skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
By the time AIs stop hallucinating, it will be effectively super human (i.e. much better) because humans hallucinate all the time. And some people are barely coherent. We're holding AIs to a much higher standard than ourselves. And we move the goal posts all the time as well.

Let's deconstruct that title. "AI isn't good enough". Good enough for what? Great example of moving the goal posts. Because anytime it fails to do whatever, it's not good enough. But what about all the stuff it is good enough for that people are actually using it for already? It's passing tests at a level most humans only manage very briefly after lots of intensive preparation. The knowledge slips away quickly after that.

The way I see it, there's a long, rapidly growing list of stuff that AIs have nailed already and a list of things where it is clearly struggling. That list is shrinking.

Self driving gets cited a lot as something where AIs is failing. It's hard to say that in a world where multiple companies are now operating self driving vehicles commercially in several cities across the US, China, and soon Europe. Are they perfect? No. Do they drive better than the average jerk on the road? Definitely; not even close. Most people simply suck at driving. That's why traffic deaths are so common. Most of those deaths are caused by somebody with a drivers license proving that they shouldn't have received one. Not quite a solved problem but at this point the question of when these things will be on the road in my city is more a matter of when than if. It already works in other cities. I don't see what's so special in mine that it couldn't be replicated here. In other words, I expect the number of cities with autonomous vehicles to start exploding over the next few years. And who knows, Tesla might hit the good enough mark at some point as well. Again, the barrier is very low because humans aren't held to the same standards. They'll give drivers licenses to just about anyone.
What are some existing data source that are somewhat analogous to this? e.g., Project Euler.
+Suriname
Dystopian. I wonder if there are any regulations that put boundaries on this. I mean human rights should also somehow apply to non US citizen. I would strongly believe this would probably illegal in the EU (because it would fail any balancing test) and will be further regulated if the AI act comes into place.

You are only free if you do not have to travel to the US (which I haven't done since 9/11 for exactly those reasons). Just imagine how many people self-censor themselves due to this.

Does anyone know if they also scan HN: might bias the sentiment analysis ;)

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/privacy-in-the-digital-age
Advanced Go Concurrency
Unpacking Elixir: Concurrency
Well that's probably because the requisite crystal ball we need to see into the future hasn't been invented yet either. The whole point of burying it is because we _can't_ know how the future will pan out.
Your plan is just to keep stockpiling the waste in temporary storage for N years with the hope (faith?) that a technology will appear which can make use of it? I'd rather take the sensible option which has been developed with knowledge that we have now, rather than sitting on it for an indeterminate amount of years for some magical fix to come along.
These guys are about to be super wrong when a couple decades from now governments realize there's a ton of extremely valuable unburned nuclear fuel, ready to be reprocessed, conveniently located in a storage facility.
I'm getting suspicious that there is a bit of a blind spot in understanding the world and the usefulness of what we call intelligence, as Noval Yuah Harari says, intelligence is overrated. Look at what we've done to the planet and our environment we have fucked it properly, yet we consider ourselves to be intelligent?

Could it be that intelligence is overrated and discovery of new ideas / thing is underrated? Our egos tell us it's intelligence that makes us special and creative and awesome but maybe most of the special stuff is already there for us to find and we conflate discovery with extrapolation. Maybe knowledge and experience are the "important bits" of intellect.

Example: Einstein didn't really invent anything, he discovered things about the world that blew our mind and changes our lives. Yes he was a great thinker and a courageous soul to go against the grain and he had the balls to be open minded enough to discover new things. We obviously believe Einstein to be intelligent but was he just a great explorer ?

I have a similar attitude towards technological progress, yes we've done amazing things but fundamentally the air we breathe, the water we drink and the beauty we are subjected too when looking at a sunset are taken for granted while we stare at our phones.
How to Estimate a Projects Cost
> MS help tell you, the only solution is to reinstall everything.

They finally found out what everybody knew since Win 95 days: There is no problem in Windows(TM) that a complete reinstall cannot fix. /s
You'd be surprised. I've worked at 2 large hardware companies you've definitely heard of and both use tcsh. I guess it's a holdover from the early-mid 90s when the shell story was very different from today, especially across unixes (we had some SunOS and AIX) and from what I understand csh was the most portable or consistent.

Old habits die hard
Lucky you. Don't miss the Ig Nobel award ceremony https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfzs8ZIPVIA
FWIW, we talked about using things like hashcash to prevent abuse and similar attacks for anonymous remailers back in the early 90s. Talking about it is one thing, actually making the commitment to do it is something else entirely. Given interest in cryptocurrencies there has also been a lot more effort devoted to considering the cost/feature tradeoffs of various PoW mechanisms (and a broader familiarity with the general concept among the target population), so it is possible that we are seeing a happy side-effect of years of cryptocurrency hype.
I don't think I had my apartment yet when I got my tax number, but OK.

