skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Their Spanish-English is significantly more idiomatic than google but as others have said - far fewer languages supported. But I suspect deepl will continue to be better than google as they grow.
> Now scale that up country-wide or world-wide. The more wealthy people there are, the higher the average cost of everything.

The average income and wealth is higher too.

> The existence of billionaires and millionaires negatively affects everyone else's standard of living via gentrification

Gentrification benefits property owners and is bad for renters. Believe it or not, bad neighborhoods have homeowners too and most of them would love for their bad neighborhood to become better. So it's not like the effects are uniformly negative. Even renters who are able to afford higher rents, or have rent-controlled housing, benefit from living in a safer, cleaner, more prosperous area. Their children's schools will have more involved parents, more funding.

The real issue with wealth inequality is the disproportionate amount of political influence the wealthy have. I have no problem with people being disgustingly rich as long as they don't use their money to influence laws.
this article had so many terrible takes I don't know where to begin. the simplest refutation of the entire thing is the extensive evidence that people who are accepted to top schools, but do not attend have similar achieves as those who go.

this lends credence to the idea that the top schools are simplest triaging the successful and do not create them, in general. Of course there are specific exceptions to this, such as Supreme Court Justices, but in general it seems to be true.

The paper (https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/C...) is ultimately flawed because it doesn't (and cannot) evaluate the simplest thing:
look at people who are accepted to the top schools who do not attend. The problem with using waitlist and is that waitlist is ultimately as arbitrary as rejection and not some arbiter of a "marginal acceptance". The entire premise of their argument is flawed to begin with.

Furthermore it goes into jobs held after selection and are highly fixated on "social" jobs, e.g. politicians and supreme court justices, which are inherently scarce and highly likely to be stratified in such a way that is perpetuated by elitism, irrespective of "elite colleges".

In the end the authors (who are from the very schools they think are perpetuating issues ironically) miss the point. Definitionally elite colleges want elite results. Their call to diversify the background of their students and thus the future leaders is inherently at odds with this unless those diversity people already had a propensity to be elite, by definition.

the stratification of society is an emergent phenomenon.
Just a shout-out for Netdata - it's great project
I take it you haven't read Plato's Republic...
You are making analogies between things that are not alike. A person comparing an HOA rule to Stalin's repressions is consciously being hyperbolic. I think your issue with OPs comparison of media influence by the US and Russian governments is you think OP believes them to be similar.
I did a web search on "great reasons why i left a job". You have strong reasons for leaving with self and family intact. At a much lower level, I watched my team being dismantled until I ended up
re-doing everything that the remaining incompetents did, and looking back, I see where "good" stress helped me do great things, whereas "bad" stress led to really dumb unforced errors.

I am sure you can find excellent, valid reasons for leaving. You want to win for self, family and work team.
I guess really really bad is better than 30x really really bad.
> If we consider that GPT-4 is about as capable as a reasonably intelligent high school graduate or college freshmen, I wonder how much actual benefit we get from multi-agent setups.

It's worth noting that GPT-4 internally uses a Mixture of Experts (MoE) model with 8 'experts' internally, so it's more similar to a multi-agent setup than you might think initially.
> GP is doing nothing of the sort

The poster wrote that «For AI, nothing in can mean garbage out». The poster seems to mean LLMs with «nothing in can mean garbage out». The poster seems to be calling LLMs AI. The poster seems to be attributing to AI properties of LLMs. Hence, the poster seems «to be identifying AI as if it were made of LLMs».

> LLMs are a form of AI

Prove it (or, defend it). I would say that it is arguable that they are not, unless one describes LLMs as "engines that reliably solve the problem of generating convincing text". The issue with that perspective is that «generating convincing text» is hardly per se a problem: it does not define a complete problem - text does not "stand alone" (content remains crucial).

> artificial intelligence has been around since the 60s

I know (and I should know decently well. Pedantically, a few years earlier - specifying just in case): what are you trying to say with that? Which application are you proposing to defend your perspective?
I've come across an apocryphal tale in the U.S. west describing why certain towns and cities have main streets that are the width required to fully turn a wagon pulled by x number of horses.

Likewise, in the Canadian House Of Parliament, the width between the Prime Minister's desk and that of the Leader Of The Opposition is said to be that of two swords raised, tip to tip, based on the British House Of Commons tradition that they must remain ''two swords and one inch apart.''
I can't say that I "learned Lisp" this year, but I took my first tentative steps in Lisp. It has been eye opening for sure and I'm excited to learn more.
It’s only forbidden for Windows users.

I think the only character that Macs don't allow is the colon. AFAIK, everything else is fair game, even emojis.

