skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>A very rough trial, but many people were getting more money via unemployment than by a minimum wage job.

>Most these individuals sat around hedonically watching TV, smoking weed, or drinking. Surely part of the pandemic in general, but I think there’s a human-nature aspect of path-of-least-resistance.

Reminds me of an Onion article that's stuck in my mind: "Man Not Sure Why He Thought Most Psychologically Taxing Situation Of His Life Would Be The Thing To Make Him Productive"

https://www.theonion.com/man-not-sure-why-he-thought-most-ps...

It's very hard if not impossible to extract lessons from the pandemic that aren't about pandemics or basic proofs of possibility. E.g., we learned that the economy doesn't collapse during "shut downs" of certain activities, but we can't get any good numbers of monetary damage for a future shutdown choice. We might estimate the COVID shut-downs caused $X of damage, but good luck removing the influence of COVID's medical specifics and surrounding culture war.

For your example, COVID-related unemployment assistance tells us nothing because (1) a pandemic restricts activity; (2) a pandemic is stressful and people look to mindless activities to cope; and (3) everyone knew the checks would end one day, but some didn't know if they'd find a job by then. It wasn't a good analogue to UBI.
Another reason someone can’t get it to write effective code is if they don’t know how to code or aren’t a very good programmer.

I use it a ton. Most of the time it’s very helpful, sometimes I can’t get it to write effective code. If the code it outputs doesn’t meet my standards, I just don’t use it. But I know what I’m looking for, and when ChatGPT generates it, if not only saves me a shitload of time, but more importantly it saves me a ton of mental energy that I can spend elsewhere. The biggest thing for me is that using ChatGPT helps my brain do fewer “context switches” between focus on high level business logic and low level implementation logic. By staying “high level” I’m able to accomplish more each day because I don’t get lost in the sauce as often.

I often have to “upgrade” the code myself with tests, better comments, modify the data structures a bit. Sometimes I tell ChatGPT to do this, sometimes I do it myself. But it’s been very helpful overall.

The big takeaway is that your output will only be as good as your own programming skill, regardless if you use ChatGPT or write it yourself.
> The correlation is perhaps not the smoking gun OP thinks but your analysis seems to be based on the assumption there is no time lag in the population of children 6-21 with autism and glyphosate use on grains.

No, if there was just a time lag, than the variations would still be reflected, but with a time lag.
It's too bad the signals are often covered up by heavy filter usage.
Curious what jobs you think are worthwhile and what you do?
Yes, and chome is MUCH worse...
Biometrics (as a way to identify people) are used by plenty of governments around the world.

There are plenty of people who don't care about privacy (as evidenced by the rise of social media). Why wouldn't such people be allowed to profit off their biometric data?
LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K
https://archive.is/M0Uj2
Is there anything that flows both ways? When it comes to human behavior I've read that faking it and smiling more makes you feel happier, and happier people smile more.

Almost like your brain goes, "I'm smiling so I must be happy right now."
Or the researchers don't think existential threats are realistic, and paper maximizing thought experiments are silly. Maybe they're wrong, but maybe not. It's easy to imagine AI takeover scenarios by giving them unlimited powers, it's hard to show the actual path to such abilities.

It's also hard to understand why an AI smart enough to paperclip the world wouldn't also be smart enough to realize the futility in doing so. So while alignment remains an issue, the existential alignment threats are too ill-specified. AGIs would understand we don't want to paperclip the world.

Fun game though.
https://archive.ph/2023.08.02-181213/https://www.bleepingcom...
Because it was a loss leader. It's proof that Uber subsidizes individual markets differently.
Even smoking weed and playing video games doesn’t scale. Someone needs to grow the weed and make the video games. Someone has to feed and minimally clothe the weed-smoker. Someone must build and maintain the weed-smoker’s house.

Presumably the weed smoker might occasionally leave home. Someone must pave the road he drives on. Someone must build the weed-smoker’s car.

For all those people doing things for the weed-smoker, someone must manage them. They will work in multiple enterprises. Someone must work to sell things between those different enterprises. This might seem inefficient, but humans have not figured out a better way to do it.

And all that explains exactly why, despite what people prattle on and on about with there being useless jobs, people do in fact remain employed and even as wasteful as that employment sometimes is, there is no better alternative on a social scale. Because when it all comes down to it, people want the benefits that modern society provides. That requires that people work. The alternative is living as a solitary mountain man. Not many people try that—and that, lo and behold, takes even more work.
You don't understand that "leading to more money" isn't the same thing as "gatekeeping access to more money"?

