skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> much social interaction has moved online, where it can be sanitized by benevolent corporations

Profit-driven corporations "stamping out" any speech that's bad for business? You want this? You want voice monitoring everywhere because someone somewhere might be hateful at some point?
> like avoiding driving into clearly marked wet concrete, or not crashing into an emergency vehicle that has its sirens and lights blazing

Or just a simple left turn without a green arrow.
If you like that, you'll love the abstract! It makes me feel like I've forgotten what words mean.
I think both are valid strategies, but it's usually a business decision, not a technology one.
Do you bus your own table at a restaurant?
No, I am saying open source code is open source. Open source has had an established, fixed definition for decades. It was coined for a specific purpose to represent a particular category of software licence.

You are doing a disservice to anyone reading what you write if you use a term with a fixed, established definition to mean something completely different without signalling that you are doing so. Language is for communication.
It's sort of true. Give money to the masses, and there will be more demand for mass-produced products. When money is concentrated in the hands of a few elite, they'll commission some exceptional things.

But on the other hand, the same masterwork staircases could be put towards public buildings, like grand libraries, museums, and train stations. Then everyone can enjoy those splendid things and the master craftsmen still stay in business, without their works needing to be confined to the mansions of the wealthy.

But these days we tend to disapprove of public works being anything beyond the bare minimum of utilitarian functionality. Anything else is seen as a wasteful extravagance.
> The purpose of your entire article is to label the Open Source Initiative as "irrelevant" so that you can promote a weaker definition of the term open source that does not protect the freedom of users to use the software as they wish.

The current definition allows all users to use the open source software as they wish. The problem is that, as we have learned through experience, some of those users are multi-billion dollar companies who are happy to exploit this unrestricted freedom at the expense of destroying the open source projects. LLaMA 2 expects you to apply for a license only if you have "greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month". The open source initiative corporation relies on financial help from companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. It's not surprising that they are vocal about LLaMA's terms. If you don't have 700 million monthly active users and are not sponsored by tech giants, you're probably fighting for the wrong side.

The new definition may be "weaker" or "stronger" depending on your agenda. For one, it would give users the right to protect their privacy. But, this also means that it takes away the freedom to collect and monetize information without users' consent.
The cart nonsense isn't the only measure of "bad"/good in society. Time to grow up now, but I hope you feel the endorphins from your righteous behavior toward a stranger on the internet. Bet you taught em a lesson.
It seems unlikely to be that strikes will be entirely blameful & clear cut in all cases. If anything I expect the regulation of speech by corporate bodies will intensify.

Picking obvious to condemn cases to justify demonizing someone is an easy case to build, is building the biggest target you can. It seems deeply simplistic to me to assume that the situation will today be simple, and more so, that it won't complexity over time.

I'd note that in most government systems, punishments are not eternal. Points against your driver's license eventually go away. Most crimes arent back to back to back life sentencew without hope of parole. The stakes are lower, but this current online paradigm of almost all warnings/strikes/punishments lasting forever seems like a much stricter/harsher world than is civil.
And the training data for that situation is hundreds/thousands of times less plentiful than training data for other scenarios.
I'm a brown man living in an extremely wealthy, extremely white pocket of Portland Oregon (whitest city in the country) in my mixed race marriage

No one cares.

Racism exists but most white social activists way overemphasize the role it plays in my life.

White people, like all races, are extremely friendly. All Americans are really.
It's a quite bad analogy because the googolth digit of pi is completely constructive. (You don't need to calculate it, but it is constructive)

P = NP proof could be not constructive.
It's special API that tells kernel to duplicate FD and give it to different process.

https://linux.die.net/man/7/unix

SCM_RIGHTS
Send or receive a set of open file descriptors from another process. The data
portion contains an integer array of the file descriptors. The passed file
descriptors behave as though they have been created with dup(2).

There are few interesting uses like for example, if you want to restart a network server, the old process can send its open, listening socket to the new process and thus achieve seamless switchover.

Other nifty thing with UNIX sockets is that you can just... read which user sent the message and as it is kernel adding that metadata you're 100% sure it came from that user. That's for example how you can set postgresql so say a certain user in the system can log as themselves without having to have a password.
> No need to increase that number by allowing half-developed machine to kill even more people

1. To my knowledge there has been only one death by a robot car. It was Uber’s and that program has been shut down for many reasons.

2. Given robot cars already have a higher bar for safety (ie fewer deaths, injuries, etc) than 15 year olds, wouldn’t the more prudent use of time/energy be to invest more into robot cars while changing policy so driving becomes (at minimum) 18+?
> I don't understand why authorities allow self-driving cars to beta test out in public.

