skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, exactly, that should be the focus.
I would love to see a study on the influence of Dan Brown books on the likelihood of readers to believe in (popular) conspiracy theories.

Somewhere in the 90s I got a book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" from a friend who was into obscure conspiracy theories. It was a fun read, but in the end I took it more like a joke. Unlike my friend.

Years ago, my SO came home with Browns "The Da Vinci Code" and forced me to read it on a holiday. It was as if someone wrapped a cheap crime template around "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and my SO loved it. She was never into conspiracies, and most of those people who in the following months and years fell for the Da Vinci Code hype were in the same boat. But to me, it felt like someone found a way to sell fringe conspiracies to a mainstream audience.

I applaud his idea to do that, but it somehow doesn't feel good.
Sure? Due diligence is always important. I'm not implying that science and journal publishing, or journalism are in bad shape, but simply that scientific scholarships goal should be to eventually converge on a truth ( or more likely an exclusion of other opposing theories), whereas the goal of journalism to to seek a truthful point in time capture of a topic. Just because they're inherently different time scales to converge on truth, any given scientific discussion shouldn't be "thrown over the fence" with a low value copy pasta of the papers.

I think the vast majority of journalists and scientists understand this general statement, but just because most individuals are doing the right thing, you should always be wary of the reputational failings of relying on a source with little due diligence.
As far as I can tell, the only thing in danger is employment in the porn industry. The only porn stars left will be the ones that are really just like any other eCeleb living from panhandling from the parasocial.

The "deepfake" armageddon that's been blathered on and on about is obviously horseshit. If people can make a deepfake of anybody in five minutes, nobody is going to get fired (without getting the shit sued out of them) for deepfakes of them showing up. Also no one is going to believe in the pictures, even if they are real. This is a blessing to the future victims of revenge porn, one that people whose photographs were spread around before the dawn of generative AI won't be treated to.

This has always been a media panic to lay the groundwork for more censorship and more surveillance. We'll have to be licensed to run an algorithm if they have anything to do with it, and our models will require a Microsoft signing key.
Hyper-optimizing for ad clicks instead of user experience is basically a synonym for malicious treatment of users.
I don't get people posting GPT answers. If parent wanted that, surely they would've done that themselves?
The biggest error a considered, good-faith journalist typically makes is "Presenting both sides" without comment when one of them is an established consensus with abundant supporting evidence. If you go looking for a fringe outside perspective on an issue, or the motivated reasoning of somebody who stands to gain by a bit of sophistry, you will probably eventually be able to find one presented by a PhD. That is not how research is supposed to work.

The biggest error made in the COVID origin story has been the hilarious ineptitude and imprecision of the actual hypothesis being forwarded, something that appears even in this article's metacommentary on the matter - all the various sorts of "lab leaks" that might have occurred are conflated, as if they were one idea that might be true or false.

As long as we are conflating all lab leaks, when I say an undetected contagion that happened to be on a bat they captured might have accidentally walked out of the lab in somebody's nasal cavity, you are free to hear that China bioengineered a weapon and unleashed it on its own people in the interest of striking out at 'Murica, demanding immediate geopolitical reprisals & a violent purge of the Chinese-American population (something a significant fraction of the country was very receptive towards).

"Lab Leak: True or false?" Both the same idea because we haven't bothered to specify. When a far-right politician does this it's clearly to sell the population a villain and sell themselves as somebody who will take revenge, and then be able to motte and bailey themselves back to the other position when the center-right gets uncomfortable with the level of racism. When a non-affiliated journalist does this, it's a high-stakes professional failure, a display of carelessness that plausibly has a body-count.
Related: Slender Yellow Fruit Syndrome (when a writer doesn’t want to repeat a word like “banana” and so writes something like, “He peeled the slender yellow fruit.”)

http://www.teflspin.com/2009/10/technical-writing-and-slende...

I think send-ups like this are great. Love it.
If you're asking this question, you've already missed the boat and it's priced in. If anything I'd consider this an excessive scare and bet against AC.
> if drugs were available, but they're not

That's wishful thinking, it can't be done. No human society has ever been able to supress something for which there is a huge amount of inelastic demand. It can't be done.

It's raw capitalism at its finest (maybe not finest, but most raw). If there is a huge demand, the supply will happen no matter what.

It's simplistic to think of the drug trade in terms of the good guys who are pure and looking to stop it and the bad guys trying to create and sell it. When there are billions of dollars involved, these groups infiltrate each other constantly and are quite intertwined.

You can find endless stories of how trafficking is done by the police themselves. No better way to avoid detection than by being there. One random recent example.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/bay-area-police-union-leader-alleg...

