skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's interesting. Wouldn't it lead to paradoxes where enemy units are shown at multiple places at once, observed from different frames of reference? Would be incredibly confusing, but confusing games can be fun too.

EDIT: Also if a unit traveled close to C away from a friendly unit, and then back, whos reference is real?
Show HN: Universal Test Runner – Run tests in any language with a single command
Well, many languages. I'm adding more as I go! While you can be consistent on your own projects and always have makefile, you can't always do that on other projects. Because it chooses a test command based on the files in the directory, it's a consistent interface between projects you own and projects you don't.

I also wrote about the project in more detail on my blog: https://xavd.id/blog/post/run-every-test/
“I’m comfortable with it”: User stories of health information on Wikipedia
>Applying a critical-constructivist approach, 21 semi-structured interviews conducted from June to October 2021 were analyzed thematically. Qualitative analysis suggests that users reported that Wikipedia’s health content can facilitate personal agency, is familiar and convenient to access, and that individuals’ trust in Wikipedia is contextual, conditional, and framed by their personal experiences.
I remember having a call with two colleagues once, I was in Sydney, one colleague was in london and one in LA

It was quite surreal, although time wise I think the LA person was up early on Tuesday and I was up late.
Just to beat this drum from outside the go community, rust / swift style enums with parameters are mana from heaven. So many programs get easier to write using them. If there’s one way I’d love the go type system to be improved, it would be by adding these simple, lovely algebraic data types.

Trust me, they would look great in Go. Treat yourself.
We're unfortunately only human and didn't catch every single paper on the topic while writing the draft. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
> 2. I no longer feel the need to hire juniors. This is a short-term positive and maybe a long-term negative.

> A lot of stuff I used to delegate to fellow humans are now being delegated to ChatGPT. And I can get the results immediately and at any time I want. I agree that it cannot operate on its own. I still need to review and correct things. I have do that even when working with other humans. The only difference is that I can start trusting a human to improve, but I cannot expect ChatGPT to do so. Not that it is incapable, but because it is restricted by OpenAI.

I think this point bears repeating.

The threat of these models isn't that they'll go all Skynet and kill everyone, it's that they'll cause a lot of economic devastation to people who make a living through labor requiring skill and knowledge, especially future generations of skilled labor. Then there will be a decision point: either the senior-level people who thought they were safe get replaced by a more-advanced model, or they don't and there's a future society-level shortage because the pipeline to produce more senior-level people has been shut down (like the OP is doing).

The only people who will come out (relatively) unscathed are the ownership class, like always.

Of course, this is inevitable because it's impossible to question or change our society's ideological assumptions. They must be played out until they utterly destroy society.
As an outsider to web dev, I think there's a lot of wheel reinventing going on in web technologies over the past 10 years or so, and we still haven't fully caught up to where we were.

XMPP was a federated instant messenger protocol that worked extremely well and was widely used. It generally worked better than Element/Matrix or MS Teams in my experience. It was used by over 10 million people by 2003.

Adobe Flash. It had a lot of security and usability issues, but HTML5 has still not caught up to it. Any bright 15 year old could spend a day and make their own game.

Makefiles. People hate on them, but if you get around their weird syntax and other eccentricities, it's hard to find a better build system. They've been around since the 70s, and I have not seen another build system achieve feature parity.
What are you working on that's so urgent?

The answer is probably that it's not.
> then you could deploy the whole thing without having anybody assigning new addresses. NAT's/configs/etc could keep working.

How does a device that thinks that addresses fit in a 32-bit address space send a packet to a device with a larger address?
Why would they ever sell anything when they can just use them as collateral for loans and avoid ever paying taxes.
Yeah same thing. I have done the same with GPT-3.5. Simply ask it to output using provided schema only and give a few examples. Always outputs in provided json format
Working on tools like these is always fun as a developer. And it helps speed the team up! Anybody have any good examples of ones they have made?
Observation: This is also similar to how HK-47 from KotOR communicates.

Cynical observation: HK-47 is commonly passive-aggressive and sarcastic.
> I am still trying to understand why I have to share costs with wealthy people without clear benefits.

You aren’t sharing costs with wealthy people.

The proposal is to split rates into fixed connection costs and variable electricity costs, rather than, as the status quo does, lumping it all into the latter and setting rates high enough that on average the connection costs are covered by the surplus of the per-kW charges.

The effect of the status quo is that net metering over-rewards net-metered distributed generators (which was a plus to drive adoption, but no longer needed an excess incentive because of widespread adoption and a construction mandate) but it also creates an artificial disincentive to moving residential natural gas use to cleaner electric and against moving gasoline vehicle use to cleaner BEVs.

