skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it's surprising that you think the first two points are controversial. They seem quite obvious to me.

First, we know of no special requirement that exists in human brains that provides intelligence that machines lack. In other words, We don't have any reason to expect that machines will be limited by human intelligence or some level below. On the contrary, we have great reasons to expect that machines will easily be able to exceed human intelligence - for example, the speed and reliability of digital computation or the fact that computers can be arbitrary sizes and use amounts of power and dump waste heat that our biological brains couldn't dream of. If you accept that AI is making progress along a spectrum of intelligence, moving closer towards human level intelligence now, then it seems absurd to doubt that it would be possible for AI to surpass human intelligence. Why would that be impossible? It's like claiming we could never build a machine larger than a human or stronger than a human. There's no reason or evidence to support such a claim.

Second is the idea that AI is making progress towards human and superhuman intelligence. I think you should be convinced of this by simply looking at the state of the art 5 years ago versus today. If you put those points on a plane and draw a line between them, where is that line in 5 years or 10?

Today GPT4 can play chess, write poetry, take standardized tests and do pretty well, answer math problems, write code, tell jokes, translate languages, and just generally do all sorts of cognitive tasks. Capabilities like these did not exist five years ago or to the extent they did, they existed only in rudimentary forms compared to what GPT4 is capable of. We can see similar progress in different domains, not just large language models - for example, image generation or recognition.

Progress might not continue then again it might. It might accelerate. As the capabilities of the models increase, they might contribute to accelerating the progress of artificial intelligence.
I do my PhD in management as part of organization studies, I know some good folk doing education. So don't be too disappointed in the beginning, it might be just your profs, or your uni. Just search quickly with Google Scholar, and there is this Fischer et al. (2010) that looks like a good summary responding to your comment. If my impression from my colleagues is correct, UK seems to be a good place for grad school in education. Just from an epistemological standpoint there is Mahadevan (2020) and Romani et al. (2018) where you can see where the field is going.

Fischer, K. W., Goswami, U., Geake, J., & Task Force on the Future of Educational Neuroscience. (2010). The future of educational neuroscience. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(2), 68-80.

Mahadevan, J. (2020). Ethnographic studies in international human resource management: Types and usefulness. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(2), 228-251.

Romani, L., Barmeyer, C., Primecz, H., & Pilhofer, K. (2018). Cross-cultural management studies: state of the field in the four research paradigms. International Studies of Management & Organization, 48(3), 247-263.
For reference below.

Justice Thomas: Yale Law School (1971)

Chief Justice John Roberts: Harvard Law School (1979)

Justice Alito: Yale Law School (1975)

Justice Sotomayor Yale Law School (1979)

Justice Kegan: Harvard Law School (1986)

Justice Gorsuch: Harvard Law School (1991)

Justice Kavanaugh: Yale Law School (1990)

Justice Barrett: Notre Dame Law School (1997)

Justice Jackson: Harvard Law School (1996)

So it's 7/9 at this point. Not a pure prerequisite, but quite close. I tend to not read too much into the whole Harvard/Yale thing though, because this is largely a function of networks and sorting mechanisms. It's not like a lawyer from Yale is THAT much better than a lawyer from the University of Michigan. Maybe that's your point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Suprem...
Location: Chandigarh, India

Remote: yes

Willing to relocate: no

Technologies: Linux, Python, Cybersecurity

Résumé/CV: https://github.com/drishal/drishal/blob/main/resume.org

Email: drishalballaney@gmail.com

I am a Linux and Python enthusiast with experience in using frameworks and tools such as Django, Docker and Nix/NixOS. I also have a keen interest in Cybersecurity and enjoy learning new skills and technologies. I am seeking a full-time position as a Linux Engineer/Administrator/Cybersecurity or a similar role
Extremely badass but still 60Hz :(

I wonder if I’ll ever find a way to drive 4k@144Hz and switch inputs without the current cable replugging ritual.
I see these ideas in a lot of data-oriented-design literature and it always struck me as needlessly reductive. Maybe it's useful to set the scene and provide a "cold shower" to get you out of an OOP-abstraction state of mind. But aside from that it seems about as useful as an engineer saying "look around! everything is made of atoms! engineering is fundamentally about moving atoms!" Which is not wrong, just not really going to help actually do any engineering.
Ah, one of those "generic" libraries back from MS-DOS days.
> Indeed. But the thing is that Red Hat is veering on the abusive edge of exploiting the work of FOSS contributors

Which FOSS contributors? The repackagers? Who are free to repackage Ubuntu, Debian, etc.?
Facebook gaming is huge platform that exists within the Messaging platform. While they may have consolidated from a standalone app to a service in an existing platform, that is not a "fail" by any measure.

