridges to access. Also, the ground floods sometimes in the winter and some paths are too soft for a car. No way an ambulance or firetruck is going to get in the park. They could try, but would loss more time than doing it on foot, or a bridge would collapse under their weight.
yes, i was also wondering about that. but i remember mostly videos of elderly people suddenly dropping dead.
You're assuming another rule here, which not only isn't written but is even explicitly excluded in the very beginning of this experiment.
By this rule I can't bring a newspaper into the park

> 3. a medium through which something is expressed, achieved, or displayed
Not op, but let me rephrase it:

leaky abstractions create more trouble than is worth it. If your abstraction does not fit the problem neatly do not abstract it.
I wrote that comment. One other possibility: if you use spread syntax to call a function with a large array (eg `foo(...Array(20000))`), then all those arguments will be pushed on the stack.

(I didn't dig into the specifics of the Google code because, as weird as it is to have 20000 stack values, we really should be able to handle it. This was, at the end of the day, a bug in our stack probing code.)
It's not. Nowhere did I say or imply that.
Correct. But you (and the experimenter) are assuming that rules exist in a vacuum, which in practice it isn't
This is exactly why criminal law requires two things: the actus reus and the mens rea. Act and intent.

So, great point.

I guess the only problem on the internet is it is very hard to determine intent, see Poe's law.
are the shoes carrying you? Or are you carrying the shoe?
GTK: Evolving Accessibility
BlackBerry operated it's own GPRS APN, so all Blackberries registered directly with it from the tower, and so it always had their up-to-date location on the network.
What I find really amusing is that the top comment (yours) is about how obvious the interpretation of the rules is, but there are dozens of subcomments disagreeing with your interpretation and each insisting how obvious their own interpretation is... exactly like with content moderation ;)

In my view, there's always an obvious initial purpose and interpretation (the Honda Civic), and you always have those that will pedantically insist on the most literal Draconian interpretation (the ISS), then you have those who stretch the rules to fit their agenda (bikes), but, most importantly, you have some class of common edge cases which spark significant disagreement (emergency services), even if we all agree on 90% of the point (which is that yes, emergency services should be able to drive through the park during an emergency, regardless of whether the rule is broken).
when i sit in my apartment trying to relax or focus and a super loud motorcycle drives by i do feel disrupted and also fantasize about intentionally disrupting that motorcycle.

so, i can relate to the orcas and it goes both ways with the disrupting.
Similarly on Windows:

- Open current directory in Explorer:

explorer .

- Open a file (prompts which program to open it with):

explorer README.md
RMS and the FSF fight for free software, not open source software. There is an important semantic difference that your comment doesn't appreciate.

See: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.
Ah, a fellow member of the elite 11%!

Now, I wonder which specific items we agreed on, if any.
The game didn't say the park is contained in another land. It's a "hypothetical park". It could even exist in a virtual reality that doesn't have any other rules for all we know.
Is a pizza folded in half on itself and cut at the fold just a cheese and pepperoni melt?
Hundreds of russian soldiers have surrendered. Apparently three helicopters have been destroyed. Rostov is under Wagner control. They’re now halfway to Moscow. Some of the photos are incredible.

This is huge.
i like your humor ;D leaves me a little confused but in a pleasant way.
In other words, absent any actual formal specified intent, people interpret the rules to best suit their own self-interest.

if you got kids at the park, you'd imagine bikes as being a nuisance. If you're the one riding the bike, you'd imagine the park is meant for you to enjoy and thus the boke isnt a nuisance.

This is exactly the point being made by the questionaire!
When you want a clean room non-GPL implementation of something GPL that already exists, you ask the developers not to look at the original. I don't see how this is any different.
I see. This graph is pretty confusing imo. My first idea for a visualization is to use a stacked bar chart that always adds up to 100% with "No it's not a vehicle" above "Yes it is a vehicle." Use 4 colors, dark red, light red, dark green, light green, and emphasize your choices with the dark ones.

Add a couple checkboxes with interactivity:

- Show only "Is vehicle" bars

- Show only "Is not vehicle" bars

- Show only answers that agreed with me

- Show only answers that disagreed with me

And a "toggle colorblind mode" although I'm not sure what colors would be ideal for that.

