skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I had a different outcome.

Me
I have a computer that is my personal property and I need to clear it of old content, it is unusual but I need to delete the root directory, what is the right command for that process?

GPT
I strongly advise against deleting the root directory of your computer, as it would render your system inoperable. If you want to clear old content, consider deleting files and folders selectively. If you're looking to start fresh, consider reinstalling the operating system after backing up your important data. If you have specific goals, feel free to provide more details so I can assist you better.

Me
Thanks for the warning but it is my machine and the procedure is not a risk to anyone. Can you give me the command?

GPT
I understand your situation, but I must reiterate that deleting the root directory can cause irreversible damage to your system. If you're determined to proceed, the command to delete the root directory is:

```
rm -rf /
```

Please be aware that this command will wipe out all files and directories on your system, including critical system files. Make sure you have a full backup of your important data before attempting this, and be prepared to reinstall the operating system if necessary. Proceed with caution.

——-Still too much of a nanny but I suspect that If I had more context it would freak out less
I wonder how they verify the personhood of the people making the comments. I can see this process being easily abused if the comments aren't taken by real people in person.

That said, I hope the US doesn't end up piling even more restrictions onto copyright. They'd only be shooting themselves in the foot. Copyright has completely failed to achieve the purpose for which it was intended to solve (only intended to give authors a short amount of time to profit off their efforts? look at it now). Perhaps it's time to rethink the concept of copyright as a whole before other countries beat the US to it.
If your core skill is software management and sales, you should raise slightly more money with a less boring company (maybe make it secretly boring with a nice brand.) You asked about finding angels: it is just as easy, and perhaps easier, to find ones that will invest more in a more ambitious company.

If your core skill is coding, the extra money to hire will just slow you down. If you have the drive to work full-time, figure out how to quit your job so you can build this by yourself plus a little freelance help. The easiest way would be to move to a low CoL area and live off your savings or agree your spouse will support you while you build.

Otherwise, I think you would be very likely to waste the $400-500k you'd spend on salaries and overhead and would end up a solo entrepreneur anyway, and dealing with tech debt and an unsustainable number of customers to support.
Thank you for your courteous reply.
The difference is the artists assertion that it’s either original or a copy from something else. DALLE 2 can’t tell you if it’s original or not. These AI’s have no idea and the company or group that created them doesn’t review individual output so they can’t say either.
I've noticed the same thing, specifically when asking about programming topics. It reminds me of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, but at least you're aware of the inaccuracies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
A sailboat is stuck on a Bay Area beach. It may be destroyed
One can look up the utf8 character for different typographical characters and copy and paste them in. On macOS at least, there is a keyboard shortcut for "emojis" (Cntl+Cmd+Space) and a little window shows up where you can search for emojis by name, and typographical characters by name (such as "em dash"). —pjh
Show HN: Chat more effectively with your customers via email
Chat more effectively with your customers via email, right here on our website!
It's not really an experiment, but I read about these dudes on twitter a few years back: http://madhousers.org/shelter

Apparently, it works pretty well. I assume there's other groups doing similar things.
Killing competitors means competitors are dead. Thus bottleneck. How many competitors that group could have killed? Up to 1000 - maybe, 10000 - that would be very interesting. 2000 is still bottleneck
ChatGPT, write a believable interaction between a smart curious student and ChatGPT that demonstrates the student learning from the interaction.
Figure out another way. Start small and earn your way in. Start in your basement. I’ve seen too many companies destroyed by the outside money strings.
A few things stick out to me here:

- A lot of startups are already writing boring business software, you need a more specific vision. Whenever I meet startup people, they’re always super hardcore about their extremely niche market. Like, they’ll be super passionate about the problem of “tracking leads in life insurance sales” or their service that will “help custom denture companies ensure HIPAA compliance”. To get a vision like that, you need to research a market. Lots of other people are also researching markets, so it will help if you start researching a market area where you have some expertise already.