Part of Total Information Awareness involves rolling as many cameras around in public as people will tolerate. San Francisco have made their priorities clear: https://reason.com/2022/09/26/san-francisco-police-can-now-h...
There has been a similar - but different - effect on games that were traditionally server-based like FPS games. Games where once you would join the same little deathmatch server, which had its own community and culture? Now you discuss the game on reddit (ew) and play MatchMaking against everyone else on your continent. You will never see those players again, ever, unless you're on a tiny server like the Australian one.
As an avid cyclist I agree.

I’d love to neither on roads personally. Delivery trucks, tradespeople, emergency vehicles , that’s it.
Longer name? micro is only five letters long, and nano is four. Yes, it's longer than nano, but it's only longer by one... Care to elaborate?
The argument is that self driving vehicles set a false expectation that the driver can relax-- bad design
Given how long dang has been claiming that someday we won’t have pagination and everything will be fast, I’m guessing whatever arc garbage runs HN just couldn’t handle emoji 17 years ago or whatever and that’s what we are stuck with.

Basically, I don’t think it’s militantly text-only, it’s just shit.
I'm still using an intel i7-4790 (22nm process) on my primary small form factor desktop and it's perfectly fine for day-to-day computing. It can even run most games just fine after I stick the fastest slot-powered gpu I can find (RTX A2000).
It's the perfect tool for the job.
Xiaomi CyberDog 2
Yes, this is exactly what I’m taking about.

You don’t need to share objects. Have explicitly shared buffers instead. Python is a dynamic language so you can easily build proxy objects that are views into a shared buffer, and this allows you to keep all your single threaded performance because no objects are shared.

For example:

buf = sharedbytes.alloc(1 * GiB)
with buf.lock(lockid):
buf[10:20] = 42
message_other_process(buf.id)

# other process
def recv_buffer(bufid):
buf = sharedbytes.get(bufid)
with buf.lock(lockid):
print(buf[10:20])

Most people don’t even need that and would be satisfied with just virtual processes and copying message passing between them.
Try reading the abstract of the linked paper. TL;DR: neural networks
> I'm objective

No, you're not. You're a denialist and Communist apologist.
There’s no feeling of power here. I took on this role because the FBI needs people to help them answer these hard questions, and your traditional Silicon Valley crypto bros won’t help.

I was raised in this country post-9/11 and was taught to fear the FBI. I grew up strongly critical of our surveillance state and the overreach of power that was reported upon. The FBI hosting a deeply critical voice inside to help provide insight to their processes seems like a pretty just thing to me.

If you have better ideas, then I invite you to help change the institution. Come “be in on the secret” (a security clearance to guard national intelligence?) and do the right thing.
I just like something that reads easy on mobile: I find substack blogs good for that. Keep it simple!
The car hit her because Uber purposefully disabled the Volvo SUV's built-in autobraking systems, and because the self-driving system detected and classified her with plenty of time to react...and simply did nothing to avoid hitting her. A complete and total failure of the self-driving control logic.

It's also arguable that she was killed as a direct result of Nevada happily allowing Uber to conduct their self-driving testing after Uber was banned from testing in California for ignoring regulators and their cars routinely being caught violating traffic laws by dashcams, traffic cameras, and cyclist helmet cams.

Even if the safety driver had not been playing with their phone - it's well demonstrated that the whole concept of a 'safety driver' is bullshit; in studies, the drivers are terrible at taking over when they haven't been in control of the vehicle.

Safety drivers were lipstick on a pig, designed to make self-driving cars more palatable to the public.
>cached page

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.hac...

etc

There's also a link in the three-dot menu next to the search result, but it doesn't always appear.
+1 this

I don't understand why this answer is buried deep in a thread & isn't included in the Rust Book, even though it's been conventional wisdom among experienced Rustaceans for a few years now.
Once when I was young
And in the care of laundanum
I woke and found my hair
Had lost desire to be there

A choice decision then
Birds have clipped wings
Ten pound, checkbook, and a pen
Wahl razor and, well, other things
Your poor performance seems unexpected in extreme. Folks at work are on m1's with quite a lot of extensions & everything feels snappy.

Having a huge git repo could poyentially hurt; would be interesting to test. Who knows maybe vim mode is partly to blame? I personally still mainly use vim, not vscode, so I don't know what usual suspects there are. It'd be awesome if there's good profiling that can show what plugins are taking significant time in the core loop. We have brutal eslint to apply but that for example all happens async. Once again, we're back where we started, of one bad situation - some random plugin somewhere - creating a lightning rod for disdain.
"we asked a LLM to emulate a biased population and then acted surprised when this aligned with answers from the party closer to centre."
Cone blocking isn't hacking. It's simple criminal behavior.
It’s exhausting arguing about this on HN or any other forum. You are in a tiny yet crucial minority, at least from the perspective of taxpayers as the 1% pay the majority of all taxes.