I just created a project with "ê" in the title. I wonder if I'll be able to share that with my Windows coworkers on Teams.
I disagree that imperfect gatekeeping is worse than no gatekeeping.

I also disagree with his point that gatekeeping should come as late as possible. That's how you get graduate students loaded down with debt who can't get a job in the field. Gatekeeping should come as soon as possible to allow the people who don't pass the gate the best opportunity to find some other path to succeed in.
I would also be quite worried of Telegram, with their lack of default encryption, and a bit suspicious unblocking in Russia in 2020[0].

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/telegram-russia-ban-lift-...
This reminds me of a great riddle: what is the shortest C code that compiles, but segfaults?

With the right flags: `main;` (implicitly a zeroed int).
That I'm a slow and careful thinker who needs peaceful days and a slow life. Little things like looking at the sky, drinking coffee, writing in my journal, taking analog photos, these bring me a sense of self and calmness that I need in order to process life properly, and I shouldn't try to be anything else in order to fit in.
"Year of ML" is what I hope for Ruby. Don't know why.
I love me some fpm, but I recently discovered it has a golang pseudo-replacement: https://github.com/goreleaser/nfpm#readme

It's for sure a ton harder to use (IMHO) because it mandates the creation of a manifest yaml, versus "fpm -s dir -t deb my-directory && echo tada" but not having to deal with ruby (or docker) can make it a better fit for several circumstances
This isn’t configuring the device IP as such - more just faking an IP address for it temporarily on a single client.
That’s right. I live my life only, and will never live another life. My energy is applied to my life, family, friends, community in the present and the fact someone else’s life is easier than mine doesn’t bother me much.

There are plenty of things I think are unfair or unjust, and the existence of Harvard is so far down that list it’s not even funny. War, poverty, the destruction of the environment, racism, sexism, and many other things that are absolute negatives for people bother me more than a positive someone else has.
Make some food with my tiny oven.
Before this year, I just only use the tiny oven to heat frzen food. But now I realize cured meat with common seasoning are very easy and it taste good.
I feel like "examples in humans" was strongly implied.
> It was the data, not the model

It's both.

It's clearly impossible to learn how to translate Linear A into modern English using only content written in pure Japanese that never references either.

Yet also, none of the algorithms before Transformers were able to first ingest the web, then answer a random natural language question in any domain — closest was Google etc. matching on indexed keywords.

> how are AIs going to evolve past human level unless they make their own data?

Who says they can't make their own data?

Both a priori (by development of "new" mathematical and logical tautological deductions), and a posteriori by devising, and observing the results of, various experiments.

Same as us, really.
Somehow this reminded me of when I worked at a bank some 20 years ago, and there was a ton of VBA code with “On Error Resume Next”. People would just pop that in there to “fix” their errors.

Also HTML parsing and Postel’s law. To me, that’s the real “billion-dollar mistake”.
Grr, the AI folks are ruining the term 'grok'.

It means roughly 'to understand completely, fully'.

To use the same term to describe generalization... just shows you didn't grok grokking.
As an application developer I not always have a need to observe protocol traffic as it happens on the air.

So for reverse engineering BLE protocols (especially between IoT devices and their apps) I've usually found my Android phone with developer mode and Bluetooth HCI snoop logging enabled to be very convenient.
Wireshark can read the files my phone spits out and because I see the unencrypted packets when captured directly off the HCI it's very easy to work with.
Related: that it won't get you kicked out of the country (in Germany). It's a common fear for immigrants, and it turns out that it's unfounded. You get a few months to find something else.
I discovered Electric Clojure and built a few toy apps with it. Turns out unifying frontend and backend code simplifies web app development greatly! Exciting to me because it drastically lowers my activation energy for building new projects.
Because none of what I said is newsworthy.
This is interesting. So your dad was both incredibly wealthy (9 houses in total, boat, etc) yet oppressively frugal?

Where did his money come from?
Ecuador politician murder: Prison gangs in terror reign
I do not see an issue with Firefox or Safari on my machine. Feel free to email me (jgc@cloudflare.com) with what you are seeing.
Ah you see, you just wrap that lua in a lisp in some terse macros and there you go, instead of writing `:set formatoptions+=j` (yuck, vimscript!) or `vim.opt.formatoptions:append"j"` (vom, lua!) you can write the clearly superior `(opt formatoptions +j)` (heck yes, ivory tower).
FOXP4 gene associated with developing Long Covid
Do I see column level security there on Role Management screenshot?
> My mantra became "products not papers." Maybe that applies downstream of the LLM now.

I agree, in the sense that my intuition is fed by having as many available examples as possible. I am not even sure one could quantify the difference between intelligence levels in a way that I would be satisfied with in a paper.