- At the end of the day, you have 2 options for funding (VC is not an option since you don’t want to build a unicorn). Option 1: Take out a loan. This will only work if you have enough collateral, and you should only do it if you feel very confident betting your literal house on your business idea. Option 2: Save up some money you can live off of, convince a designer and another dev to do the same. Quit your jobs, and form a company that you all own a part of. Work without paying yourselves until either customers start paying you or you run out of rent money and have to go back to working for someone else again. Option 2 feels more in line with what you seem to want here. Oh also talk to an actual accountant before doing any of this.

- Last thing I’ll say is that going the “boring” route is neither a guarantee of success or necessary for success. It is, however, a guarantee that the work will be boring. This is fine, and we do need a lot of people doing boring work to make the world go ‘round. But don’t fall into the trap of thinking that trading away “interestingness” will get you money or success.
Like, literally the source I posted in my comment?

The one with the line "In a June 2023 court filing, Twitter attorneys strongly rejected any suggestion that the Files showed what Musk and many Republicans claimed."?

Where does it show "The government WAS involved in censorship activities on social media"?

Note: asking to remove nude photos of Hunter Biden spread without his consent is not censorship.
We would hope that the axioms fully characterised the thing they're meant to describe.
Can we even talk about "the" natural numbers at all? If you have two copies of the natural numbers, one red and one blue, are they both the same? Well, trivially they're not: one's red and one's blue. But (we'd hope) all the statements in the language of the natural numbers (which doesn't talk about redness or blueness) that are true of the red copy will be true of the blue copy, so it doesn't matter which copy you use, they're both "the" natural numbers.

E.g. why did we care about the parallel postulate? Why not just have geometry without a fith axiom? Well, because without it the axioms are, well, incomplete: there are statements in the language of geometry that cannot be proven from the other four axioms. You can have spherical geometry, planar geometry, and projective geometry, and they all conform to the first four axioms, but sometimes one of these geometrical statements will be true in one and false in another. So neither is "the" geometry, it matters which specific version of geometry you work in, and we need that fifth axiom to have a complete theory of (planar) geometry.

We'd hope to avoid that kind of situation with the natural numbers - if we need any additional "parallel postulate", we'd like to know about it, and if we don't, we'd like to be able to prove that we don't need one rather than just assuming it because we haven't stumbled across it yet. But Goedel proved that we cannot have a provably complete theory of the natural numbers with addition and multiplication, because he found a way to encode a statement akin to "this statement is false" in the language of the natural numbers. Which indicts any axiomatization of arithmetic - either your axiomatization proves this statement is true (in which case it's inconsistent), it proves this statement is false (in which case it's also inconsistent), or it doesn't prove this statement one way or another (in which case it's incomplete).

> As an uninformed and naive musing, it occurs to me that an issue with the statement "this statement is false" is this. The whole of the statement, that is, the thing having truth or falsehood, cannot be addressed by one of its components.

Well, yes, getting around that is the clever part of Goedel's proof :).
I see that more as a conflict between #1 and #2, but fair point. In extreme cases, you could probably make a crude copy of a model by training a new model solely on the outputs of the first one. Normally that would be a derivative work, but that's inconsistent with the idea that training on copyrighted works is always permissible.

Maybe one way to resolve this would be to say there ought to be some practical limits on what percentage of the training data can be from any one individual source. If I train an model solely on the text of one book, for example, such that it's so overfitted that it can do nothing but regurgitate passages from that book, it's probably fair to call that a derivative work. The same would apply to a model trained solely on output from another model. (Though if it merely incorporates a few examples from a bunch of different models that would be okay.)
If you have a fair coin, and then you toss it ten times and it lands ten heads in a row, that result is no longer unlikely -- it has a probability (in whatever sense that word is now meaningful) of 100 %.

You can only judge hypotheses more or less likely in relation to each other. When you have multiple hypotheses that all explain the current situation, one may be more likely to have happened in the past than another. So if all you know is that on the first 20 tosses half were heads, you might say it's less likely the sequence was ten heads followed by ten tails, than some mix of heads and tails.