There is more than one way to make more money.
Much like other externalities, it's good to remember that you're paying either way.
There is a divergence which could offer some advantage (myself perhaps), and then there are some that would just kill the individual (my son).

Broad brush strokes don’t help. It’s labeled a “spectrum” for a reason.
I feel like it was bound to happen. There has been a huge momentum behind the online ad industry for almost 20 years. The results are questionable, but we've just kept moving forward. It's a lot like the dotcom boom in some sense, there's now a huge number of people working in advertising who honestly knows very little about advertising. They know a lot about ad-spend, how to click around in Adwords, SEO and putting trackers on websites, but not running a successful advertising campaign. They've almost broke the internet with their shit, certain categories are now completely gone from some search engines, replaced by ads, poorly written blogs and SEO junk.

On LinkedIn I follow a few of these people, people I know from working in e-commerce years ago. They have no glue about what's happening. They see the thing they've worked on for 15 years fall apart, but won't accept any of the blame. They blame Apple, the EU, anyone but themselves. They don't see any of the damage that they caused. The internet and it's users is something to extract value from, not something that holds any value on it's own in their minds.

It's time that the online ad business get a reset. Ads will still be important, but the way they are managed and implemented needs to be adjusted.
One of the issues with Autism is a total refusal to eat certain healthy foods. The argument for a pill, or better, gut flora transplant, would be for people unable to make informed decisions for themselves. Once the flora were in place, theoretically, repulsion of healthy food would be reduced, allowing the child to feed his gut naturally, and hopefully improve mental health over time. This would be the holy grail, I hope more research is done in this area.
He didn't say "since COVID" but "since before COVID." COVID isn't the exciting event, it's an arbitrary landmark.
I appreciate the sentiment of this but, exact reasons aside, for me this wouldn't be very practical. What I'm looking for is a phone that discourages excessive use which is why I'm excited for some of the small smartphones I'm seeing come out like the Jelly Star although I haven't seen it available yet.

Anyone else got a recommendation in that category?
The new version has a multiverse map you have to traverse through to collect some really sick upgrades

It's an absolute grind, but once you pick up some 500% productivity multipliers it gets much easier
> They choose liars because liars are supernormal stimuli for the body politic

That might be a better way of describing it, at least for some things. Things that people want to be stimulated about, as opposed to things they want to ignore.
In China, ‘Reverse Parenting’ Is Turning the Tables on Unruly Kids
It's not just the methodology that's silly, this whole line of "research" is silly and the press release is misrepresenting the paper's results. It's perhaps a useful jumping off point for people to complain about their own jobs but as a work of scholarship it has negative value. The author claims he wasn't funded by anyone, and hopefully that's true but it sounds unlikely given that the university is apparently happy to advertise it for him.

Although their announcement states that "employees in financial, sales and management occupations are more likely to conclude that their jobs are of little use to society" this is highly deceptive. If we look at Figure 1 on page 12 ("percentage of socially useless jobs by occupation") then we see that the winner is Transportation and Material Moving. Second top category: Production Occupations.

Well it sure doesn't get more useless than those jobs! Who needs people who make things or move stuff around?

Management actually does much better than Computer/Mathematical and Food Preparation/Service. Business and Financial apparently has the same number of socially useless jobs as Installation/Maintenance/Repair. That result directly contradicts his primary claim, so he just ignores it and announces what he wanted to be true instead.

Right at the bottom with the second lowest percentage of useless jobs is, of course, social science.

This sort of scientific fraud is unfortunately way too common in academic research. In some fields you can't assume the abstract or press release matches what the data says. This specific paper also reinforces the narrative that academia has a high tolerance for Marxists. It cites Marx and then discusses several other sociology papers that are built directly on Marxist theory (p7)! It's not often you see a citation from 1844 in something claiming to be modern science. The premise of the paper is also pure Marxism - words like price, wage, salary and market don't appear at all, and it takes as axiomatic that there's no objective way to judge how useful a job is.
> that in no way gives you the right to make derivative works

True, but only because you have that right anyway. I can do anything I like with copyrighted content I legally possess, as long as I don't distribute the results of my efforts.
Except this isn't true. You're right that in 2013 we weren't burning gays at the stake like some imagined Victorian era scheme. But thinking I suggested that is putting words in my mouth. But in 2016 it was definitely a national conversation if a bakery was allowed to deny service based on the sexual orientation of the purchasing party. No, we weren't roaming the street mad max style hunting down gas, but neither was it all rainbows and lollipops where no one gave a shit if two men held hands in public.
Maybe they would, and its their own prerogative as to how they wish to spend their time.