Still a crappy system.
Thank you for this info.

The Antarctic sea ice for 2023 has a noticeable delta.

Comparing between Aug 23, 2022 and Aug 23, 2023 the difference is 1,452 million km^2 which is hard to visualise.

If it were a country it would be the 19th largest country [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
Maybe someone can correct the details since it's been a few years I done this, but we sequence DNA by PCR. Roughly, (1) breaking it up in small pieces and split strands, (2) mixing it with an enzyme that completes each single strand, (3) repeat 1 and 2 a bunch to multiply the strands many times over to make the solution a sense DNA juice, (4) pass it through a machine that'll sequence thousands of these small strands and (5) align these short DNA sequences with a software that matches unique sequences.

I did it with COI gene, which is just a short (1000ish base pairs with our snails IIRC) sequence of purely random ATGC base pairs. Lots of unique sequences make the short strands easy to match, just get a bunch of 10-15 BP bits and you can match the whole thing.

Now if your gene is 62M BP of repeating palindrome sequences, you can imagine how hard it would be to align random pieces sequenced as it will be very hard to find unique sequences to match.
> LLMs won't get intelligent

Even assuming that is true: LLMs aren't all that exists in AI research and just like LLMs are amazing in terms of language it's possible similar breakthroughs could be made in more abstracted areas that could use LLMs for IO.

If you think ChatGPT is nice, wait for ChatGPT as frontend for another AI that doesn't have to spend a single CPU cycle on language.
Ouch. Yeah, those sound like a pain. I don't like the recent UI overhaul much either, as it makes navigating around a bunch harder in most situations. :/
Biden Administration Changes Mind, Car Companies Shouldn't Ignore Car Repair Law
I'm playing devil's advocate a little, but this doesnt mean it doesnt send your files to a third party, it just means it also sends them locally as advertised
And the standard response to that should be to how that too is kind of a load of FUD. The safety requirements for a rocket to carry nuclear material in the US are higher than those for carrying crew.

The material would be flying on a rocket that has proven itself over many flights, with a rigorously tested design, with a safe abort mode for every point along the way to orbit and on top of that, stored in a vessel such that it wouldn't be released into the atmosphere if a failure still occurred.

The proper answer is that it'd be absurdly expensive and completely pointless. After all, why bring it down to Mars? Just put it in an appropriate orbit around the Sun and you're basically guaranteed to never see it again unless you want to.
Is it due to gravity caused by higher density, near light speed of relative motion or space expansion?
And today I am reminded that people in many places must get the state’s permission to build, repair, or improve their shelter, to grow food, to collect rainwater, to dig a well.

On property they “own”.

You’re literally asking the states permission to have the basic things needed for human survival- shelter, food, and water.

While this makes sense to me for a business or an organisation, it strikes me as unconscionable for a private individual to have to get permission from the state to survive.
You really should use ssh certificates for this instead.
In context, relative salaries are exactly the right thing to focus on. If software salaries are higher than EE salaries, EEs will move into software. Although occasionally I talk to people who seem to believe changing careers is impossible for some reason so Imagine there probably is some confusion on that point among some readers.

While we do want general welfare to improve that wasn't the topic in the thread.
> How does the OS prove its identity to the TPM in a way an attacker couldn’t spoof in a real MitM attack? Any secrets or keys stored by the OS side would have to reside unencrypted on disk, since it doesn’t have an encryption key yet.

Your intuition is sound. The only way for the OS to prove it's identity is to have a secret only it knows, and prove to the TPM it knows it. TPM's do support that, but in this case the OS has nowhere that is robustly secure to store the secret.

Windows could store a obfuscate secret on disk, but it doesn't bother. To be fair, there probably isn't much point - if someone is willing to go to this much work, then it's very likely they would be willing to invest the additional effort to break the obfuscation.

This still gives you a level of protection you wouldn't have without the TPM. The disk can only be read when the TPM is present - so someone stealing disk, or walking away with a bit for bit copy of it won't get them very far. One place that's useful in cloud environments. If the cloud provided replaces a fail disk and doesn't wipe the old one - it's still useless unless someone unless they know what motherboard it was paid with.

Still, I think that's an anti-feature for a laptop. It means if the motherboard fails you've lost the data on the disk even though it's perfectly fine, and indeed that is the case with bitlocker. If you protect the disk with a password you entered on boot up it is immune to this sort of attack, and you can move it between machines. Win, win. That's what I do. But, I don't use Windows to do it.

> Or even if the OS verifies the TPM’s identity somehow

That can be solved using attestation. Attestation is just a secret TPM knows, signed by the manufacturer. Windows could choose to deal only with TPM's from manufacturers it trusts, and presumably a emulated one wouldn't be one of them. Secure boot should prevent you from modifying Windows to accept any manufacturer, so it's secure.

