skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>
I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is.

Exactly. I being a non-native English speaker, just to be sure, looked up in a dictionary: the most common German translation of "vehicle" is "Fahrzeug".

Of course, as it is quite common, there do exist laws in Germany

> https://gesetze.io/definitionen/fahrzeug-f9r8

what is a "Fahrzeug" and what is not, and also a German Wikipedia article that goes quite deeply into this topic:

> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrzeug

Just to bring up a linguistic point (it is far more common in German than in English to carefully analyze words if subtle parts of the meaning are to be cleared up): actually, one could argue (contrary to the Wikipedia article) that "Fahrzeug" comes from "fahren" (to drive); thus a "Flugzeug" (airplane) is not a Fahrzeug, because it flies (Flug -> flight) instead of driving (but as mentioned: the Wikipedia article states a different opinion: Flugzeuge are Luftfahrzeuge, while, say, cars are Landfahrzeuge, i.e. both vehicles belong to sub-categories of Fahrzeuge).

---

But back to the topic: as a non-native English speaker

- all my arguments are based on the most common German translation "Fahrzeug" of "vehicle". What if some subtleties are lost in this translation?

- I doubt that the typical English native speaker tends to think as deeply about words as is not unusual in Germany (when I did analyses of English words to native English speakers they nearly always admitted that they never ever thought of such analyses)
Then entirely depends on what analysis you're trying to perform and what you want to measure. There is no single right way to do it. It depends on what question you're trying to answer.

My point was very simple. Producing PV panels in China probably makes more CO2 than if you manufactured it in the US.

If you want to change the subject to some other question, the analysis would be different and we would have to know what the question is.
> The only solution here is probably to explore something as a nonlethal deterrent, like spikes on hulls/rudders or an underwater klaxon.

Or lethal means. Orcas are smart enough to figure out that messing with boats will result in death and pass that around.
Reminds me of finding an old laptop in the attic (IBM ThinkPad 760LD). 90MHz Pentium, 8MB of RAM, 810MB of HDD, with Win98 installed. I could boot it and start Excel 4 times in the time it took for my workstation to even get to the desktop. Really nice and snappy usage experience.

Sidenote, look up the ThinkPad 760 series, it had some really cool features. Raise-able keyboard so you could have it at an angle, physical sliders for sound and backlight, easy access to the internals and hot-swappable battery.
Cameron's craft is single person only - James always went down alone.
always do exactly one commit with a commit time of exactly when they sent me the take home

If they require BS I give them BS

So, that's editing git history to fit a narrative. I'm not judging though! I guess it really depends how bad you want the job after all. But personally I wouldn't even agree to a process like this that ensures cheating is the only way to be competitive. No company that does this is paying nearly enough to make up for the possible reputational damage, and not counting the hazzle.
The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question
Given that the whole exercise was about meticulous line drawing I think this bit of nitpicking is entirely appropriate. Clearly “is a vehicle” and “is in the park” were the two major axes that each question needed to be plotted on.
Carbon capture is just like plastic recycling, it doesn't actually work at scale and it would be best to just not produce that much carbon in the first place. We should only be using as little fossil fuels as possible to replace the grid with clean/nuclear power and batteries.
Wow. So this really is a big deal then. First the sub, now this, it's been a big news week.
Just because "some people" believe something doesn't mean you have to make a webapp "debunking" them, and just because law is often complicated with many edge cases doesn't mean it can't be simpler or partly automated.

Everyone here implicitly knows that natural languages have ambiguity this is why formal languages were invented and it's painful that governing bodies hasn't caught up in many places. Imagine a world where you could diff laws from federal to state, state to state, stateA.city to stateB.city or StateA.cityA to StateA.cityB.
or a log where you could see exactly when a law was changed and why.
it's a nearly perfect analogy for a laymans view of what content moderation should look like.

"my children will see no violence" looks wonderful on paper but there are a great many edge cases where this simple rule is plainly broken all the time in harmless ways.

in reality, what crosses the line one has in mind when they create the simple rule is created is far, far more complex than anyone who makes these rules is prepared to admit.

there is so little "black and white" in these things; it's almost entirely "grey" areas. that's what this quiz is meant to convey.

it is extremely effective at this.
>How is using AI and bot accounts to chat with lonely men (who think they're chatting with real humans) any better for society?

The plan would be to use it just to kickstart the project.
I think wasting the time of 50 people to help thousand/millions can make sense.

"Or you could just... not do it at all "

I could also do nothing at all.

Open to better viable ideas. I wouldn't ask otherwise.
On my last gig we were specifically forbidden from giving feedback because of nebulous "liability" reasons.
First, it did way less than 50 dives. I'm finding it really hard to find any solid numbers, but I've only found reference to only 3 or 4 previous dives to the Titanic, a test dive and a few dives to much shallower depths. That would put the failure rate for dives to this depth closer to 20%.