For example, I find it intuitive that a mixture of 10 narrowly fine-tuned GPT-3s are better at a task than 1 broadly fine-tuned GPT-3. But I don't have a real intuition about how many GPT-3s you would have to mix to match the quality of GPT-4, or if there even is any number of GPT-3s you can mix to achieve the result of GPT-4. I think we just need to start building systems and see what happens.
I don't have much to add other than that I'm proud of you for realising this and finding a solution that works for you. Kudos
I visited the Dark Web and all I got was this lousy t-shirt
Integration of Manticore with Fluentbit
Ahh my mistake, thank you for clarifying
Do they have access to all of the information on the internet? Might give them a lot better chance.
Your response is what is called the fallacy of the relative privation. But I did laugh at the taking a shit at my boss' desk. I might do that then update the thread and maybe I'll get you to empathize then.
I did not know that you meant “hobby profitable” (more brain cells, bigger Ideas) not “business profitable” (money) when you asked people how to use your old mining hardware profitably.
How did you build the stake?
Good question. I think perhaps not. This work is based on the data Gaia delivered in its most recent data release; the third so far. Only that release has provided both tangential and radial velocity of stars, which are crucial figures to compute the orbits of the binaries. This was done by correlating data collected simultaneously from the three instruments onboard Gaia. Does Euclid have the same three instruments or their moral equivalent? Will they operate Euclid such that they'll be producing similar data?

I don't know. Even if there are equivalent capabilities, it's a different instrument, so the data will not simply slot in as the next tranche of observations.
> It's worth noting that GPT-4 internally uses a Mixture of Experts (MoE) model with 8 'experts' internally

Has this actually been confirmed, either officially by OpenAI or otherwise? As far as I know, George Hotz claimed this once, and since then everyone just assumed it was the truth without actually waiting for any sort of verification.
> everyone got the email. Not a single soul they talked to met the "quota"

As an Amazon employee who has been RTO'ing 3 days a week like a good corporate drone, I can absolutely attest that this is not true. It does seem like the query used didn't take things like time-off or holidays though either.

My anecdote - there are MANY director level managers who are against RTO and thought they could just turn a blind eye and message to their org "I am not keeping track of this so don't worry."

I pointed out to MY director that I didn't think it was going to be in their power to turn a blind eye. They would get some sort of report with tough questions attached, directly from their manager or higher. Turns out I am still Right A Lot.

I'm guessing your friend has a director with a similar mindset who is finding out the harsh reality of the situation themself now. They have no control over this. Every manager (L6 - L8) I've talked with about this was both unaware this was happening and pissed off because they were removed from the communication chain with their team.
> selecting good people in a sea of resumes is HARD. Degrees aren't amazing proxies for productivity, but they are decent proxies. I've seen dozens of theories on how to interview and triage people, but few approaches beat the cost-benefit of supporting decisions based on a degree from a solid institution.

That's... a bullshit argument, and should get called out as bullshit? It's an easy approach, and beats other approaches for HR but says absolutely nothing about whether the person is a good person (both in the "are they a sociopath?" and "are they a good fit for the role we're filling" sense). In fact, most high achievers are bad fits for most jobs, because their intention is to not be in that job for long. They're on a fast track career path, no matter what job you're offering them, you're going to have to rehire for it 2 or even 1 year down the road.

That's an atrocious cost-benefit ratio: that's not an investment, that's intentionally hiring for the short term and intentionally preventing institutional knowledge from ever building up. If you're a startup, good for you, your goal is to get valuable fast and then cash out. But if you're a real business, and your plan is to own yourself and the market you operate in, it's downright idiotic.
> Specifically the "Not in labor force" column. That's a 4M loss. Out of those it is disproportionately women and older people.

Ok, here is the same data from fred (sourced from BLS). Both the labor force and "not in labor force" increased by ~3M from pandemic to now. Given overall population growth of 8M, it looks like normal numeric growth of any statistical cluster within a growing population.

Date. Labor Nonlabor Pop
Feb 2020 164M 95M 259M
Apr 2020 156M 104M 259M
Aug 2022 164M 99M 264M
Jul 2023 167M 98M 267M
Net. 3M 3M 8M

Labor: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLF16OV

Nonlabor: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU05000000

Population: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CNP16OV

> Out of those it is disproportionately women and older people.

Is the loss disproportionately among women? In terms of people not in the labor force, I don't see strong evidence for that. Stats for both women and men not in the labor force have returned to pre-pandemic levels.

Is job loss disproportionately among older people? Given that numbers of people in the labor force are now above pre-pandemic levels, we would have to posit a counterfactual world without a pandemic. I'm not going to do a whole regression with it's own assumptions of biz cycle etc. Eyeballing the chart, the current level could be in the range of alternative futures starting from April 2020. Its hard to say though with the boomers retiring out how many retired early or decided to not retire late.