If you want to stop drug trade, the one and only way is to eliminate (or at least reduce to inconsequential levels) the demand for it.
You're in a war with the entire adtech industry. Most people simply can't win this war. Only solution I know of is hard bans with screen time passwords you personally don't know.
Bob Dylan might not "sound good", but he was an excellent singer. I would single out Hurricane as a great example.
It is always amazing how much technological impact the porn industry has. Media standards, streaming, filming, you name it. But then one of the first large internet use cases was porn.
I actually think ageism is a huge component of this.

In classical engineering fields, experience was highly valued. In some it still is. In civil engineering, no 24 year old will be able to bullshit their way into senior level roles. It just doesn't happen. The senior guys get more and more valuable. A big part of that is that it's very hard to bullshit your way through that field without at least 6-8 years of experience, and by then you'll hopefully have been humbled enough not to try and bullshit it.

I think missteps and mistakes hit differently when someone traceably stamps their name on a finished product and takes personal liability for it in perpetuity.
https://www.nae.edu/19579/19582/21020/221074/221278/Presiden...

I would also argue that "engineering" as a discipline, as part of the "operations" clause in the link above requires a close observation of the economics of any proposed solution. In other words, engineers have to worry about costs.
How about respect other people instead of rushing to condescending judgement? the stakes are incredibly low here, I asked ChatGPT for fun, like tens of millions of others are doing every day.
> You're neglecting the various moats that an entity like Apple enjoys with the iPhone.

A world in which Apple could build iPhones for 1 cent would be a world in which those moats did not exist.
I caused physical damage to my hand with Diablo 1 and all the incessant clicking (vs the "hold to attack and keep attacking" mechanic in D2 and D3).

I had some good times in D2, played it pretty deeply until I got to the Physical Immunes. That's when I gave up because I didn't want to have to level up, regear, and respec a new character.

I played D3 when it first came out, the Real Money Auction House destroyed that game as it became a game of "gold", not gear. The "world wide" loot table just wrecked it. When you have a 1 in 10M chance of getting the right weapon drop, that's only "1 in 10" across a million players, but it's still 1 in 10M for you. You also had to become knowledgeable about not just your own class and gear, but every other class and gear so your Barbarian doesn't salvage some random Staff that may have been one of those 1 in 10M drops for a Sorcerer, and thus worth a heap of currency.

D3 rewards time invested, especially later on. It rewards skill to a point, but in the end, it's determination to grind long enough to get enough gear and to get the right level to clear the content. You watch videos of someone clearing high level content, and it's almost always the same map they're clearing as some maps are outright impossible to succeed on compared to others. When it's all boiled down, it makes the end game pretty moot.

That said, I like the dynamic playstyle of D3. An "ok" geared Demon Hunter is a cat on fire through the levels, obliterating everything and everyone, and it's just flat giggly fun. And I liked the story of D3, it was a great story.
I'd wager a large portion social embarrassment is when a person ostensibly believes they have competence in a certain realm but do not. Being aware of yourself and how your peaks and valleys are perceived is the foundation of charisma.
This is great cause soon nobody will believe any image is real.
> Go (no garbage collector)

Well, that’s incorrect: https://www.sobyte.net/post/2021-12/golang-garbage-collector...
ATM cells have 48 byte payloads.

Supposedly that was because different groups involved in the standardisation process wanted either 32 or 64 byte payloads.
Oh, it's far more than that. Virtual technodrugs, or addiction, is one arm of the emerging new order. The second arm is control: fine grained and invasive censorship, history rewriting and so on. The third arm is a much faster discovery of knowledge to empower the few. All three arms will derive their power from AI. It could be used for good, but the current state of things in our society don't favor such application of AI.
Charts

Antarctic Sea Ice:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1jhzeRagAE_lAd?format=jpg&name=...

North Atlantic Sea Surface:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1kbWmLaMAA48AI?format=jpg&name=...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)

key takeaway: Boisot and McKelvey updated this law to the "law of requisite complexity", that holds that, in order to be efficaciously adaptive, the internal complexity of a system must match the external complexity it confronts.
Thank you very much for attempting to bring wonderful system of direct payments, used in Europe for more than a decade at this point, to US market.
So for parent poster's view that it's not a problem (even reading that charitably as "won't be a problem for long") we have to hope that:

1) everyone in the entire world learns about how easily things can be faked as quickly as possible

and

2) everyone has perfectly rational Vulcan control over the emotions this stuff would provoke on first view?

Social engineering is already not that hard, take a minute and imagine how something like this could be presented as a late step as part of a multi-step con to really fuck someone over.
That's it, I'm getting a UUID tattooed onto my backside.
Fair enough, there is a "Java Card". I'm not convinved that Java is running on any of my or your credit cards in your wallet today, though I'm not willing to bet on it.
And if any one of those services were to fail, you have no tool-tip at all.
> We can still lower emissions.