Dropping the per-kW rates and separating out the connection charge deals with that problem.

> Why can't they just adjust the expense for those who generate electricity? Or directly lower the incentive by removing tax cuts and credits since the widespread adoption is ongoing anyway.

Because distributed generation is only part of the issue, and that doesn’t deal with the disincentived to electrification of current fossil fuel use created by the currently-inflated per-kWh charge.
They write comments and even chat, not every successful person is arrogant or considers themselves above even talking to regular people.
Counterpoint: I don’t refer to 3.5 when I say ChatGPT. I pay for ChatGPT, and always use GPT-4. Which I believe every paying customer do.
The problem is that it's pretty rare that you re-convert a churned user.

So its much better to go 0->11m than 0->100m->11m and burning 90m user accounts off
Californians get annoyed we pay 50% more for gasoline usually.

Most don't know we pay 500% more for electricity than many states.

I have started telling everyone I know this fact. Almost no one knows it. Almost no one has anything to stay other than shake their head in silence.
The vast majority of kernel devs are paid salaries to do this work by their companies.
Your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against—either way, it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I've therefore banned the account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Is there anything particularly wrong with a delivery-only restaurant? That is the standard definition of “ghost restaurant” I know of.
I assume being able to get a custom link is also nice, I believe discord only allows that for partnered servers?
@dang Why was this an appropriate topic eighteen months ago but it isn't now?
So they moved to GraphQL to get type safety but the implementation of this posed a major risk. I would have liked to be in the room for that decision making.
It's inspired by Autopoiesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis), which served as a fascinating principle in Niklas Luhmann's theory of society.
All I learn whenever I follow a link there is that the powers that be have decided that ‘this question is off-topic for Stack-Overflow’ and it has already been answered in a location that is now unavailable.

The site is a big douchey middle finger. A dismissive know it all that actually doesn’t know all that much.
> And what if it gets caught in a loop? Not sure how this can really guarantee 100%

It's not great but after some timeout you can just set the mask to only include closing brackets.
The relativity and frames of reference are trivial compared to the whims of international politics
I do the same, just tell Openai to call a parser at the end and wahal.
In quantum mechanics, a single particle is also a wave and vice versa. Light is in fact the thing where this observation was first discovered - it had been proven to be a wave for at least a few decades when Einstein discovered the quantum nature of the photovoltaic effect, proving it is also a particle. This discovery was the very start of quantum mechanics, in fact.
I don't understand the purpose of this at all.

I wholeheartedly acknowledge the following:

• People shouldn't litter. They shouldn't litter anywhere, but especially while hiking.

• A lack of trash cans is not an excuse to drop litter on the ground. Carry your trash with you until you find a trash can, wherever that is.

However—why get rid of trash cans? They're a very nice convenience, especially in logical places like rest areas. Visitors who use them are able to carry a lighter load for the remainder of their journey.

They mention the rest areas have bathrooms. Are there really no trash cans there either? I guess women with tampons have to carry those out of the park? I don't see how that helps anyone.
> VM takes care not to let them clobber.

The Erlang VM absolutely clobbers registers within functions all the time, since there are only 64? of them and they are a 'limited' resource. My point is that the logic to efficiently move data around is more complicated when you don't know the arity ahead of time.

You can't, for example, keep a register file as a linear slice. You have to allocate a whole slate of 64 registers on each call with the last (n) registers blanked.
I don't wanna stoke anyone's ego. But there are people whose work I've used or refernced many times that pop up on HN and comment or post. Not always with a ton of karma either.
Are you aware there is a Wipeout 3 Special Edition? It's got more tracks and also tracks from the previous games
To allow more people to buy property and to prevent price increases due to speculation.
Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in Landmark Climate Case
> And how does the OSI derive it's legitimacy as the steward for all things open source?

We give it to them.

OSI isn't an entity that's existed since the beginning and the original definition doesn't come from them.

I agree that it's not a space that doesn't change.

Having said that, change must come from the community. It can't be just a couple corporate entities defining their own license, calling it open source, and going against the established definition.

> In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS.

I don't mind monetization don't get me wrong.

Should it change? I'm not the authority on it. I'm just saying it's not the current definition.
This is similar, but one of the benefits of thinking about 'things that musn't happen' and relating them to 'things that can go wrong and how to prevent them' is that it avoids talking about expected damage.

This avoids two nasty problems with trying to express risk as an expected value.

The first is that it is hard to express all kinds of probabilities and damages numerically, not all kinds of damages convert easily to money, and some probabilities are hard to guess (you quickly get uncertain probabilities, but expected values just flatten those into an average again). Even without those issues pinning a number on it can lead to lots of discussion (good if you want discussion, not so good if you want to get shit done).