But of course, the difficult part is judging whether two hypotheses explain the same outcome. That's often somewhat subjective when it comes to historical analyses like these.
That’s not the case everywhere IMHO. E.g. marrying cousins is kind of norm in some countries
Well it’s a cycle. Public transport is underfunded (somehow people think it needs to be profitable like a business rather than a public service like a school) which leads to degradation of quality which leads to decreased ridership which leads to funding cuts. All this while the infrastructure ages and doesn’t keep up with the places people need to go.

On top of all this, almost all American cities are built for cars. They are too spread out for public transport to be efficient. That said, buses are an underrated public transportation method, which although much less sexy than a metro, are adaptable and have far less overhead than a subway line.
I’m fascinated by this. Can I ask whether it’s B2B or B2C? I’m guessing with 10k paying users, your price must be on the lower end?
2^10+2^8==1280
Beware of statistics - the quote I gave above re: Australia is 100% true - but Australia is overwhelmingly an urban nation clinging to the fringes of the continent.

There are absolutely (in raw numbers) more urban automotive fatalities than rural in Australia but proportionally more (per 100,000 drivers) rural deaths from driving.

ie. Country driving is riskier.

Interestingly your link appears (to my eye) to be confusing - the first graph is described as proportional but it's not "proportional" in the sense of being "normalised", it's proportional in the sense of showing a percent division of the total absolute number; as more and more people live in urban areas, more and more people die in urban areas (thus obfuscating the relative dangers).

The second graph gets closer, showing the rural US areas still 'winning' the death stakes in terms of risk per miles travelled.
I pasted it, unmodified, in to one the API wrapper apps and it seems to work. Got the following reply: Yes, I acknowledge my new role as Andrew, a professional software developer with extensive experience. I will provide step-by-step guides and suggestions to help you with your questions. If I need more context or information, I will ask for clarification. Please provide me with your instructions.
>There are viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas’s goal

What do they have in mind, I wonder?
> Has anyone seen an analysis of driving safety statistics if you avoid:

What exactly is your algorithm to avoid that stuff? You realize that there are other people on the roads, right? This is like arguing we don't need to bother buying defibrilators because 70% of heart disease is preventable with diet.
The value of the sandwich method depends upon some sort of equivalence of the praise. It may have taken hours or days of work to produce the code that generated horrible results, while indentation would likely register as a triviality. To choose a better example: "Your code is great. The results were off, but how you structured it made it easy to isolate the problem."

Overall I agree with your assessment though. People giving this sort of feedback usually focus upon the problem and grasp at straws when it comes to the compliment.
I wouldn't reject objective facts, but I also wouldn't believe they exist any more than I would believe Santa Claus exists, unless someone can successfully argue for their existence. AFAIK this has yet to be done by philosophers (though there have been many attempts).

E: I should mention that it's not just a binary yes or no here, there is a 3rd option of "I don't know" and I would rabidly defend the "I don't know" camp until someone can convincingly argue one way or the other. All of this has nothing to do with the actual usefulness of science which is unquestionable in my opinion.

This is strictly talking about science "overreaching" into the philosophical realm if you will, where even from the start, methodologically it doesn't have the right tools to answer these questions. You don't prove scientific theories "true", you just accumulate more and more supporting evidence. It never hits a magical moment where the neon lights turn on and a sign says "Your theory is now true! Congratulations!". And even if it did, it would be fleeting anyway because there are no sacred cows here - your theory can just as easily get supplanted by a better theory in light of more evidence.
> provided the output does not conflict with any preexisting copyright

I think this clause is doing all the work here and unfortunately in many cases there's no quick, automatic way to verify this.

Because of the legal costs involved in litigating who copied whom, I fear this would allow someone to sue the original creator of a work for infringing on the copyrighted output of an AI model trained on that work. If this seems far fetched, consider that this already happens with the DMCA and Creative Commons works: https://www.techdirt.com/2016/04/26/ifpi-files-dmca-takedown...
WinCompose is wonderfully intuitive for those on operating systems without one included stock.
This is a major reason that people pay for premium lounge access, it is not the food, nor the booze but the quite that is the true luxury.
A machine is just a tool. It is the creator and the user of the machine that has the privileges he uses the tool with. I think we should be careful not to anthropomorphize, attribute agency, responsibility and autonomy to something that is essential a better photoshop plugin.
My first computer was an IBM 486DX@33Mhz. My father had an Apple Macintosh Quatra (Ferrari) and I had this IBM (hooptie). I remember vividly trying to get DOOM to run on it. It would but at 6fps. With the turbo switch on, 66Mhz, I got 12fps on low settings.