For myself I both enjoy video games, and enjoyed/felt fulfilled by my time volunteering with an elementary school program to assist children who were having trouble learning to read at the same pace as their peers.
They do pay for it in Bangladesh or other countries.
Funny how "paying handsomely" turns into a race to the bottom.
Why would battery life be impacted?

The main reason for bad battery life is hardware acceleration for certain tasks. Once that's settled, the computer shouldn't start producing more heat out of the blue.
Also, what size and ballpark price are you looking for?
I think you raise a valid point, but it was ever thus. Every time we level up in technology, we essentially give everybody some of the life possibilities - and problems - of aristocrats, 100 years ago.

Everybody today lives more like the aristocrats of old, we just don't notice it because it's common. If you got a special dress for your wedding, you're imitating what used to be a preposterous display of wealth for the elites. Your great-grandmother probably just got married in her nicest dress.

Meaning-making is harder when you've conquered the problem of mere survival, but not impossible.

Some aristocrats just played cards all day, or engaged in elaborate parties, or invested enormous effort into climbing the social hierarchy, or dicked around incompetently ordering the common people into stupid wars.

And some did philosophy, art, science, engineering, and exploration.

We have an absolutely enormous task ahead of us: the climate crisis. I think we could occupy ourselves with that for the next few centuries at minimum.
Stripe is god awful at fraud prevention and it's intentional. They are explicitly outsourcing the cost of risk management to their clients. It's obscene. I work in the credit card fraud prevention field, and I'm not even that good at my job, but our team of like 3.5 people easily built and maintained a system that prevents this exact kind of carding attack.

The primary way for a business to prevent carding attacks is to just be slightly more annoying to attack than the next guy. As far as I can tell, Stripe is happy to be the easiest large network to attack because they outsource the pain and cost of any attack to you, their users. They could easily, and for very little cost, prevent this from hurting you.

Stripe is choosing to let you suffer to save a few bucks.
I hear you. This is why I've gotten on top of this. I've essentially turned Stripe automation off in my system. So each and every customer wishing to go with Stripe for payment is fraud-checked and dd'ed.
If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archive. You can compare with microfiche. These aren't "impossible to detect", they're trivial to detect if you bother to compare.

We have tons of credible archived sources owned by different institutions. And these sources are successful in large part due to their credibility and trustworthiness.

It's just not economically rational for any of them to start "altering the past", and if they did, they'd be caught basically immediately and their reputation would be ruined.

This isn't an ML/tooling question, it's a question of humans and reputation and economic incentives.
You can always try sticking it into an eGPU enclosure.
Not sure if it's unfinished but the power balancing was always a mess, solar panels trounce everything else by a country mile. There's a whole "set up plants on planets and receive power from them" system that I missed until I had already completed the game because it is literally 1/100th the efficiency of just making another solar panel.

Fun game though! Definitely worth a play if you're interested in clicker games with an unfolding narrative.
Would something like KVM work?
Yeah, bad PhDs, bad!

Edit: People being arrogant or know-it-all is probably not especially correlated with having obtained a PhD, but more with overall frame of mind, and I find this comment to be a uselessly negative ad-hominem.
Have you ever hired a junior dev? How is their quality? Does that mean we should never use junior devs?

The problem with chatGPT usage is not imperfect code. The problem, when there is one, is not treating its code the way one would treat a human’s.
old programmers never die, the commit intervals do change however
It’s a good introduction but it’s review in my case - I know how enums work in TS.

But the end conclusion

> Enums in TypeScript are a very useful addition to the JavaScript language when used properly.

> They can help make it clear the intent of normally “magic values” (strings or numbers) that may exist in an application and give a type-safe view of them.

> But like any tool in one’s toolbox, if they are used incorrectly, it can become unclear what they represent and how they should be used.

Doesn’t really support the original post’s premise that prefers not to use enums.
Good. Fire them.
Ada still has killer features that haven't made it into C-like languages.

One of my favourite is the split between the abstract/programmer's view of a type, and the machine implementation/representation of the type.

There's no bit twiddling, no masking with 0xFFFF..., no worries about order in a struct or packing. If you have a 4 bit value, and want to store it in bits 27 ... 31 of a word, Ada lets you specify that. From the programmer's perspective, you work on the abstract type, perhaps defined as range 0 .. 15 in this case. (It can be any type that fits into the number of bits available, by the way.) It packs/unpacks transparently behind the scenes. And if you overflow that 0 .. 15 range it will raise an overflow/underflow exception. If you were trying to cram that 0 .. 15 range into only 3 bits, that'll raise a compile time error.