Second, the space shuttle never carried any paying passengers.

I'm very much of the opinion that the second you start accepting paying passengers, the safety standards should massively go up. Consumers have an expectation that if a company is offering a service to the general public, that service will meet a minimum level of safety. Companies shouldn't be able to hide behind liability wavers (well, not for a ~2% risk and absolutely not for a 20% risk) as even with a waver explictly stating death is an option, they will under estimate it.

Third, NASA engineers actually quantified the risk all the way back in the design stage and had it at ~2%, remarkably accurate in retrospect. NASA decided that was an acceptable level of risk for their mission profile and went ahead (it would have been way safer if the air force hadn't put insane mission profiles on it)

With everything we now know, there is no way in hell that OceanGate had any level of risk calculation. They were denying any risk at all, asserting that their real-time monitoring procedures would catch any failures before they became critical.
But standards organizations would need some way of making money regardless of the economic system we lived in. People aren't going to do that work for free.

If we lived in an economic system that didn't pay those organizations, they simply wouldn't exist.
Constant stream of malware is posted to NPM, PyPI, and all package managers
> YouTube uses it too

Pretty sure YouTube migrated onto Spanner quite a while ago.
I answered "is a vehicle" to 15 out of 27 questions and also got 11%, so this is either a crazy coincidence or the number's effectively hard coded.
Minute, hour, day are specifically allowed by CIPM to be used in SI. They just can't be used with prefixes.

kWh is obviously inconsistent with SI conventions if commonly used; but 'kW⋅h' or 'kW h' is completely acceptable. As is 'W⋅h'

A full list of acceptable non-SI units can be found in the brochure here under: "Non-SI units accepted for use with the SI units"

https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure
I said yes to about half and also got 11%
Not exactly the first post, but maybe the earliest as-yet-unflagged post? (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452290 for earlier discussion)
They have been royally MBA’d
I honestly can't believe anyone would want to work for a company that gives you unpaid homework.
Seems to be working for me still, though I set the GPO back on Win10 and it carried over to Win11 through an upgrade. I see some reports of needing to disable tamper protection first but should still work.
Some of this is related to China's apparent mastery of monocrystalline silicon PV technology. The article and the graph don't distinguish panels by mono vs poly but for non-thin-tech panels, monocrystalline is preferable. See (2018):

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/04/14/the-weekend-read-chin...

> "When potential expansions from other mono ingot and wafer makers are factored in, this points to a tectonic shift in the supply of monocrystalline silicon which threatens to reconfigure the entire upstream solar landscape and potentially push monocrystalline silicon solar into a dominant market position in much shorter timeframe than previously anticipated."
I don't see where OP said they care about the environment, though.
I answered yes to one and also got 11%
Note that their pressure gauge only goes up to 4500psi. The water pressure at the Titanic's location is around 6000psi.
Right, derived from word pattern statistics. The CYC project tried first order predicate calculus with complete failure. This is not how we think or how conceptual awareness works. The key give away is what they don't talk about, Concepts.
How do you know the orcas were disrupted?

> the latest encounter in what researchers say is a growing trend of aggressive interactions with Iberian orcas.

Sounds like the orcas were acting with intention.
This is a really fantastic resource. It's basically the content of every ADHD book distilled into a handful of pdfs. They are a bit dense, but the content is golden.
Been using Red Hat (or clones) for 20+ years, the writing was on the wall and still is.

Enterprise Linux needs to move on from these cowbots.

Now the list of nonsense is too long!

at this rate RHEL 9.x won't reach 2025...
Parent might be referring to this recent TV series: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808491/
Do orcas engage in an equivalent of intertribal warfare?

If not they might not even have instincts for group defense or retaliation (except in the context of one off encounters with predators).
So the point is that content moderators will inevitably encounter ambiguous situations where they must use context to make a judgment call? And that no matter what call they make, there will be some people who believe it is the wrong one? Are those contentious points? Seems fairly obvious to me that would be the case in content moderation as well as many areas, notably law, which he mentioned.
Suspiciously, I also got 11% (no to everything except police, ambulance, and car)
I mean, it was clearly a better language model than the at-the-time best model (which, if I recall correctly, was Yang et al's mixture-of-softmaxes). But the biggest surprise over time has been how big of a sponge large transformer models are (absorbing huge amounts of data), which was definitely not evident until later. I was also personally surprised at how long you need to train these models (in terms of epochs) but I think some of the work leading to that (around optimal batch size, etc.) was already being done. I think that actually changed quite a lot over the next few years, from really long training (many epochs over the same data) to really "short" training (1-2 epochs on a much larger dataset).

