skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Once you have this realization, what's the advantage of showing the proper error code to the user?

Have you ever done end user support? Having a moderate amount of detail like an HTTP response code saves tons of time and headaches when a user calls in.

And some of the specific codes you mentioned (401, 403, and 429 for example) actually do give a power user actionable information. They can know that there's something wrong with their login credentials or permissions, or that they are making too many requests too quickly and need to slow down or wait to stop being rate limited. And knowing that it's some kind of 500 error lets a power user know "Ok, this probably isn't an issue on my end" which helps them stop worrying that it's something they're doing wrong or something wrong with their system.
For me HN was, is and will be an endless stream of Lisp-related topics. When the amount of Lisp-related content would decrease, that will be a panic time for me.
Most of the time when you hear a result in science news that 'seems obvious why research that?' is because of poor reporting.
Semi related is the Max Headroom incident.

https://youtu.be/aTuonpTAIOw

https://youtu.be/8rRo5CHFxAI
Someone probably said this about book reading in the past. Me personally, I find it’s about my quality of attention regardless if I am on the screen or not. But I can see that it is easy to confuse familiar things we get lost in and associate to mindlessness.
Ugh. Agree with this.

My Synology NAS was failing. Saw that as a great opportunity to set up a proxmox box on a reasonably powerful used HP SFF, run TrueNAS on it. Plenty of time to get proxmox, TrueNAS, Gitea, a docker host, … just right.

It’s sat there with 4/16TB used, no real data transfer apart from TimeMachine from my Mac and my git server, sucking power at European rates.

Wish I hadn’t bothered, and had just gone with another Synology.
I think the gaps in theory need to be addressed first. A theory that correctly bridges the gap should also shed light on why the situation today is this way. What if QM and relativity are both correct in the context we view them? What if higher energy isn't what's needed to reconcile them?

Einstein "simply" took the observation that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, and relativity followed from that. Granted, he had to throw out the idea that time is constant.

So what assumption might we take for granted that needs to be thrown out? Or more specifically what is the core set of things that conflict between QM and relativity? I'm asking for something far more specific that "QM and relativity can't both be right". It's in details that are probably way beyond my understanding.
Cheap wind and solar could revolutionize the African grid
The most likely thing to help in something like this, is for the plane to realize it's going to die, and just take over.

And that has usually been the "airbus way", whereas Boeing has more had a notion of throw things to the pilots often enough so they know what they're doing.
I like the concept, sometimes I wonder if I could get an AI to always know the context of what Im doing without the need of telling it, this could be a huge productivity enhancer. Like always having someone next to me, so I can just ask him about anything and get a useful answer, this would be the ultimate personal assistant
In quantum field theory, space is just full of various fields that mediate interactions.
This is possibly the best description of my development process I’ve ever seen.

I’d add “staring into the distance” alongside the mumbles (yes, when pacing, that often means I run into corners of walls, couches, etc).

I think of it as iterative development in my head, and it’s often focused on finding the fastest path to proving that an architecture or implementation is wrong; when I find it hard to prove why something won’t work, then I begin to explore in depth the idea and have a pretty big running start on the code, which flows a lot more quickly when I’ve done this than when I just sit down and start typing.
I don't think that's true. MPL is not that permissive. It clearly requires that every distribution in source code form or executable form come with the source code under MPL or a compatible license.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/#responsibilities
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on debate in such a thorough fashion. I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately and my conclusions fall along the same lines as yours, but its definitely interesting to hear someone confirm your own thinking. I agree, ability to skillfully and convincingly argue your point of view is not purely dictated by the depth of ones knowledge of the subject, though in my impression is that when the debater possesses such knowledge it often shows, especially if you are a somewhat informed onlooker.

A tangential point that comes to mind, is that I found that it takes quite a bit of knowledge in the first place to even discover and separate people to follow that bring informed thoughts and original conclusions on the subject from the artful bullshitters. And its frequently the latter that are more prominent at the first glance and it takes time to realize who you are dealing with.
oh wow didn't know thanks!!
Since I started to study airline accidents, so far this one of the most fascinating in terms of human aspects and Crew Resource Management.

The fact that the whole situation deteriorated less than 10 minutes after the Captain went to rest, it’s one of the biggest contrafactuals about this case.
Plenty of humans glitch out on random words (and concepts) we just can't get right.

Famously the way R/L sound the same to many asians (and equivalently but less famously the way that "four" and "stone" and "lion" when translated into Chinese sound almost indistinguishable to native English speakers).

But there's also plenty of people who act like they think "Democrat" is a synonym for "Communist", or that "Wicca" and "atheism" are both synonyms for "devil worship".