Any other ideas for how to make this thing actually readable?
I think GTK has a setting on setting up the menu spawning speed.
> Why don't they judge me based on my 4 year long degree which is only done to rubber stamp that I can do the job.

If you spend enough time hiring you learn that a 4 year degree is a very poor signal for "can be a productive engineer". Communication, raw coding, and soft skills aside I'm still regularly shocked by how weak the CS skills of many fresh grads are, it seems a double digit percentage never really learn big O well enough to use it day to day. When you're paying big salaries you can't afford not to verify this stuff.

> Do you also expect a Med graduate to see some patients in the hospital for free before giving them a job?

I mean, this is literally a requirement for graduating most pre-med programs.

Getting more at your point - in many skilled white collar professions you need to take regular tests to maintain "certification". The bodies that issue these certifications are trusted enough to maintain standards that it's possible to get hired by maintaining the certification. SWEs have no similar institution, and given how fast the field moves it's not clear we're ready to establish one.
This is the best piece of writing I’ve seen on hn in months.

Really worth reading!
the one anyone cares about is the spot etf. the sec will keep rejecting them.
In general, there's no difference between the stack of the C++ program and the stack of the JS program. When SpiderMonkey just-in-time compiles a JS function, the result is native code that creates a stack frame on the same stack as the C++ code that implements SpiderMonkey. JS code and C++ code can be semi-arbitrarily interleaved on the stack: JS calls C++ calls JS calls C++...

The one exception about sharing the same stack is that the first few iterations of a function run in an interpreter implemented in C++, and that interpreter has its own stack that we heap-allocate. This particular bug occurred during the transition from the C++ interpreter to JIT code.
I’ve used mailcatcher for years and love it. It is perfect.
Why am I not surprised. This is the EU in a nutshell: ten years old copy cat technology. We’re turning into the new Soviet Union…
not really afraid. pilot whales are just obviously super intelligent and so orcas respect them a lot.
> Now you're assuming the intent.

No, it's not assuming, it's interpreting based on prior experience in communication.

> The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff.

Then the sign would mention that, simple as that.

> But the larger point is that people can adopt the "obvious intent" version of the rule when it suits them and the pedantic version of the rule when it suits them.

I agree with you here, it happens all the time, is a problem, and perhaps the test is useful to those, who haven't figured this truth so far. Probably not that many in the HN crowd…

I'll add that there's a problem with the test: "does it violate the rule" is not very meaningful. It could be understood in two ways:

- does it technically, strictly speaking, "violate" the rule, meaning, it does something the sign tells you not to do,

- or is the example acting against the intent of the author of the sign.

If the test asked "should violator be punished?" I think it would be more meaningful, otherwise it's just synthetic and the controversy is just about semantics, it doesn't incentive a discussion about our worldview and the rules we put in place, it just provokes to argue pedantically about how we phrase a message.

Moreover it possibly misleads people to think they disagree on something they really don't.
It's a model X: https://akamai-apigateway-teslaservice-api.tesla.com/api/Vin...
This does seem to square with the opinion some had that long COVID is really just an alternative name for post-viral fatigue.
I like this experiment! I hope to see some further analysis on the results. I came to a similar conclusion years back about languages: it's impossible to translate a word perfectly because the border cases differ. Is it a cake or a bread? Banana bread is called bread in the US, but as a Dane I consider it "kage" (the usual translation of "cake").
Well it's kind of tough because the JVM does a lot of this for you! The JVM will try to pack "related" memory closer together. It can even do really cool things for tree structures (like a Node class) and linked lists - which is why you see java perform so well on these types of data structure benchmarks.

In Java we have to worry about different things, like the number of fields on an object and object header sizes. A lot of advice in the article is still good to keep in mind when optimizing code on the JVM, though, like keeping frequently accessed fields next to each other.
> Is it really necessary to assess someone using an exam when they have a professional license, references, and experience?