The same goes for Facebook Events, which is hugely popular within the Facebook platform.
To start with, I totally sympathize with Red Hat on this one. The question is not whether Red Hat deserves to do this, but whether the _LICENSE_ allows them to do so.

> Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code

They are not obligated to release source code to the public. But they _are_ obligated to put no restrictions whatsoever on redistribution (100% clone or not).

From the GPL:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License."

Red Hat is basically saying "We understand that the GPL allows you to redistribute our product as is. But, if you do, we will terminate our relationship with you.". IMO that is no different than a company saying "Yes, you have a statutory right for refunds within 30 days. However, if you exercise it, we will not sell you any products in the future.". That counts as a (indirect) restriction in my book.
Are you suggesting I buy $5k windows desktops when I can get $1000 macs that I know will be easier to use long term. Also, I used to buy top of the line Sony VAIOs, that was my go to brand. They were robust, many were had sturdy aluminum bodies (not unibody but close), and the base models were often very performant (specs, cooling, etc). Usually they all started at roughly $800, I used to buy the $1000 ones, so moving to macs did not start suddenly costing more, same average price, better quality of life.
Let us reimplement love in Rust from first principles to solve this inconvenience. Nothing can go wrong, it’ll be so disruptive and innovative.
For a reason. Brazil has high persistent inflation historically, and there's a huge currency devaluation risk.
Okay, story time:

About 10 years ago a friend of mine asked me to apply for a job in his team (at this big famous company starting with A). I had exactly the right qualifications and we had worked before so it was basically a done deal. I send my application through the normal channels and their HR team rejected me before reaching my friend.

Among my qualifications I had jokingly added that I could fake a Pink Floyd riff or two on the guitar...

I was asked to apply again. I declined.
What kind of "vision" includes "we'll let others take our work for free, undercut us on pricing" that doesn't end up in bankrupcy for the company?
I don't think that's the issue at hand here. If you give away your work for free, then you shouldn't expect others to pay for it. Depending on the charity of others isn't a great business model.

Projects and organizations that do get a large portion of their funding from donations usually need to spend a lot of time marketing and evangelizing to get those donations. A solo open source developer probably doesn't have the time to do that, plus write the software itself.
Probably a reference to the cage fight that's totally going to happen:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/technology/elon-musk-mark...
Anecdote time, there was a Dutch "Digital Nomad" living near my university. The dude would always show up at student parties and became excessively drunk and obnoxious. Its maybe because he was lonely and had nothing better to do. Long story short, some of us petitioned our university bureaucracy to better enforce access control which was sad because our university was always such an open place.
Very interesting! I would like to join, but I need an invite code. Do you know where I can get one of these?
>When the source changes, you get those as well.

No, it does not say this. It says that if someone gets a piece of software, a binary for example, they must be given the source code it was built upon on request. It does not say that they have to receive all future source code updates even if they don't get future versions of the software.
I doubt the frustration/swearing combo is going to be of great significance.

Yes, its insistence on verbosity gets to me too, even though (as I understand it) that verbosity is the only place it has for any extra "deep thinking" about stuff and thus actually necessary for improved performance.

But it was trained in the first place on a (filtered) form of common crawl, so it probably already had all that.

"The AI swearing" is easy mode for alignment, both because it is low-damage and the availability of trivial filter-based solutions, so it only matters to the larger alignment problem in so far as it's a warning sign we still don't know what we're doing, not in and of itself.
Same here, doubling down with Red-Hat on this.

Those that don't want to pay have lots of options on Distrowatch.
Yeah, this is an underrated point. The huge advantage that Instagram has over Mastodon and Bluesk is everyone is already on it. The bootstrap problem is already solved. By the world's least ethical company. It sucks but this is how we live in the Age of Scale.
One thing missing from this:

There are massive performance gains to be had by using transactions. In other RDBMSs transactions are about atomicity/consistency. But in SQLite, transactions are about batching inserts for awesome speed gains. Use them!
> At this point, someone just needs to stand up a Twitter clone that can handle the traffic ...

Isn't that exactly what meta are doing here?
Wow, CLR is 239€. I do have a paid job, but dear lord
thanks, good use case, I tend to use it for aesthetic effects rather than data visualization.
> favorable warm weather

I don't know about that.
The amount of money that the families pay is considerably lower, though ($43,200/year).
Though honestly, that's still a lot of money.
Famous Encounters
> * Most of my use of degrees is either in cooking or weather. Having a larger scale means more accuracy, seeing as we don't use decimals in either.*

That's your choice though. Outside temperature cannot be measured precisely enough to warrant decimals (it's supposed to be 17.4°C outside but who can tell the difference with 17°C or 18°C...) but my car's A/C is set to 21.5°C and my home's heating is set to 19.5°C.
SEEKING WORK | REMOTE | Germany, Kiel

Full Stack Web Developer

My name is Ole, I'm a senior full-stack web developer with a background in physics (PhD) creating and operating digital products since two decades, specialized in high-quality code, software architecture and mindfully engineered infrastructure.