What makes the AI different here is that we can perfectly inspect the inside of their (frozen and unchanging) minds, which we can't do with humans (even if we literally freeze them, we don't know how).
I agree with both your points. It's a difficult problem. Forced engagement of the autopilot might possibly have helped the pilots of f447 - but its unlikely to be safe in all situations or be acceptable to flight crews.
thanks! indeed, totally valid concern
Sabine Hossenfelder has a video which may be helpful [0].

She discusses nine levels of what we could call "nothing" as in "there is nothing present in this container". It may be useful since she discusses the various substrates that are still present even in what we might normally think of as a "vacuum"

[0]: What is "Nothing"? https://youtu.be/PhfqdBk8qxk
Understanding Emotions in Informal Developer Interactions: A Gitter Chat Study [pdf]
>my settings being reset every time I update, their user hostile UX flows, strange highlights on web page elements

I have used firefox since 2007. I have used the exact same firefox PROFILE, that I simply copy from device to device when I set them up, for 10 years now. I have NEVER ONCE lost ANY settings.

Maybe you're on a weird linux distro and the package manager does dumb things?
Hackers Rig Casino Card-Shuffling Machines for ‘Full Control’ Cheating
Humans then?
1) If there is a car behind you, and no car in front of you, go one lane to the right.

2) Always pass on the left.

Breaking either rule is a > $1000 fine, and points on your license.

This is how it works everywhere I’ve driven except California, and it works great.

During congestion, there is invariably a car in the fast lane with no cars in front of it, and a line of 1000 cars behind it. That driver should lose their license.
11xAI closes $2M pre-seed to create autonomous AI workers
It's laughable how symbolic and ultimately meaningless this is. GitHub has already proven themselves to be a good actor in this particular fight, so not only is the repo online, but we also have http://ytdl-org.github.io/youtube-dl/

The Uberspace provider is appealing the decision as well. Even with the site down, this looks incredibly positive from where I sit. Rightsholders and litigators get stuffed, we always win!
A DCO is a lot lighter than a full CLA.
As noted in the article, the project still has a page on github:

http://ytdl-org.github.io/youtube-dl/

I've moved on to https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp anyways.

But this is still an infuriating move. youtube-dl wasn't doing anything infringing on its site, was it?
There is a balance. I've seen plenty of under-engineered software with the same code copy-and-paste dozens of times. I've also seen incredibly complex abstraction layers that only made sense to their original authors (long gone...) and were incredibly hard to navigate and maintain (class hierarchies 5 layers deep, etc.)
On the other hand, we wanted to give them money to have a support contract, maybe some yearly architecture reviews or a call with a consultant to point us towards new features. We have similar agreements with e.g. AWS, we're looking at setting something like this up with a postgres consultancy. However, the smallest offering was solidly in the six figures a year. That put it into a very different investment process, the board got involved and you can all guess where it went from there.
It's not exactly a new idea. If it works for SEO this is probably just a case where search engines are doing what you'd expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAQ
Where are you getting this information? Linux has a DCO-requirement, but AFAIK there is no CLA.

Signed-off-by: someone who has a recent commit in the kernel and did not sign a CLA.
Used Nebula to build a cross-cloud Nomad cluster, very underrated and does 99% of what you'd want from Tailscale.
I'm quite happy with the European content that Netflix is mandated to offer in our region. Some of what turned to be my favorite shows were Icelandic, British, Belgian or French and I'm quite sure we wouldn't have had them otherwise.
> The Roomba’s Guidance System

> Date: 2002

> Established a new way for technology (and cats) to move in the physical world

> (define-behavior (bounce :start-when (or (bump?) bounce-trigger? ) :abort-when (bump-edge?) :onetime? t))

Does anyone closer to the source here know if Roomba is still written in Lisp?
I don't think that the OSD is perfect, at all; I will readily acknowledge its problems. (And OSI more so.)

I think it's a common shared understanding and a focal point, and there's huge value in preserving that. Having a different common understanding might be acceptable, and might even be an improvement, but only if people agree on it. Having no common understanding would mean something of great value was lost.

Right now, many different groups who may not all agree on all goals nonetheless gain value by sticking to Open Source, and not a dozen slight variations on additional restrictions. In the absence of that, we'd have the "non-commercial" group, the "educational use" group, the "don't compete with us" group, the "don't use for military applications" group, the "don't use for nuclear reactors" group, the "don't use to develop proprietary software" group, the "don't redistribute unmodified versions" group, the "don't distribute outdated versions" group, a dozen variations on "don't distribute if you disagree with our values" groups, the "don't distribute if you're a large company" group, the "don't distribute if you're a specific company" groups...

Every one of those is a license term I've seen advocated. Every one of those violates the OSD, so it thankfully stays obscure and unpopular, because enough people prefer using and contributing to software with less unusual licensing.
That isn't naive at all. Oh look, there really is a flower.