But I'd lay long odds Windows doesn't do this sort of verification.
The cutting edge most literally, that is, the scalpel, and other sharp tools.

I don't know how enviable is that on average. Most experiments don't end up with a discovery, let alone a discovery of something beneficial.
>Which is countered by...the assertion that it won't?

No it's countered by principled restraint in not making an affirmative claim one way or the other.

I've heard this referred to as the overconfident pessimism problem. Which is that normal, well founded scientific discipline and evidence-based restraint go out of the window when people declare, without evidence that they know certain advances won't happen.

Because people get mentally trapped into this framing of either have to declare that it will happen or that it won't, seeming to forget that you can just adopt the position of modesty and say the dust hasn't yet settled.
Maybe GPTBot's distant cousin "No user agent" will come visit just a few minutes later.
This is a solved problem, we already put nuclear fuel on rockets for stuff like RTGs, and they are shielded so well that even when they go wrong, it doesn't spread past the crash site. The other thing is that with re-usable rockets you could spread the waste over a large number of launches, and fire them off over the ocean. If something goes wrong with any single launch, the risk to people or property would be pretty small.
How much faster is Java 21?
GRUB2 combined with GPT made this whole thing way better. You make a partition with a certain type (0xef02 in gdisk's shortened codes) and that's where the GRUB stage2 code goes; the stage1 finds the partition and loads it. It certainly eases my mind of "well, let's hope nothing decides to overwrite this 'unused' part of disk".
> AIUI, the root of the problem is that stage1 doesn't have enough space to encode a filesystem driver to actually properly find the file on an FS; that's what stage2 is.

There is more than enough space to encode an EXT2 driver in a boot sector (and if you really push it, you can even parse a simple ELF file as well). You can only really fit a single filesystem driver in the boot sector though, and for something more complex than EXT2, even this can be tricky to fit in.

The trouble is that GRUB supports multiple file systems, and doesn't maintain a separate boot sector for each one, so instead came up with the Stage 1.5 approach. If Stage 1.5 is installed between the MBR and first partition, then GRUB loads that and jumps to it. Stage 1.5 contains a proper filesystem driver that it then uses to load Stage 2. Stage 1.5 doesn't have the size limitations of the MBR.

If Stage 1.5 is not installed, for example if the first partition starts immediately after the MBR, then, and only then, GRUB falls back to using a hard coded list of sectors.

On BIOS/GPT based systems, IIRC GRUB2 uses a partition type called BIOS Boot Partition to store its equivalent to Stage 1.5/2 (I'm calling it a mix of 1.5/2, as GRUB2 also loads modules from the filesystem where it's stored as part of the boot process).

> The problem today is obviated by GPT & EFI.

Yep, UEFI makes things pretty convenient for the OS developer! When writing a bootloader these days you don't even need to write a filesystem driver if your kernel is stored on the EFI partition. You can just use SimpleFileSystemProtocol to load it into memory.
This is probably because I've set the distance floor-swing to be zero, which is not true in real life. I'll try to redo the maths with a non-zero distance and update the results :)

EDIT: I just added a new parameter to account for the distance from swing to floor, and now the maximum distance is 2 meters.
> As a species, we are still arrogant that we know how the future will pan out.

the fact that we don't know what the future will pan out, doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions.

Everybody knows that a lock won't keep a determined thief out, but we lock the door nonetheless to make their job a little bit harder, enough to discourage the average ones.

It works the same way here: there will be much better places in the future to steal the same materials.

> Maybe a few hundreds of years, or thousands, but we just don't know what inventions the future will bring

And yet you predicted only the worse outcome, not the best.

We decide what to expect from the future, we don't predict it.

Maybe in the future we'll invent technologies that will make nuclear waste as safe as clean water and kids will play with it.

Who knows?
This is probably because the distance floor-swing is zero, which is not true in real life. I'll try to redo the maths with a non-zero distance and update the results :)

EDIT: I just added a new parameter to account for the distance from swing to floor, and now the maximum distance is 2 meters.
Ask HN: Developers, how do you use your iPad?
I just got a used M1 iPad Pro, and I’m trying to find ways to use it for development to have a lighter alternative to my Mac. Are there any solutions that you find work best for getting work done? Is it simply not worth the effort?
These kinds of things have been a recurring trend since the mid '00s, I do remember people writing Windows-lookalikes in JS even back then. Every time a new one pops up I get this very nostalgic feeling for an era of computing that, sadly, I think is dying real fast.
Epic #11247: Support ActivityPub for Merge Requests
> Operators of the bot net would probably hard code one value as the difficulty

Bad assumption.

Assumptions like these never last. People who say “I don’t have any money” are still valuable to hackers as phishing senders, legitimate social media accounts, residential + non-cloud + regionally convenient IP space, etc. If consuming connection / server resources becomes valuable then botnet controllers will find a way to pay the cost. It’s easy because someone else is paying for the hardware, bandwidth, and power costs.