The ML community took to it very quickly; multi-headed attention was being used in everything very soon afterwards, and LSTMs were no longer used. But it took a few months. HuggingFace really kicked a lot of this off, then BERT, then DistilBERT.
I mostly thought it was easy to tell if the rule was being violated (the vast majority disagreed with me), but where it gets much more complicated is deciding if a rule should be allowed to be violated. I think most people don't want rules that are blindly enforced without consideration to circumstance/context. We carve out exceptions to rules everywhere in life.
That is an example of this:

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

When the highest court in the land can't get a good grasp on whether a law has been broken or not you know you've hit a thorny problem.
No. Implement IPv6.

0.0.0.0/8 wouldn’t even be enough to clear the current RIPE & ARIN waiting lists.
Same - I used the simple "rule" that basically everything that's in the park and used to carry people or goods is a "vehicle" at least by some people's standard. But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over.
> But I really wonder - what would be more complex?

> Building interactive programs based on HTML or Logo (if anybody does remember)?

Hold my beer: my Github Actions CI scripts use Logo to generate the bash build scripts as images that are then OCRed and executed by a special terminal that exploits the Turing complete nature of Typescript's type system.

Turtles all the way down!
Just need web-commected holo-projectors
Ah yes, you need to disable tamper protection as well. (Which is kind of strange... if a virus can disable the first one can't it also disable the second one??)
For whatever reason, it seem like people usually exclude acts undertaken in connection with the state’s monopoly on violence from the scope of these things.
> The company doesn't want to spend time getting into an argument with the person over it

I don’t want to either, but if the feedback they send is clearly bonkers then what am I supposed to do?

If you have a dialogue in the first place you can correct their misconceptions immediately, but if they use take home the only time you can do this is after the fact.
I feel like it’s missing:

* A truck is driven over the corner of the park, but it uses a ramp so it never physically touched the ground of the park.

* One tire of a car drives 10cm on along the edge of a park, but the truck’s satnav has a different datum than your cadastral data.
Orcanizing
Absolutely. The #1 competence for the business person at the nascent stage is sales. If you are great at this, almost nothing else matters. Growth fixes most problems. As PG wrote, “…if you get growth, everything else tends to fall into place. Which means you can use growth like a compass to make almost every decision you face.”

If you are great at everything besides sales, that won’t make any meaningful contribution.
Never heard of this and I wish I hadn't after looking it up. Probably the silliest versioning scheme I've ever seen. It communicates absolutely nothing of value.
Exactly. By the strictest literal terms a rule prohibiting any call for violence would prohibit things which many people would find entirely unobjectionable like standing up for a country’s right to defend itself (with violence) against an aggressive invader.

All rules have countless unspoken caveats and are inherently only able to be interpreted in a cultural context; rules cannot be made so specific as to remove the need for that context. Problems come in when essential parts of that context are not shared by everyone who interacts with the rules.
Remember, orcas are our friends -- they're just not friends with yacht-owning billionaires.
It's interesting too because AV feels somewhat less useful than ever - we're not in the days of common worms flying around the internet anymore, we're in the days of script kiddies using commercial "FUD packers" to bypass most AV scanners with their password and token stealers so they can resell the accounts.

Tools like that are basically hit-and-run and they don't need to stick around to do lasting damage.
The thing that really proved this game's point for me is the comments here from people giving slightly different versions of "well it's obvious what 'vehicle' means".
Another startup fraud case…I predict an SEC and DOJ indictment if the allegations laid out in the article are really true.

And of course, SoftBank is involved.
From my experience as an employer / owner, this is a complex issue.

In the past, when I was a middle-of-the-totem-pole decision maker, we administered a take home. I wasn't really empowered to give feedback, but as far as I know nobody did. The best take home test had a joke in the comments. We were a game company, so it made sense for us - you have to care about entertainment.

Today, as the ultimate decision maker, I ask only to see pre-existing code with git blame turned on, and I review it on screen with the candidate. In this context the candidate receives feedback, and it's almost entirely focused on style because IMO that is the single greatest predictor of actual coding experience.

Let's discuss the underlying issue here: ineligibility, of like 30-50% of candidates. In this context, take homes make sense, because they occur in the absence of any other legitimate reason you should talk to someone.

For example, here are my tech company LinkedIn Talent Solutions screening questions:

Have you completed the following level of education: Bachelor's Degree? What is your level of proficiency in English? During our call, will you be able to share recent source code, wholly authored by you, of a game, application or website you worked on?