Ever since I've encountered that its absence from the C family seems like a very obvious oversight.
The options I suggested above are not necessarily MCMC, they are mostly message passing algorithms. ForneyLab and Gen in particular are designed for online inference.
The US Is More AA+ Now
As long as you hire C/C++/Rust programmers to write it.
I'll be the divergent voice here and say that I read it because I often heard it referenced here and it was one of the worst books I've ever read.

Part of what makes it so terrible is that Bullshit Jobs is an interesting premise. The fact that some percentage of people think that their jobs don't need to exist is an interesting observation that merits deeper study. If anyone ever does that study and writes a book about it I would love to read it but Graeber's book is not that.

Rather his book discusses the phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs and then diverges into an incoherent political rant.

I saw Sam Harris on the Lex Friedman podcast talking about debating 9/11 conspiracy theorists he said:

> I could see the nature of how impossible it was to play Whac-A-Mole sufficiently well, so as to convince anyone of anything...

> ...it's not actually a thesis. It's a proliferation of anomalies that you can't actually connect all the dots that are being pointed to because they don't connect in a coherent way...

> ...I know what it's like to be in the weeds of a conversation like that and the person will say, okay, well, but what do you make of the fact that all those F-16s were flown 800 miles out to sea on the morning of 9/11 doing an exercise that hadn't even been scheduled for that day...

> ...how long would it take to track that down, right? Did it happen, was it supposed to run that day, was there a completely mundane reason it would happen? And unless you're knocking down each one of those things to that audience, you appear to just be uninformed ... He doesn't know about Project Mockingbird?

That's what reading this book is like.

There is no central thesis just a list of incoherent complaints.

In his other works he proposes a Universal Basic Income, and some have read his book as an argument for that. But not only does he not directly argue for it in the book, even if he did his writings much like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not set up in a way that could even lead to a logical point because they're just disjoint misrepresentations he deliberately misinterprets to make them seem like they don't make sense.

It is a mentally exhausting read.
There is variation in the data that could be reflective of that time lag.

If the population had no awareness of the effect and no ability to observe the impact of grain consumption on their children, then maybe it would proceed like some chemical process. But the population can learn and change behavior.

My point is that your dismissal, in the way you framed it, is possibly just as much a random walk as the correlation in the way it is presented. Neither is conclusive.
>HN requests that we avoid tone policing, but your insults are not appreciated nor necessary.

You made absurd errors in your comments and accused politicians of insane policies.

>However, you continue to receive a higher after-tax income

No. That happens under a certain subset of progressive tax systems. Specifically under bracketted systems working less might result in higher income after taxes.

>That isn't a fair way to share tax burdens.

Appealing to some notion of fairness is just stupid. Taxes do not exist to make the world fairer, they exist to fund government activities. I think punishing people for working more is pretty unfair.

The marginal utility argument is so stupid because it can be used to trivially argue against progressive tax systems. The real consequence of believing in the argument directly implies that nobody should earn more than X, for some amount of income X (like 50k) where after that the marginal utility is so low that it might as well can be given to the state to waste.

I am taxed at around 40% by the way.
Seems like this is no longer relevant. I just tried a DNS lookup via Cloudflare and I got 89.253.237.217.
> We've had photo and audio manipulation for many decades now. For a long time now, we've had to separate out what's credible from what's bullshit.

The difference is that the floodgates are being opened.
These are the exact things we should be trying to automate rather than automating away writers, artists, actors etc. Personally I think it all depends on getting a humanoid Boston Dynamics style robot made. Once you've got that done, you hook it up so it can be controlled remotely via VR. Then you get trades people and workers of menial jobs to control these robots and start doing these unpleasant tasks. Once you've done that enough years and collected enough data, then you can build an AI for plumbing, garbage collecting etc. Then you can have robots that can do literally any task, you just have to load the right module into them like Neo in the Matrix.

Society then probably gets restructured so that everyone is expected to get at least a PhD rather than a bachelors. Mathematic literacy matches that of linguistic literacy - it will no longer be socially acceptable to claim you are bad at math the same way it's no longer acceptable to be unable to read or write. Almost everyone will have the engineering knowledge necessary so they know how to fix and program the robots. Everyone learns multiple languages and does part of their studies abroad so there is less destructive nationalism. Society starts to value knowledge and the dissemination of knowledge more than the accumulation of capital and wealth which only leads to the destructive forces of extreme inequality and wealth. We start moving towards a more utopian Star Trek vision of the world, hopefully culminating in the creation of a machine like the replicator and the ability to perform interstellar travel which would truly be the end of the scarcity dynamic and a new era of humanity based on abundance and scientific exploration.