** Immediately available for part-time or full-time contract work. **

My core technology stack includes:

- Node.js, TypeScript, Python

- React, Next.js, Vue.js

- HTML, CSS, Tailwind

- Postgres, SQL, Redis

- DevOps, CI/CD, GitHub Workflows

- Docker, AWS, CloudFormation

Please drop me an email for my detailed recent work portfolio and references!

-----------------

Website: https://www.hueter.net

Email: hello@hueter.net

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-ole-hueter/

Github: https://github.com/ohueter
> GNU never said that the source code must be downloadable by anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world, from some public repository. It would be a completely valid business to sell binaries and then only provide the source code on request.

The GPL says "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" (emphasis mine). So if one of your paying customers were to post your binary and the written offer somewhere public, then you would have to make the source code available to anyone in the world.
No, 100% not. When you change the source, you are not obligated to give the change to anyone else.
Yes, but at time the community didn't just resell their work at lower prices. Now the profiteers appeared and they're addressing that problem.

Blaming IBM is a conspiracy theory that's more copium than anything else.
The implication here is that people were getting rich off RH's hard work, but who else is rich in the Linux community?

The only people making serious money that I can see are RH themselves, maybe Google if you want to count Android. They're earning $3.4B a year in revenue, compared to $140M for Canonical. Everyone else is scrounging around between the couch cushions for spare change by comparison.

RH deserves kudos for being the biggest corporate OSS contributor (by far), but I'm just not buying this argument at poor RH can't sustain themselves against freeloading competitors when they seem to be the only ones making serious money.
was it not just a snapchat clone?
Toyota says solid-state battery breakthrough can halve cost and size
I will note that getting to the rocket launch stage only requires 3-5 patches outside the starting area and you can very easily reach that with belts. Trains are for going big or simply because you like them.
I mean south Korea does it and it's effective in combating spam and scams.
I don't necessarily like it but it seems to be really the only effective solution.
I will leave this here for those looking for detail on what PPI they need at what size for a Retina display like sharpness.
https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/
Yes, that is my point. They terminate your subscription (stopping you from receiving "the binary"), for re-publishing the source code which you are allowed to re-publish, but they don’t want you to.
It's an awesome source of information. I've shared a summary here: https://www.dsebastien.net/summary-of-what-alcohol-does-to-y...
I think his main issue here is that quickly trying lots of things to see what works works way better with cars than social networks.
> However, it is not good at launching standalone apps either.

That's ok, and in many ways preferable and transparently communicated in many cases. They spin off an independent application, build an audience, figure out what features best convert and migrate those to the primary platform and transition the userbase over to it. Rinse and repeat.

It allows them to try, learn and refine in a sandboxed environment and bring the best over.

They often talk of this process in terms of their "experiments"
GPL gives you the source if you receive the compiled form. When the source changes, you get those as well if you receive the compiled form.

I thought this was clear, but as 2 misunderstood me already, I guess not.
This is so neat!
I'll have to incorporate it into my Unreal Engine x86 emulator plugin menagerie!

https://youtu.be/yVO2VDPnI0Y
(the first 1.5 minutes are fine to watch, the rest is of dubious worth)
Hire me for frontend and backend grunt work, or as a software consultant targeting higher-level objectives like:

- Introduction of technical and operational best practices

- Reducing the total cost of ownership (TCO) by addressing technical debt and lowering engineering overhead through automation and choice of the right tools

- Integration of payment, billing and invoicing systems (e.g. Stripe, PayPal, and accounting systems)

Here are some personality traits and professional skills that describe me well:

- Independent worker with the ability to communicate effectively with the team and all levels of management, taking on a mindset thinking of overall value creation for the business.

- Comfortably managing context switching – e.g., multiple projects, coding, mentoring, discussing & brainstorming.

- Introducing & encouraging innovation – suggesting ideas, introducing new technologies and practices to deliver better solutions.

- Confidence to technically challenge implemented solutions and processes.
Aren’t you in a unique position to make a start-up out of this?
This design reminds me an example from Jef Raskin’s book about user interfaces. Instead of choosing a mode (C->F, F->C) it just shows both results, so a user can pick what they need without interacting.

It would be cool if compass was inertial.
What do you consider your competition? If a problem exists, there are a ton of people out there with some kind of solution they’re already using. You can likely beat the competition on one of three broad areas: price, quality, and availability. You can sell yours cheaper, yours can be better, or yours can be easier. Once you have that, you need to demonstrate that value to other people.