The second is that you easily fall into the trap of assuming everything has an average, and that the law of large number applies. While physics kind of helps you there by putting hard limits on the maximum amount of damage possible, you may end up in a situation where all nasty stuff is in the long improbable tail. Good example is earthquakes, magnitude increases tenfold for every point in the Richter scale but frequency also only decreases tenfold, what then is the average?

Well and something that's not really a big problem, but worth thinking about, some of these eventualities may very well cause you damage but are beyond your sphere of influence. Sure you should try to avoid going bankrupt if someone knocks over a server rack, but if all google data centres go down over an entire continent you've got bigger fish to fry. So focusing on the things you can do something about is a helpful way to keep focused.
> First, a /16 network is 65536 devices, which is pretty big as-is.

"big" is a relative term. For some cases, that's a really annoying restriction.

> But it's a bad idea. You will have a shared media that can be brought down by erroneous broadcasts or devices. This is a classic story: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2581420/all-systems-do...

IPv6 doesn't have the concept of "broadcast".

> ND doesn't solve it. It works in practice using the same old broadcast

No, ND uses multicast.

Running any network with >100k hosts has its challenges, but these are surmountable with IPv6, and not at all with IPv4.
`function()` is stored inside a `Module`, so we call `Module.function()`.

An anonymous function "`()`" is stored inside a `variable`, so we call `variable.()`.

It does make some good sense. It's even kinda elegant!
Could some of the genius down-voting argue for the reason why Google needs both of these more or less dying langs?
That depends highly on the values contained within the JSON. Syntactically correct is only useful if the rest of the content is useful.
> What works best is just learning how to articulate your ideas in natural language. I’m surprised that people ignore this and then look for magical prompts to help them get things done.

A lot of people speak natural language well enough, but think about it-- our interaction with computers since their inception was always bounded by constraints of some sort. Games have rules, engines have limits, languages have structure, etc.

Then a tool shows up that appears able to do anything. The people who have taken to it the best are all creative types, while many of us have had our creative paths beaten out of us. The guides I've seen are clickbait but the better ones have some use in teaching those of us who've been forced to live in a box to think outside of it again by example.

I never would have thought that a chatbot could keep track of tokens/counters just by asking it to (like a D&D GM) until I saw a prompt demonstrating that. My previous chatbot experience was ELIZA, later AIML, and some really annoying "customer service" reps, and all were bounded gimmicks that couldn't do this. (AIML allowed some getting/setting of variables, but was very rigid.)

Then there's SD, which I can appreciate but don't particularly enjoy. If you don't know how to speak like a MFA and/or aren't familiar with the terms used to train the dataset, you won't get as much out of it. Guides help here too.
Then they need to accept that housing prices will rise because of this. It's as simple as that.
Urgent address by Egon Cholakian to all people following his recent participation in a joint session of the Nobel Committee and the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.

In his address, Egon Cholakian reveals the true and shocking reasons behind global climate change, climatic anomalies, and catastrophes that are escalating worldwide. Egon Cholakian explains the pattern of recurring climate catastrophes that we are currently experiencing. This pattern is reflected in a unique mathematical model indicating a geometric progression in the growth of climate catastrophes, which could lead to the demise of humanity in the coming years. As Egon Cholakian stated, "Our planet is on the brink of self-destruction, and humanity has only a few years left to prevent the impending catastrophe."

Egon Cholakian proposes the only viable and scientifically substantiated solution available today that can save us from a global climate catastrophe. Action must be taken soon while we can still change the situation. This information is being revealed for the first time.
Egon Cholakian, is a qualified Particle Physicist, affiliated with the preeminent CERN particle physics laboratory as a Future Circular Collider technology developer. Collaborates in the arrangement of NASA’s NISAR mission. A member of the International Association of Intelligence Educators and an international tax Law professional. Served as a Legislative Tax Analyst attached to the President's Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy under President Nixon and President Ford. Worked with the Reagan Kitchen Cabinet, and Reagan White House within President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative project. In total, Egon Cholakian worked with four U.S. Presidents. Currently serves as a federal lobbyist at The U.S. Congress and White House. Egon Cholakian has emerged as a prominent voice on climate change and national security-related matters.