The best part about America, and playing by the rules of America and avoiding sketchy offshore nonsense, is that you can trust the law will treat you fairly. That is the simple secret of success for America’s entire existence, along with a decentralized government that makes power diffuse and a paranoid streak that infuses the populace with distrust of authority.

Live quietly, don’t be a public figure, and you can enjoy your (b/m)illions without serious socialist threat.
For the first month or two. Then we start running out of the good chips.

Though I'd say a clearer scenario is them disappearing with a couple months of warning. In that case the impact of Apple or Google disappearing would be greatly lessened, while TSMC's impact would be just as enormous.
I think the benefits vastly outweigh the costs here. There's a lot of things that hinder people with reduced mobility much more.
The transition from spinning disks to SATA/SAS flash to NVMe.
> you keep voting them in

I do not keep voting these people in.

> municipalities aren't able to rein in their police departments

Where are you seeing this? Seems like there's been fairly significant changes and individual officers are being held accountable. I'm genuinely curious if you have examples.

I believe you can more easily push change at the local level. Our federal government is a monstrous, unstoppable force.
In Europe they can't drive normal cars before 18. They will be able to to so after 17 if accompanied by an adult and will be subject to a probation period of 2 years after taking the test. Also speed "limitiers" will be required in all new vehicles after 2024. Most of these would probably be audible nags, like the one that beeps if one drives without the seatbelt.

https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/european-com...
> until the spec tells us what meaning it has.

That's a commonly held belief, but wrong. My first C compiler predated the ANSI C standard. Yet the code very much had meaning, just not in terms of the C standard.

The C standard defines the minimum a C compiler has to do to be in compliance with the C standard. It is not a complete definition, and this is intentional.
This is survivorship bias. No counterexamples emerge because successful and working capabilities can’t and won’t be shared? Not until declassification of those sources kicks in.

The government should not give up powerful intelligence tactics, techniques, and procedures solely because the general public has a want to know. We have elected representatives with clearances for those purposes.
Even if they did, they certainly wouldn't keep running for long without Western support.
They're paid insultingly low wages. Not using them as a servant is the nice thing to do.
Someone planning on invading the earth.
During COVID I let my hair grow long and end up with a ponytail.
Then I was getting it cut about every 5-6 weeks. But as the prices go up (most recent AUD40), I'm letting it grow longer but trimming it not grow long enough for a ponytail. It's yet another area for experimentation.
My sample size isn't big, but on Linux every laptop I've seen has amazing battery reporting information galore. Oh sure battery level. And various assessments of wear. Things like realtime charge or discharge rates.

But more notably, I think around half also have charge control. It's just been on/off. But it would be a pretty basic bash script to make this happen.
I’ve yet to play a year that wasn’t fun. If you don’t like one year, try another. The problems eventually get very difficult so don’t be discouraged if you don’t get very far. It’s a game after all.
Counterpoint: I am much, much more comfortable at the cheapo place at the mall than at some fancy pants salon. Find what works for you.
Ask HN: Why did Microsoft, Meta, and PayPal update their ToS today?
I received communications about updated privacy policies and terms of service from Microsoft, Meta, and PayPal today (in that order, chronologically.) Was there a triggering event that caused them all to update at the same time?
I always prefer to use the dotenv gem, as many times I'd rather stay local to my Rails app, rather than setting global environment variables.
TMSC makes all the Nvidia AI chips right?

Also this made my jaw drop: It's responsible for 5 per cent of Taiwan's GDP, and 7 per cent of its electricity consumption.
> that difference is meaningless

How so? If you tried drugs once years ago you meet this requirement for this program. If you are an addict taking drugs daily, you will probably fail the drug tests that I assume they use for this qualification and won't qualify. Of course there is a whole spectrum between thos, but saying half the population has taken drugs at least once is very much not the same thing as saying half the population is regularly using drug.

And the qualification is worse for people who are heavily dependent on drugs, and thus can't easily give it up while going through the program.

> which you are quickly and callously dismissing as less than you

When did I ever suggest they are less than me? I was simply pointing out that saying that half of teens have tried drugs does not imply that half of them would be ineligible for this program due to drug use. In fact the same cited article states 1 in 8 have used drugs in the last year, which is probably closer to an upper bound on who would be disqualified for Job Corps due to drug use.

To be clear, I am opposed to this requirement, because it is a barrier to people who need it most.
To Conference Organisers Everywhere
While this survey is done with neighbors, I wonder how it is in general. In a number of countries complete strangers great each other. Like in The Netherlands, though the likelihood to be greeted depends on where you are, time of day, and age of the people who greet.

In a big city people generally don't greet strangers, unless they meet very early in the morning and the occurence of a chance greeting among early risers grows. When city dwellers enter the suburbs and esp. when going into nature, they start to greet. Smaller towns and villages see a lot of greeting in the circle that one can count as beyond neighbors.