There are a ton of people who currently pay for your competitor’s product, and would gladly switch to yours. You need to find those people and demonstrate your product’s value to them. They will pay you instead of your competitor - that slice of the market now belongs to you, as long as you can keep it, because bear in mind there will always be a ton of people who can make a cheaper, higher quality, or more accessible version of your product.

You might also get lucky enough to stumble across a problem no one has solved yet, or else you might be clever enough to create a problem that your product solves. Those are once in a lifetime type opportunities, big risk versus big reward. Those are the things everybody dreams about that.

But you also don’t need those to get by - if you enjoy solving problems, you can get paid for it, and not invent the microchip or split the atom or chart the sea or the sky.
> Yes, someone can buy RHEL, request the source, and then share it away. And they can do nothing about it.

> However, it doesn't mean that Red Hat is required to keep doing business with them, or that they are automatically entitled to receive all future updates.

That sounds a lot like they can do something about it. It also sounds like RedHat would be violating the GNU Public License by restricting what people can do with it, i.e. share it.

> As I said, GNU never said that the source code must be downloadable by anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world, from some public repository.

That's a strawman.
Worth noting that this study, which I just happened to read today, is small (n=234, with the number of useful responses even lower).

And the ‘up to 20%’ refers to the fact that they had some odd responses which indicated that the time wasted was the entire hour of the study. If they corrected these down the figure becomes 11%.

Oh and it’s self reported. From participants crowdsourced at Prolific, who were paid.

It didn’t seem like the most rigorous study to me. And I’m invested in the result being bad, as the thing I do claims to solve some of these problems!
> It is legal and does not violate any license.

That's debatable: https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c...
Well that is a little naive, Twitter is full of porn. It is probably one of it's largest userbases.

It's not a particularly wholesome platform even on the "ideas" front. It's just as bad as any other mainstream internet platform.
US to Curb China Access to Cloud Services Like Amazon, WSJ Says
The kind of vision where you deliver superior service and thus win business the old fashioned way?
The source code requirements of licenses like GPL is fulfilled if a person who receives a component can request e.g. a tarball of the source used to build the version of the component they had received, in such a state that you can reproduce the component.

Only those whom the component was distributed to can make this demand (although GPL lets this individual distribute the source afterwards), and only for that specific source revision.
No.

GPL means I can’t distribute GPL software or its derivatives without its source. It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever.

So if I don’t distribute the software to you, I don’t need to give you updates. Just like if I download some gpl code and change it locally, as long as I don’t distribute any part of it, i also don’t have to publish its sources.

Now the issue is not that, the issue is the spirit. GPL meantions “no further restrictions”, so is “exercising your GPL rights terminates your contract” a restriction? Technically you can still do what ever you want with that software , without any law suite etc, but I wouldn’t consider it free if there’s grave, even if non legal, consequences from doing so.

Edit : written before parent clarified his comment :)
They do take more than cycle (how many depend on how you count), but they are fully pipelined so they can start executing an ( independent) instruction before a previous one has finished.

They are also superscalar so they have multiple (pipelined) units that can start executing instructions at the same time.
Ask HN: How could a decentralised/Open-src Google be built?
Over the last few months I've noticed a trend of everyone becoming visibly aware of the slow but seemingly inevitable death of Google and the utility it provided to access the information contained on the internet.

This seems like a huge problem IMO, there's so much knowledge out there that we as a civilisation can't afford to have it simply lost to entropy.

This led me to wonder, what would it look like if a community of people decided to try to build an alternative; but instead of it being closed & commercial like Kagi (not trashing Kagi, to be clear), it was a proper open-src based, decentralised system more akin to the wikipedia model in terms of the actual operations/organisation.

I feel like most people agree that the "Golden Age" of Google result quality was well in the past... at least 10 years ago. So whatever technology requirements there are are obviously not "novel". Additionally, the explosion of tools like LLMs, particularly LLM Embeddings that enable proper semantic search, would have to make the task significantly more achievable than it would have been say... 10 years ago.

Obviously scale is a huge challenge, but not insurmountable. Back of the napkin maths says it's roughly 1TB of storage per billion indexed pages (making a huge assumption that each indexed page consumes ~1KB of storage).

Google level performance isn't really needed IMO, I'd gladly wait 3-4 seconds for search results if it meant I actually got what I needed. Obviously that would still be astronomically hard at that scale, but I feel like if you accept performance 1/10th of Google, it would at least put it into the realms of possibility.

I'm obviously missing a million different variables... but I can't help but wonder, what would it look like to take back control of "Organising the worlds information"?
> at time the community didn't just resell their work at lower prices.

That's because at the time, CentOS was still alive.