The set of sceptical propositions, say S, which make this "naive" are far more naive than the truth of there being a flower.

That era of philosophy had yet to learn that philosophical propositions are themselves subject to scepticism, and when balanced against the ordinary, are far far more doubtful.

What falls away, as naive, under scepticism is scepticism itself.
One doesn't need BLS to avoid having a trusted dealer in the context of signatures-- though signatures are unrelated and irrelevant to the subject of this post. But plain ECC signatures without any bilinear group can do threshold signatures.

(also any BLS signature that implements a single key threshold that's indistinguishable from a single key will be using SSS under the hood to implement the threshold, though I agree end users should probably never be using SSS directly)

> SGX extensions are far worse than smart contracts to secure large amounts of value, whether it’s currency balances, votes, or other data.

"smart contracts" as they are don't provide confidentiality, in fact they're generally extra toxic to confidentiality.
(author here) Funny thing is I also type out most of my shell into a script file. I generally don't create huge commands interactively. I elaborated on that here:

https://lobste.rs/s/pcuppu/what_helps_people_get_comfortable...

Basically I want to be able to use all the power of Unix without remembering it all -- shell is a great tool for that.

Someone made a LSP plugin for Oils awhile back, and I expect if enough people use it, those tools will continue to improve, and new ones will appear. They will be MUCH easier to produce for Oils than shell, because we have a principled code representation. (Some tools will be inside the project, and some outside, as usual)

---

On the UI side, there are also people exploring shell GUIs via the "headless shell" -- something no other shell has -- but we can use more people to help.

screenshots: https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2023/06/release-0.16.0.html#he...

i.e. Join #shell-gui on Zulip; don't assume it will get done without your input or effort ... as mentioned in this blog post, the biggest risk is that we don't have enough people helping!
This, to me, describes most Wikipedia articles.
In English we have the term potable to designate drinkable water, which comes from an old PIEish verb meaning to drink that no one uses anymore and so it's often confused with "pottable" i.e., to be put into a pot, as in a game of pool (a non-aquatic table sport fyi)
Any attempt to be mindful is probably better than no attempt, but I'd say, Yes, there are better and worse ways.

One that took me some time to learn is to not put effort or striving into the activity. Especially with that most common form of mindfulness, breath meditation, it's very easy to be very effortful about it. And that's IMO not the path you want.
In case of this article:

> Mr Sudarskis argues that the most vulnerable parties are not the investors, who recieve a share of the fees and willingly sign a contract with their fund managers, _but portfolio companies._

In terms of effected people, i would not call investors the "most vulnerable". Have-nots can't spread risk to the degree a fund manager can and are bound much more to local monopolies.

"The most vulnerable ones to powerful individuals abusing their power to enrich themselfes, are portfolios."

Sounds weird, doesn't it.
> But lack of sleep is a real issue. Even more on the US side since rest rules are worse than European. Somehow it doesn't get the attention it deserves.

IMO this is almost a cultural issue. We don't prioritize sleep as much as we should and even hold lack of sleep as something to be idolized (i.e. sleep = laziness). How many times do we hear about those CEOs or Founders that wake up super early after only 5 hours of sleep. They're driven, they're hungry, they have something you don't. You're just lazy.

Everyone "knows" we need more sleep just like we know we should floss every day but we have better things to do.
Definitely interested in this, however:

>Narrowlink uses a centralized gateway that clients and agents connect to over HTTP/S protocols

Tunneling TCP over TCP will undoubtedly result in poor network performance. This is why WireGuard is UDP-only.
I find it telling that the section on ethics has nothing on the rights of AGI. If we create true AGI it will likely be a digital person, and digital people should have rights. All talk of ethics seems to be focused on alignment of AI rules to human needs, not alignment of human rules to AI needs. This makes me think the first true AGI systems will end up as digital slaves.

And yes, I know the very idea of AI rights offends those who think AI can’t be a person because it’s just an algorithm. Well, so are humans, just a DNA program executing massively parallel. The implementation does not determine personhood, only the behavior.
how about terraforkem ?
Is ChatGPT just a yes-man?
I don't see how this generalizes. If this is supposed to work for any "the {modifier} {subject}" phrase, it won't, because if you want to say "the white cow" you'll end up with "Le vache blanche," which is wrong.

You could store `(format: "%3$@ %1$@ %2$@", modifier: "blanc", subject: "cheval", article: "Le")` but now you've got so many gender associations to keep track of, and a phrase that will still only work as a subject (because in German, all of the words will change if the white horse is the object of the sentence).

EDIT: Oh you're just talking about sprintf specifically, I see what you mean. I agree with your other comment that it's ideal to pass entire sentences to the translators when possible, which is what I'm getting at here too.
> No, no git magic. Just source code changes. One commit with the whole review that contains fixes and maybe a few questions. Then a commit from the PR author on top of that that adds explanations and/or fixes for the questions.