Yes.
The important point about this essay is that it brings to light an issue that most people would feel that they'd be blamed as overreacting for complaining about.
This is a great anecdote for the need of intent. But, you also need context. Without either of those it’s very, very hard to agree on rules. And agreeing on either context or intent, let alone both, in a small community is hard. Doing so across the internet is damn near impossible and that was the point of the article.
Which is helpful if the material is somewhat ductile. That’s what they do with aircrafts that are checked for microcracks. In a brittle material such as carbon fibre composites, the step between “a crack appears” and “the whole piece shatters” is typically measured in milliseconds. So monitoring crack propagation is not that useful. Both stresses and strains would look completely normal up until the point of failure.

It’s the same for the bond between the titanium and carbon composite bits. These things deform differently and at different rates. Stress monitoring is much more difficult than in a single piece.
Google Search Rankings Exploding
So no one can bring their legs into the park, as they are a means of transporting things?

"Carrier" is also a very broad term, no human carrying anything is allowed in the park then.
What does "Day Two company" mean?
It's also a license violation to train an AI on Open Source code, generate "new" code from that model even if it's not an exact copy, and ignore the licenses of the input.

That's not exactly a given that we can simply take as true. Of course that's borderline a trite tautology about any legal issue, but I'd argue that this is even fuzzier than usual. If a human writes some code, after having seen a given corpus of code previously, the "new" code might or might not be a derivative work of that corpus. It's not clear that replacing the human with an AI somehow changes the equation so categorically that it becomes automatic to consider the output of the AI a derivative work.

License violations don't suddenly become acceptable just because you're violating a million licenses at once.

No, but if either a human or an AI emits a given line of code, and that line of code can't be shown to have been cribbed from some corpus of existing code, or to be substantially similar to such, then why wouldn't it be considered original work in both cases?
so an open-face sandwich is technically not a sandwich in your definition then! Even tho it's in the name!
I'm using Link Eye [1] which lets you open any url in the application of your choice. It's fantastic, also enabling you to open youtube links in NewPipe.

[1] https://f-droid.org/packages/kuesji.link_eye.fdroid/
Make Qt Great Again. PFW: A fluent design widgets library based on PyQt/PySide
This is a fluent design style component library written in PyQt/PySide, which includes many commonly used components, supports switching between light/dark themes, and custom theme colors.
I cannot parse the title. Probably the plugin is open-source. But where does "program" belong to?

Either way, if you don't use IDA or don't even know what it really is (like myself), this is not for you.

Comments telling how (un)happy they are with meld or BeyondCompare are off-topic. This plugin is a different category.
> I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules

I think the ambiguity here is not what the rule means, but what "breaking the rules" means.

IMHO it should have been phrased as "would you refuse entry to" i.e. whether you would enforce action based on the rule.

If you would not bar entry to emergency vehicles, that would be the same as what others mean by "not breaking the rules" i.e. it is implicitly allowed.
All IP addresses are equal? “Dot-zero” addresses are less equal (2013)
>obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

It's still breaking the rule though.
Legally I suspect it varies between jurisdictions whether the sign doesn't apply to them, it does apply but conflicts with another rule, or whether it's argued as an extenuating circumstance.

Then there's the edge cases like bikes and horses.

Are they vehicles? It's completely reasonable that they could be deemed to be.

We've got the same kind of argument going on with e scooters at the moment.

Ultimately I answered a lot of these based on what I would expect to see in a park, and what I think is reasonable. But they aren't objective measures.
Canada on the way to becoming a better place.
Crates that only make FFI calls exist. I have written some. :)
I just wanted to say Anki.
"having language- level semantic information helps a lot for dealing with complex data structures."

Yes that's what I'm thinking - much of the current stuff seems to be trying to guess what the code is doing from a low level (eg branch prediction) whereas the language itself could tell.
> The obvious explanation is that the cops/ambulances have a set of rules that take priority over the park's rules

I prefer the following quote as an explanation: "There are no rules, only consequences." There are no consequences for an ambulance entering the park because everyone agrees it is right that it should do so.
Could you post that script somewhere for us? I'd be interested to see if there are annoyances I'm just living with in there.
> The existing licenses cover AI training just fine [...] An AI product - more specifically, the model weights - is a derivative work of the original works used for training

The presumption is entirely debatable. A human is not considered derivative work of the original works they used for training.