For more detailed information about the project for establishing a unified scientific center, you can visit the website http://earthsavesciencecollaborative.com
For inquiries: egoncholakian@earthsavesciencecollaborative.com

Reproduction, distribution, and utilization of this video in part or in full are permitted through any means without distorting the information, provided that proper attribution is given to the source:
http://earthsavesciencecollaborative.com
I personally love GraphQL but my god is that man annoying
Wait. So bank employees cannot use IM of any kind? Or they need a special kind of IM with audit log style integrity safeguarding mechanisms?
Wouldn't it be slightly easier to just, you know, visually obscure the opponent's base?
Because humans hadn't eaten bread before the last 30 years? Try again.
It seems unlikely for JSON, but this might indicate that the model has somehow painted itself into a corner and the best thing to do is backtrack?

Regenerating the entire response could be seen as an extreme form of backtracking.
GraphQL makes sense when you have:

- Many teams with many micorservices with many underlying stores
- A fetch-based architecture

Each team can be responsible for implementing the resolver for their service along with caching, scaling, etc. At Netflix's scale you don't want to have every single service have to scale to the level of the BFF/Orchestration layer.
https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/data/resolv...

If you have push-based architecture, it makes more sense for underlying microservices to publish to a broker like Kafka and then materialize a view to DynamoDB, Mongo, Redis, etc.

And if you don't have many teams with many microservices, then just do the REST, Rails, MVC thing and save yourself the headache.
In general I'd be curious to try this, but your homepage is not very convincing.

The "demo" doesn't look like typing, it's a fade right, and it's painfully slow. And then, there's no library, it's just 'import requests', so even the demo is extra long. (Why not show curl then?)

Also, are there any benchmarks? Why should I take the time to evaluate this myself against existing open-source tools? It seems like that should be your responsibility, not mine, to spend the time doing a detailed comparison and evaluation. In a way that feels open and trustworthy.

I respect what you are doing and share this feedback from the heart.
To me it reads of the kind of Rachel Carson types of environmental damages that were getting much more attention at that time. (Acid rain, pollutants, runoff, etc)

If they had anticipated CO2 (and yes, I agree it was known by some well before this time), they should have / would have made it much more specific to include that kind of slow, "who is responsible" kind of harm.
The posts being discussed are cases where the question is marked as duplicate for being vaguely similar but not actually the same. Of course marking literal duplicates as duplicates is fine.
IANA{LLM}, but if you're only sampling from a "correct" grammar, you are potentially (very potentially) forgoing what might otherwise have been a more desirable and more semantically useful token. Most of the models have been trained on myriads of human language, not structured data necessarily, and so I'd rather elect for a more semantically enriched format (e.g. XML or YAML) because those are designed to be ~more human readable. Or perhaps more preferably: have the boss LLM pump out what it excels at (strings of prose most of the time) and have a secondary model with a stricter grammar convert that to JSON.
The photons that are getting observed are emitted from the accretion disk, which is not very close to the event horizon.

You can estimate how close to the event horizon the disk is based on how broad the spectral lines are. The part of the disk that is coming towards you will be blueshifted and the part of the disk that is rotating away will be redshifted. From that (which is independent of the overall depth of the potential well) you can figure out how fast the disk is rotating. And from that you can figure out how far away the disk is from the black hole.
IPV6 doesn't prevent you from natting if you really want to. It just gets rid of the thing that forces you to NAT.
Maybe buy a juicer as well? I hear that is a pretty amazing technology, you just set it and forget it.
Whenever someone mentions Java AOT, I look it up, and it’s a nightmare. Has it changed recently?

I developed server software in Java for two decades, and I can tell you that the huge JVM was always a PITA for us, even after Docker became a thing. All those frameworks? We ended up throwing them out. And the slow startup speed of Java apps made our tooling sluggish. It was also a pain to ship tooling to non developers, for all the same reasons.

Using Go after all this time was like a breath of fresh air.

It’s fine for you to assert your own preferences and biases but you don’t represent all enterprise server developers.
The New York Times Updates Terms of Service to Prevent AI Scraping Its Content
I meant more “what are you actually completing?” And “how much?” I haven’t found the completions to be particularly helpful.

For instance, I’m often fighting incorrect array indices and slices, pulling out magic numbers into variables, decoding some one-liner completion, or figuring out what’s usable and what I need to cut out and replace in a larger block.

What’s really struck me is how much I really want Agda style hole-filling completion. I want to just be able to type a variable name and have it destructure cases for me. That happened a few times, and it was really nice. I’d forgotten how nice it was to be able to do that in Agda. I want that everywhere.

Also, just noticed who you were, I really enjoyed some of your Lisp books.
Explosive Lens
I'm not sure of why you would want to use raw llama-2 though when there is a million super strong instruction fine-tuned versions of llama-2 on HF hub that would do the job a million times better? Like Stability-AI's Beluga-2. See https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderb...

About your second point, the goal is that the model can only generate JSON (for example), which can 100% be done by constraining which output token can and cannot be used.