All, Men, Women Not in Labor Force: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=LNU05000000,LNU0500000...,
Hard for me not to conclude that hoarding can happen more easily now, and that it is more prevalent because it takes a surplus of money and a surplus of goods available, plus some relatively remarkable social and political stability (that the U.S. has had since the 1870s...) Other times and places haven't had the critical combination of lots of available goods plus so many people with enough money and space to store it. Go look at stories of hoarders from the 1800s, they are all very wealthy (even for the time) people.

Now, with mass production and vastly increased purchasing power, this is what we see in America. You cannot tell me that a mental health issue in places like Yemen, Syria, or Guatemala can manifest itself in the same way, because people do not have the money, available goods, or social stability for this disorder to become widespread.
The ones that "strangle off the original" are the successful cases. It means that users were given a choice, and they chose to use the forks, which were (for them) "better".

Without the forks, there would be no competition. Would the improvements have been included in the original project if there was no fork? Maybe. But usually forks happen because the intended improvements were either rejected or otherwise not accepted. If there was no fork, and the forked project did not "strangle" the original one, users would not have the chance/option to use the "better" one.

I think all you showed was that competition is good. I don't see how you would come to the conclusion that merging is better.

In a sense this is mostly a philosophical question of the Ship of Theseus kind. What happens is that when one side gains traction because of some specific feature, the other side either gets obsolete quickly, or they adopt the same features. So in the end everything converges in feature (and often even code), only not necessarily in name/leadership.
Hi. So I'm the person at Google quoted in the article and also who shared about this myth here: https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1689018769782476800

It's not that we discourage it. It's not something we recommend at all. Not our guidance. Not something we've had a help page about saying "do this" or "don't do this" because it's just not something we've felt (until now) that people would somehow think they should do -- any more than "I'm going to delete all URLs with the letter Y in them because I think Google doesn't like the letter Y."

People are free to believe what they want, of course. But we really don't care if you have "old" pages on your site, and deleting content because you think it's "old" isn't likely to do anything for you.

Likely, this myth is fueled by people who update content on their site to make it more useful. For example, maybe you have a page about how to solve some common computer problem and a better solution comes along. Updating a page might make it more helpful and, in turn, it might perform better.

That's not the same as "delete because old" and "if you have a lot of old content on the site, the entire site is somehow seen as old and won't rank better."
How do you manage to create this sort of time?
Right. And what do you think a path is if not separating students by academic interest into groups?

Now, I'll concede there's a difference between interest and ability, but it will probably come out in the wash, as failure to keep up will typically result in a loss of interest
Numbers game, go submit 100 applications, get 25 interviews, get 3 offers. Go.
> You want to abolish all admissions? That's cool. What do we replace it with? A lottery seems like a lead balloon and anything else seems to have an effective gatekeeping function

If an institution doesn't want to simply accept the top N performers on one or more standardized tests, they could go one step further and perform an SAT/ACT-weighted lottery followed by a culling. This can be per-major or per-department, but many universities already enforce a set of near-universal required courses. Set a minimum performance requirement on those courses and bada bing bada boom, the institution is getting the cream of the crop for whatever quantitative definition of "cream" they want to set. People will be naturally disincentivized from applying to overly competitive programs in which they're likely to fail. There are probably many effective variations of this idea, too, like using a geographically distributed population-weighted lottery for applicants meeting some threshold score instead.

What are the failure modes of such quantitative approaches? Could the outcomes be worse than those of our current system? What are some better alternatives?
fzf! I even wrote a whole tutorial on it :) https://andrew-quinn.me/fzf/

Excitement for me is measured on a scale of how fast I go from "wtf is this" to "omg think of the possibilities" and given that I was working as a very shell-heavy cloud admin for the first half of this year this quite handily topped the list for me.
Given I’ve spent a long time on Wall Street that quote doesn’t quite jibe with me ;-)

I’d also say it’s false for almost anyway - YouTube directly impacts most people considerably more than Wall Street shenanigans, and that I lived the plot of the big short and know what actually happened for a first hand fact, I can assure you the big short is extraordinarily short of accuracy.
What's wrong? I didn't mean it like that, I've just listed it as a thing that was removed.

And about !, It's also listed as a thing that changed, no judgment. Regarding usecases I think if it's possible, some user will take advantage of it.
Can you provide more specifics? What is the “weak stimulant?”. Caffeine? Which MOA herb?

Could be of benefit for others who have tried adderall but found the robot-mode to be an unideal way to live.

For instance if you love sports or fast reaction video games adderall really hurts performance in those areas.

Sounds like you have a solution and would be interested in hearing more about it. Maybe your most exciting thing learned could be someone else’s!