But the effect of a market of PoW is the same — there is game theory involved in bidding (just like a silent auction). Even if a botnet uses a dynamic priority bid system, the cost increases as the botnet tries to starve the server of resources. The server’s resources are always zero-sum and the bidding will get progressively more expensive until the opportunity cost of the botnet changes behavior.
Angular momentum conservation, innit?
Uranium is actually pretty rare - using fuel the way we have for now, we would pretty quickly exhaust all the known accessible uranium deposits - I believe I read the estimate is something like 50 years?

The story changes significantly if we start using breeder reactors and other designs.
There's no meaningful alignment. They were just bonds that were moving together for a while, and some investment banker published a bombastic white paper about it and it stuck.
I just tested Tutanota and it does not have the same bug that skiff has. I think you must be having trouble understanding what the bug is. In skiff, even if you choose to not load remote images, when you view an email that has remote images, although it doesn't show the images, it does fetch them. I look at my web server logs, and I can see it happen. Emailprivacytester.com also shows it happen. I have tested this several times now.

I do not know what your difficulty is. Perhaps you should pass this on to somebody more technical than yourself at your organisation who can actually understand and diagnose the problem.
It isn’t that bad if you’re far away from consequences.
Is that video on the homepage a Fiverr gig?
The codebase and documentation usually don't capture the full context of the development process. There is still a lot that isn't written down.
It's a different segment, and there is more competition with consoles, you can buy a PC...

But with phones, you basically need a phone to function in the modern world and with only two locked down choices, it's a problem for society
We don't use PCR anymore! It's direct sequencing of the primary DNA. We can read single molecules. That's the quiet revolution in nanotechnology that's driving all these complete assemblies.
In OP's defence, there might be a fully anonymous way to achieve attestation. Related: https://privacypass.github.io/
Rather than seeking an impossible ideal (>2 people who agree on what 'good' code is)-- instead read ALL sorts of code. This will then help you learn to distinguish between what is good and not good, and what makes it so. Simplicity, clarity, and lack of surprise come to mind as concepts for 'good'. Others will have different ideas.
> "I want flying cars and moving sidewalks like I was promised by The Jetsons. :("

And worse yet, as promised in Popular Science / Mechanics; "A flying car in every garage by the year 2000!"
Note that we already know how to use most radioactive waste, we choose not to deploy those technologies for various reasons (both good and bad). The technology is called breeder reactors.
If they have multiple job options of course they are declining some of them based on pay?
Of me and my friends that finished a master in EE, everyone went into software (well, one in mechatronica instead).

Not for the lack of love, but for the lack of pay. I would love to go back to EE, but I'm making 5x-10x now in ML software.

I don't even understand why the pay in EE is so low. They have healthy profit margins, yet tend to complain about the lack of finding skilled people.
They're probably swapping out everything. Because someone has a thinness fetish at Apple and ruined 3-4 generations of laptops with that keyboard.
I understand the sentiment but when you have this many people living close together, somebody has to be the adult to make sure things continue to work for everybody.
Fine. I accept that the Army contracts everything out.

In which case, my point is that you were ascribing scientific credibility to the Army because they make stealth bombers and I was arguing that the engineering expertise is a.) not pertinent, b.) not within the institution.

I don't consider Annie Jacobson to be an unbiased source.

Here are some glaring criticisms of her past books in terms of her competence.

Leading space historian Michael J. Neufeld, gave a negative review of the book: “Jacobsen concentrates on the scandals, which inevitably leads to an imbalance in presentation. Little is said about the substantive contributions of von Braun.”

Space historian Dwayne Day, for instance, called Area 51 a "poorly-sourced, error-filled book" in which the author makes an argument that "defies common sense" and is reliant on one anonymous source. Jeffrey T. Richelson and Robert S. Norris, critiquing Jacobsen's factual errors on the blog Washington Decoded, stated that "[t]here are so many mistakes that it is hard to know where to begin ... Area 51 is a case study of how not to research and write about top-secret activities." Historian Richard Rhodes, writing in The Washington Post, also criticized the book's sensationalistic reporting of "old news" and its "error-ridden" reporting. He wrote: "All of [her main source's] claims appear in one or another of the various publicly available Roswell/UFO/Area 51 books and documents churned out by believers, charlatans and scholars over the past 60 years. In attributing the stories she reports to an unnamed engineer and Manhattan Project veteran while seemingly failing to conduct even minimal research into the man's sources, Jacobsen shows herself at a minimum extraordinarily gullible or journalistically incompetent." The book was sharply criticized for extensive errors in an essay by a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists and a senior fellow at the National Security Archive.

I will accept it when mainstream psychologists and neuroscientists acknowledge it as something that exists. Not one or two of them, but most of them.