Reviews on some projects will ask you to make a commit/patch in between your third and fourth (out of seven). And to fix a typo in the fifth commit message. And do fix something in the second commit that leads to conflicts in the next commits. And then to end up with for example seven commits that each “do one thing” or whatever. So if the expectation is that you end up with one “fixed up“ commit at the end of the review process which encapsulates the whole PR then this won't work.

With your approach I imagine going in several rounds where

1. Reviewers leave comments

2. I address them

3. I publish that as review round X

4. I “clean up“ the history (get rid of comments/all review history) and address things like “make a doc commit before commit number 4”

5. Publish that as the “blank slate” (no comments) for the next round

6. Invite the reviewers to the next round

And that could work.

Something more dynamic/less rigorous (with rounds) and you might end up with an excessive amount of history rewriting and conflict resolution.
> but “all about openness and power users”? That’s not my impression.

...!

I feel like a frog that’s just been shown the bubbles forming on the bottom of the pot.

Granted I’ve been pretty “meh” on Apple the last few years but I’ve still watched the keynotes and kept up with their growth. I didn’t even notice that Apple cleaned developers and pro users from their brand! (pro users as defined by those that are always stretching the limits of the tech, learning, and finding new optimal ways to do things).

I just finished re-watched the uncut WWDC keynote and when developers are mentioned they are now almost entirely talked about in 3rd person while Apple is talking directly to upper management. The most hands-on-tech thing they did was talk for a couple seconds about the WebKit features.

My impression of Apple is shockingly outdated in their favour.

The product pages for both Mac Studio and the Mac Pro (both “Pro” products) either talk specs without highlighting what can be done with them or they talk about media creation. The target demographic here is creative professionals and not technical ones, power users, or developers.

They have served creative professionals for a long time for sure, but they also served power users and technology professionals because they recognized that it was them working with the creative professionals (and sometimes working on their own) to build products with huge markets. I thought that this was still an underlying corporate value at Apple but I see now that they’ve just conveniently dropped it without even a whisper. I guess their new core demographic is content creators and movie studios?

Apologies if this rambles. I had to get it out. I’m still processing this.
I don’t follow. IMO coming up with a working explanation is a necessary part of scientific advance. And that’s what we’re currently missing with LLMs, and with your parrot example.
The main takeaway is that somehow the pilot who kept holding the stick back was under the assumption that the correct response to a stall in cruise was to apply full TOGA thrust, not to recover from aerodynamic stall. This is likely because in thicker air, close to the ground, this actually works. It also does not help that a mid-cruise stall is extremely unlikely to happen in normal operation, since normal law[1] prevents keeping the angle of attack this high. They also hit an edge case so unforseen, you could consider it a design fault. Their speed was too low for the stall warning to sound, so every time they moved to recover the plane the stall warning returned, and every time they pulled it back into the stall it disappeared (with the airplane assuming the inputs must be wrong).

I really recommend watching a breakdown of the instruments during the incident.[2] Things happen fast.

[1]: https://docs.flybywiresim.com/pilots-corner/advanced-guides/...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a06A78iXnQ
I think the immature approach is to try and solve all problems, rather than just addressing the needs of the moment. Whilst it looks and sounds bad, delivering quickly and ontime creates the opportunity to fix things. Trying to deliver perfect products, ie finding and fixing all faults steals future time.
> contrafactuals

As in “if the captain didn’t go to sleep, they’d have been fine”?
I have only experienced it for a few sessions last summer so my judgement may not be that accurate. I didn't mean to sound so "authoritative" in my last comment. Anyway, i felt like it was putting me under a lot of extra stress, even though fortunately i was relatively well off at the time - i couldn't imagine not feeling extremely stressed out paying 90€/$ for therapy when youre already struggling to make ends meet. Seeing a regular therapist that I don't pay for (except indirectly through my health insurance, as a student around 140€ currently although it keeps getting more expensive every year) really gives me peace of mind that I'll be able to continue seeing her for the next 40-50 sessions and slowly work on lasting change.

Becoming a licensed therapist is a long and strenuous process in Germany. As a client, it gives me some peace of mind, although before my current therapist I also had some "bad" ones in the past (ones i didnt match with). As a result of this, getting into therapy in Germany is a availability issue, not a financial one, usually. Clients have to write dozens of emails/phone calls to therapists, which can be a big struggle especially considering the population we're talking about.

The process definitely needs a huge overhaul. There are a lot of willing and able prospective therapists, who can't, for example because they didn't have the perfect high school grades requored to study psychology here (unless you go to Austria, which the Austrian students understandably are a bit unhappy about), or because they can't years of expensive, badly paid training required to become a licensed therapist.