If the world were to decrease to net 0 today and until 2050, we'd still expect average and mean temperatures to continue to increase through 2050.

> We can still remove GHG from the atmosphere

These are mostly prototypes and we do not have the capacity to get to 0 with these technologies yet.
Big question: HOW?

Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of Calculus, "Physics for Future Presidents", etc.).

My high school education in the humanities was also far better than my high school education in STEM, which is typical. And the deplorable state of Mathematics education in US high schools acts as a hard constraint toward improving the situation, since you need a baseline of mathematics literacy before proceeding along any other path in STEM.

How are journalists supposed to be productively skeptical when the vast majority of them don't receive anything remotely approaching a truly well-rounded education?

Go read the proximal origins paper. How is a journalist who has never seen a derivative, has never taken BIO 101, and whose Science distribution credit was fulfilled by Physics For Future Presidents supposed to dive into the claims in that paper and critically evaluate the surrounding literature? They can't.
I’m certainly not less guilty than them, but this makes me think

“First they came for the spinners and the weavers. The actors didn’t complain.

Then, they came for the farmhands. The actors didn’t complain.

Then, they came for the bank tellers. The actors didn’t complain.

Then, they came for the shop assistants. The actors didn’t complain.

Then, they came for the actors.”

I can’t think of any argument for claiming there should be some fraction of the populations or number of people who can make a living acting.

The problem, of course, is that all the above move the ability to earn money from people to capital, making those who have capital ever richer and those who have not poorer, if not in absolute terms at least relatively, and that’s enough to make people feel poorer.
> Depictions in real life that would be illegal should remain illegal in the synthetic world.

Why? How is it any of your/our business what porn people generate and masturbate to in private?
I don't really think this is anything new in the corporate world, but the explosion of sources and easy access through devices is what's made this stuff so potent. It's tough enough as adults to resist the bombardment.
I didn't survive the first paragraph of the Da Vinci Code, so I can't vouch for accuracy of the satire, but it is awfully funny.
Could you elaborate on what you’re referring to? I’m certainly not an expert, but my understanding was that the vast, vast majority of TSMC’s revenue comes from production of completely custom wafers on newer nodes, and I’m hard pressed to think of something in the industry with _longer_ lead times.
Should be good motivation to figure out what those numbers mean
Pretty sure those 2-5 years will never be realized due to Zeno’s paradox.
Yes, I wonder if they got a good deal from MS or why is that. Most of the other vendors went with JP2000 (Aperio, Olympus even Motic)
"Trust the science, bro."

There is much more involved than how dissolved CO2 affects ocean acidity. CO2 has a number of other affects on both biological and chemical systems that shift equilibriums. Understanding how injecting CO2 would affect deep ocean ecosystems (and indirectly upper ocean layers and climate through layer interchange) when we only have a rudimentary understanding of the deep sea ecosystem is not a matter of science. It's the realm of prophecy and hubris.

I'm not saying that deep-water injections of CO2 are dangerous. But that at the current level of science we don't even know what we don't know about the possible affects that would have. And with the large amounts of energy required to sequester and pump carbon dioxide into the sea, it would be best if we understood the costs as well as the benefits of such an approach before we started.
But especially skeptical of pundits like Nate Silver.
Ai cgi will inevitably be better than any actor. It was good while it lasted
My idea of being explicit and clear changed dramatically after I was exposed to D. Harel's "Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems".

Ironically, I think the paper presents more than just the idea and examples of statecharts, rather it also _implicitly_ contains a _method_ for discovering mechanism - the long winded example of the author's digital watch, in my eyes, is a marvel.
Here in Ireland, in the motorway filling stations where the chargers are located, it is very common for me to not only have to wait, but often for 2-3 car to charge ahead of me. Very limited infrastructure here, though.
It's so sad to me that American cheese is only associated with the shitty kraft singles. White American cheese is such a good melted or sandwich cheese.
> We are on track to change the climate so abruptly that the species we depend on will not adapt quickly enough. Jellyfish, for example, might thrive. Large mammals like ourselves will not.

The notion that humans, as a species, will not adapt seems farfetched to me. Humans have perpetuated themselves in a wide variety of climates for thousands of years.

I don't say that to discredit concerns about environmental change, its impact on future populations, or its near term impact on existing individuals. All I'm saying is that arguments based on existential threats are not persuasive to me and they tend to be used to assert power over others than to mitigate risk or improve the lives of people on the earth today.
> It does not in any way emulate PalmOS or the PP hardware.

Citation? Here’s IMAX Engineering confirming that it’s emulating a Palm Pilot.