Out of 20 candidates, 12 could answer Yes to all three. What exactly should we do with the remaining 8? I can see how a take home can address the ineligibility.
Glassdoor - interviews section
I’m honestly not sure what the point of the exercise is. I went through and answered honestly, and looking at the end results it seems that most people agreed with me (the only significant minority disagreements were about the bike and the tank). Overall, it looks like almost all of the cases have a clear opinion?

I expected it to get into difficult edge cases, like somebody riding a motorcycle or landing a plane, but it never went there. A plane flying overhead doesn’t constitute “in the park”, and it looks like almost everybody agrees on that point.
and the other side is busy closing down public channels: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/18103517

> VKontakte blocked Prigozhin's statement on the basis of the decision of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation
Heh, I thought the quiz was almost entirely not grey areas. It seems like the police car and ambulance were about as gray as it got, the others seem pretty obviously non-gray.
It is me!
An absolutely unarguable point. Well done.
You are not certifying a process. You are certifying a process for that part.

If the process changes, you have to go back and re-certify.
If the technology changes, you have to go back and re-certify.
In some places, if you change the machine the part is run on, you have to go back and re-certify.

So if you take a part that was stick welded, move it to a tig welder and then move it to an automated spot welder, you have to certify 3 times.

Not to mention, a tig weld may behave differently under stress than a stick weld so make sure that you do a part analysis too!

Last but not least, the regulations have changed from the last time this aircraft was produced. Are your parts governed by the new regulations or the old?

This is what got Boeing in so much trouble with the MAX, they didn't want to re-certify the aircraft so they kept making changes to the design. Do you think they are getting more or less scrutiny now when they say "It's an old design, everything is cool!"

The FAA got beat up, badly, justifiably so over their handling of that. Congress mandated them to regulate more strictly: https://www.reuters.com/article/boeing-737max-congress-idAFL...

Up-thread, comment was to farm it our to a local machine shop with one guy. Here is the FAA on Counterfeit parts:
>Counterfeit Parts: These are unapproved parts manufactured and sold without FAA >approval. You should report them to the FAA as a SUP. There may be obvious, or >not so obvious, visual clues to help you spot these parts. The FAA aggressively >investigates these cases and works closely with the Office of Inspector General >(OIG) and law enforcement officials to ensure proper adjudication. There are >cases of this nature that have resulted in significant civil penalties and/or >jail time for those involved.
https://iflyamerica.org/safety_suspected_unapproved_parts.as...

Adding:
I have found an older(2022) AMCOM Spares SAR Guidance Document. This will show you what you need to do in order to apply to manufacture parts for American Military Aircraft. https://www.avmc.army.mil/Portals/51/Documents/SAR%20Guidanc...
This so perfectly describes the ADHD university experience. Of course, there are other courses that you could hyperfocus on for days.
I'm bad at explaining this.

Remote Australia is not like the rest of world. It is not easy to supply these places with goods. Doing so illegally is even more difficult.

Those outlying communities are not just relay points in some chain going back to the coastal cities. Like you would get in other places.
I got 23% but I included defunct tank memorial.
Sir, have you met a management consultant? Or an MBA? May I introduce you to my very respectable friends at Softbank?
I agree that we don't need new regulations, but I do think liability waivers will come under scrutiny. I expect this will come under the courts as lawsuits are filed against the company, and thus tighten up standards about liability and safety expectations for businesses like this. I also think a degree of insurance will become required for these waivers.

In the end it's dolts like OceanGate that make it more difficult for the rest of us.
It was all about, does the rule intend to apply to thus-and-such. Clearly the intent matters; the rule is made by a park ranger, not by god.

So emergency vehicles, toys etc are only an issue to a rule-lawyer. Not to normal people.
If you can go back and forth between representations with better than quadratic scaling, it would mean RNNs with infinite context lengths and no vanishing gradient. You wouldn't need transformers.
> regardless of the economic system we lived in.

Nitpick: if we lived in an economic system with universal basic income it's not unlikely people would decide to work on standards anyway.

> People aren't going to do that work for free.

Counterexample: all open source software.
Funnily enough, by your wide standard, any footwear would also be considered a vehicle.
They were more likely referring to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
How do surveillance planes spot ocean submersibles?
It would have been better if the page defined "vehicle" since people's definitions may vary. The one I used was basically "Something used to carry people or goods". That meant that a toy car wasn't a vehicle, only a representation of one, but even a toy car could conceivably be made to carry something else at which point it would become a vehicle. I also struggled a bit with the disabled tank, since it's clearly designed for the transport of people, but while it's non-functional it couldn't fill that role. A car that's parked is also incapable of transporting people, but I think most people would argue the rule was still being violated by its presence.
The difference between this and the submarine is that there is less risk of instant death for the Tesla driver, he externalizes it on cyclists and pedestrians.

If anything good is to come from the Titan sinking it should be a good hard look at Tesla's autopilot.