The younger people get the less they seem to participate in this old habit. Maybe they 'learn' to greet at older age, or modern society and smartphones are killing the tradition. I sometimes wonder if in modern society we are shifting more and more to a stance of distrust of the people we don't know, and this affects the greeting culture too.

Overall this casual greeting, often accompanied with a warm smile and sometimes some small talk, feels uplifting and heartwarming. Good for wellbeing I would say.

This is all anecdotal and YMMV, but I encourage to engage in the practice and reap the rewards.
There's already a known algorithm M you can implement right now that can find satisfying assignments to satisfiable SAT instances in polynomial time conditioned only on P=NP.

Note: I'll be glossing over a few technicalities in this explanation, feel free to ask about them.

Roughly, the algorithm M is as follows. Suppose you have input x of length n. For each integer c between 1 and n, encode c in binary and try to decode it in UTF-8. If it decodes, try to interpret it as a Python program, and run it on input x for 100n^c steps. If it executes successfully and outputs a valid assignment, return the assignment. Otherwise, continue onto the next c. If c=n and you haven't found an assignment yet, do a brute force search over assignments and return what you find.

Now suppose P=NP, so some Python program finds SAT solutions in polynomial time. In fact, there are infinitely many such programs, since each valid program can be prefixed with as many "pass" expressions as we want. Interpreting the UTF-8 encoding of any such program p in binary gives us some integer c.

There are only finitely many inputs of length ≤ c, so the slowest of them still runs in finite (and thus polynomial) time. For any input of length > c, the above algorithm M will spend at most 100(c-1)n^c time trying to execute the (c-1) different strings in Python for at most 100n^c steps each. If M happens on a solution before then, great! If it doesn't, then now we run p -- which by assumption does find solutions in polynomial time -- for 100n^c steps.

If 100n^c is an upper bound on the true running time of p, then this necessarily returns a valid assignment, meaning that we can find assignments in time O(c n^c) time for some integer c, i.e. polynomial time. Otherwise, if 100n^c is too small, we just wait for the next copy p' of p (with a pass prefixed to it) that will have an even looser time bound of 100n^c' . This also may not be enough, but eventually we will find some p''''' for which the time bound does suffice (depending on the true running time of p). And so we find valid solutions in O(c'''''n^c''''') time.

None of this required us to know what p is; effectively M makes the non-constructive constructive by trying every program out in a systematic way that the running time never exceeds some (also unknown) polynomial bound.

Is it practical? Suppose that the shortest Python program finding SAT assignments is at least 100 bytes long. Then c > 256^100, and thus the running time is something like O(n^(256^100)). So be sure to get a good CPU.
No shortage of suspects - see the linked article - gear was ripped out by the Russians left right and centre, very likely data routes | repeaters have been cut | bombed | replaced.

Even with a distributed network of sensors largely remaining untouched there's still been sufficient kicking of the system to make "supposedly robust" data pipelines fail in interesting ways.

On the central aggregate server there's a good chance some well written never failed script is encountering a never before experienced failure mode on one or two checks, causing a cascading issue that spills the coffee at 11:11 pm every third day.

Heiseinbugs are the worst.
AI processing power could certainly be a useful weapon in war.
Yeah but humans are just LLMs / meat bags
I was told to keep to myself as a child, not bother anyone, and not stare. That was my parents' concept of politeness, so I was never taught to greet people or initiate conversation.

Cultural difference, I suppose.
Lol, have you never gotten an exception that wraps another exception in the error payload. Those are not fun to parse. I've also run into situations where the error reporting agent trims the error. Murphys law, always exactly a few bytes before the part you needed. Or, the key information is shortened by default limits on inspect or #SomeStruct<... Oops sorry I hid it>

Anyways. The whole point of BEAM is that you code the happy path and if you can't actually do anything about the error, you're wasting effort and making your code harder to reason about.

Nobody is suggesting using errors like control flow. Writing a try/rescue is indeed an antipattern. It's like the Toyota factory line. If something irrecoverable happens, just pull the emergency stop and start over.

If you've been handling errors like that since 2016, well, I guess that's your choice, man. I wouldn't do it.
There is a difference between legality and morality
I'm highlighting that different people will have different priorities
It would be possible to restore an older car (late 90's to early 2000's) which have much lighter chassis, and convert it to electric power. Unfortunately it wouldn't be very cost effective until you break even on not buying gas, and I'm not sure how well insurance companies would like it.
Understanding a system well enough to manipulate it in ways that the owner doesn't want seems at least in the same category of phone phreaker behavior.

Which was also criminal behavior, but the point is that I don't think it automatically disqualifies it from the category.
USB4 mandates 40GBps. It mandates DisplayPort. These would be pretty helpful baselines to expect, reasons for consumers to want USB4: they know it will be fairly featureful.

PCIe transport ("Thunderbolt") and Power Delivery are both optional though, I think.