“The original Quick Turn Reel Units operated on Palm Pilots. In advance of the release of Oppenheimer, IMAX Engineering designed and manufactured an emulator that mimics the look and feel of a Palm Pilot to keep it simple and familiar for IMAX film projectionists,” an IMAX spokesperson told Motherboard.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/88x5gb/imax-still-runs-on-pa...
So it’s actually starting to happen. LLM generated content filled with hallucinations are flooding the web. The internet will soon become completely useless as the signal to noise ratio plummets until it’s practically impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff.

That AI transformer paper really is Pandora’s Box.
What exactly was the poll question used to conclude 76% of the US public favors nuclear energy?
We're closing in on the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the end of World War II.

To put that in perspective, the Civil War ended 80 years prior to that. We are almost as far removed from WWII as WWII is from the Civil War. While there are still people alive today who were alive during WWII, we're talking about people like Joe Biden, who is 80, who was 3 when it ended.

It if very likely that no one who served is still alive. Our fathers and grandfathers are the ones who had fathers and grandfathers serve.

All of our information about World War II and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is from stuff written about it. Something told to someone who then told it to us. So of course there's a disconnect.
Crazy Climber. Summer of 1980 I was staying at my grandparents and the cool kid who lived next door came by and said "Let's go to the sub shop!". I'm like why would I go to the sub shop, my grandmother gets me whatever I want to eat, I'm all hopped up on Pepsi and Froot Loops. But as it turns out they had video games at the sub shop, first time I had played arcade games (my parents lived in the country at the time).

They had Asteroids and Space Invaders and a few others, but Crazy Climber is the one I remember most. There went my next four years - after I got back from summer vacation we moved into town directly across the park from a 7-11 with a game room. It was right before Pac-Man came out and things exploded and there were arcades all over the place.

The cool kid introduced me to punk rock and reggae too. Thanks!
I once tried to use MiniZinc as a back-end for a school timetabling app I was working on, and came away with the impression that the OptaPlanner Java API would be a lot easier to use. (Although unlike solvers, OptaPlanner uses heuristic algorithms -- simulated annealing, etc.)

Maybe it's just that formally expressing a set of constraints doesn't come naturally to me. I'm sure with a lot of practice, writing MiniZinc code would be easier.

The Google OR-Tools Python API also might be easier if you're generating models dynamically. I wouldn't want to generate MiniZinc code...
I ran Slackware for ~6 years, my first serious distro. It's kind of the perfect learning distro for Linux - a super stable base, but if you want more you need to learn how to do it yourself. You didn't need to compile your own kernel or set up tons of configuration just to boot, but if you wanted certain graphics drivers or other software, you quickly learned how to write shell scripts and manage builds and dependencies. I remember spending quite a few hours learning how to build my own media stack with mpv and all dependencies (Slackware only shipped with MPlayer in those days, and with no system ffmpeg). I found it to be a much better experience for that than other distros like Arch or Void, those are just too much at the beginning. Because of Slackware, for a good while my most comfortable programming language was bash!

I stopped using it when I had less time for tweaking my computer in my life (I moved to Debian), but it was a very formative experience. Good defaults, but with all the power to change whatever you want and the simplicity to make it manageable.

Happy birthday Slackware!
Yeah, and the article also quotes IMAX as stating "IMAX Engineering designed and manufactured an emulator".

You can certainly have a true emulator that also "mimics the look and feel" of the thing it's emulating.

If you have any actual evidence that the IMAX tool is not truly an emulator other than conjecture, we'd all be very interested.
I wonder what he'd have to say about the article published on FiveThirtyEight in May of 2020 that prominently cites one of the authors of this very paper [0]. I don't think he was very heavily involved in the science-reporting side of fivethirtyeight (he's always very obviously been more on the sports and politics side), and since at this point since he's no longer affiliated with the site, it sort of doesn't matter, but I'm also pretty sure that he didn't just come to the belief espoused in this post recently. I wonder if there were ever internal discussions about the piece.

[0]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-scientists-think-th...
Why do people keep saying this?

People believe far less convincing things now. People see After Effects flares and badly animated CGI on Youtube and photoshopped images and think aliens are real and cities appear in the skies over China. People will believe whatever confirms their biases, regardless of its quality.

I don't think this is going to change much, one way or the other.
I had read and enjoyed Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum", and as I read Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" I found I kept contrasting Brown's work to Eco's. In the end, I didn't even finish "The Da Vinci Code", it just felt so weak to me.

But art, literature, music, and wine are all things of personal preference. You like what you like! And you shouldn't let anyone tell you not to spend your time reading Dan Brown (or whomever) if you enjoy it.
I have only ever used Z3, but you might be onto something. Modeling problems is really challenging. It does not help that if you search for documentation or guidance there one two types of resources: beginner Sudoku or primary literature academic papers discussing the minutia of optimization properties with so much jargon.