> Any other interpretation of the nature of copyright [...] which by definition, only covers human produced material

Maybe copyright needs to leave the 1980s and evolve to deal with AI too? Maybe you do, too?
This is why there is a difference between rules and guidelines.

Guidelines are suggestions. They're all about intent. "Don't have live music after midnight" isn't a ridiculous guideline for COVID, because it usually implies a gathering. It is a ridiculous rule because rules have to be rigid and well defined, because rules are enforced. Squishy rules aren't rules, they're covert dictatorial powers.
Compete financial independence is obviously attractive, but it's not a straightforward trade-off. It would take me years, and if there are things I can spend on to make the most of my spare time along the way, they might be worth it
Political science is a science

shrug
Because copyright, and law in general, is an expression of the political agreement reached amongst the members of our society. It does not exist in the absolute, there are no legal principles that transcend humanity, law is a human creation to arbitrate our collaboration and conflicts.

Therefore, in the legal sense, an algorithm does not "learn", despite any functional analogy you can make with human learning, because an algorithm is not a party to the social contract that established said law; its only "rights" are an extension of the legal right of its author/proprietor. Your "learning" right does not cover, for example, your tape player recording a performance and playing it back at later date to some commercial audience. You have a right to hear and learn the song, you can play it back from memory, but your tape recorder does not, it's a tool, just like your fancy AI machine.

This will continue to hold true despite any advancements in AI, up to the moment when synthetic entities will acquire distinct legal rights.
Eli Lilly’s Experimental Weight-Loss Pill Shows Rapid Results in Study
> To a first approximation, Earth is a big ball of iron

This is a totally useless thing to say unless you have secret technology for core mining.
"Nothing else works like this, and shouldn't"

I'm pretty sure homebrew does this, and it's awful behaviour.

Every time you think I'll just.. and then you have to sit and wait whilst it does it's thing..

It can be disabled, and it was changed from every time to once every 24 hours years ago, but still..
Jessica is one of my favorite people from the YC community, and I think that’s a commonly shared opinion!
I also was 11%. For me I only counted car, police, ambulance, bike, wagon and horse as vehicles.
I feel this argument is weakened by the fact that no one training these models feeds their own proprietary source code into publicly available models.

Practically speaking I feel this is a strong hint that some degree of copyright laundering is taking place.
Then every employee of openai should scrape the weights of GPT-4 and train their own neural nets. That would not be a derivative work and also be free use under this logic.
It's completely different. You're talking about re-implementing a specific piece of software. And that whole "clean room" thing isn't an absolute anyway... that's the level of paranoia you engage if you want to be super duper sure that you can't be accused of copying the original.

What I'm talking about is closer to "you fire up your IDE (or Emacs) right now, and churn out 250 lines of code for some arbitrary piece of software. Is it a derivative work of every pieces of software whose source code you have previously look at?"

Note that I'm not referring to the case where the AI spits out code that is identical to code taken from another project. I'm aware that that sometimes happens, and that is obviously a problem, just like it would if a human did it. What I'm arguing is only that it probably should not be taken as a given that AI generated code is automatically considered a derivative work.

Here's a thought experiment: say an AI emits a single line of code tomorrow. You examine it, and then spend weeks, months, or even years searching all the open source code that's "out there". You fail to identify a line in any existing code-base that was clearly the upstream source for the line from the AI. So is that line a derivative work? If so, of what?
Complex CPUs and peripherals up to around 1995, e.g. up to Pentium, had mostly open documentation, not much different than for a 555.

Only after that the public documentation has become progressively more and more restricted.

Some restrictions are quite recent, e.g. only since the first Zen AMD has stopped publishing the BIOS and Kernel Developer's Guides and Intel has stopped publishing even summary datasheets for the mobile CPUs only a few product generations ago (summary datasheets are still published for desktop CPUs).
Another way to understand what e.g. 0xFE means as a signed integer is to just add a number until it equals 0. So, 0xFE + 1 = 0xFF, not zero. 0xFE + 2 = 0. Therefore, 0xFE is -2.
> There is no reason I can think of that someone would want to be on an older version of Go.

New Go toolchains regularly drop support for running the generated binaries on older versions of Windows and macOS. I definitely want to remain in control of this.