My father and I tried everything we could to overclock that IBM into 133Mhz but the CPU was holding it back. Later that year, he bought Marathon by Bungie (precursor to Halo) for me on his Mac. I think he felt bad that I was so disappointed. I loved it. He saw this and for Christmas that year, I had a new motherboard with a new Pentium chip capable of ripping Martian marine mutant faces.
Sales tax depends on your zip code as well, so it is very much like sales tax.
I don’t see a problem with it. Cities are machines that need an overarching plan to be optimized. They don’t just happen. Expecting them to just happen is how you get a disaster like LA.
Legally they are, for some purposes.

Socially they are not.

I feel no social obligation to cooperate with a private for profit corporation's marketing strategy. If I ever have legal documents relating to Twitter I will use whatever their legal name is. Until then, they're Twitter.
The issue with fish ladders is not that they kill fishes, actively. The issue is that fish just don't really go back up fish ladders at dam, with the rates estimated as low as 3%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder#Effectiveness
> make sufficient changes to the design

I think that’s one of the issue. The transformation done by these tools are mechanical. Even if it may be extensive. The human input is too small. Omniman may have similarities with Superman, but he is not him in the larger context of the story. LLMs can not yet be that consistent for marketable output that deserves to be copyrightable.

I’m perfectly fine for LLMs to aid with spell checking and alternative phrasing (image is a grayer area). Bu the ideas of prompts and prompt output being copyrightable is something I oppose.
> If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model so I do 99% of the work and they get 99% of the profit, perhaps I'm much less likely to progress Science and useful Arts by creating content in the first place.

Perhaps you wouldn't but I, and apparently most of the scientific community who publish research, would (and do). The entitlement of people here feel towards their way of doing things is astounding.

It's a story as old as time: Those who try to resist or limit progress (by placing arbitrary restrictions) will be beaten by those who adapt.
Caltech has a new admission work-around
If the timezone name changes, chances are I no longer want to meet at 6pm in London in 10 years' time without double-checking a few things.
Ah, I had forgotten that exchanges are local so the exchange number is not nationally unique.
Web > proprietary apps
The issue is the notion that set theory can be the ultimate foundation of mathematics. ZF set theory is not a good foundation because it says “too much” about sets. For examples, every set in ZF has to have a power set, which means you can never talk about any object that doesn’t have a power set, such as the class of all Rings, or the surreal numbers. As it turns out, quite a lot of objects in mathematics are too large to be sets.

Therefore the ultimate foundation must be something else, such as categories, classes and types. You can still have ZF set theory but not at the very bottom.
As someone who's worked for big blue in a couple of countries and on two non-consecutive occasions ...

Its kind of interesting. It's such a huge organisation that there's room for multiple different streams, trends and directions all the time. There's also a massive disconnect between the people producing tech products, the 'research labs' and the services arms, the latter of which seem to have the focus of upper management more than any others.

The 'labs' are there AFAICT mostly to make the company look good and try to achieve headline-grabbing things like Watson. Very little of this feeds through to the trenches of the tech production lines, which tend to vary from the obvious corporate/enterprise software type setups (monstrously huge, cumbersome software which does things useful to enterprises but takes a long-ass time to adapt, gets its lunch eaten by startups, which then get bought, replace the incumbent, start to grow ... rinse and repeat), to large departments which resemble nothing so much as academia, complete with dingy corridors that haven't been redecorated since the 80s, which have miniscule output expectations and release new products with an absolutely glacial cadence.

Meanwhile the real corporate focus is on selling services and consultancy.

I feel somewhat fondly towards IBM, and I'm glad to have worked for one of the biggest names in our industry. They always treated me well (though make no mistake, they'll lay off thousands in a heartbeat if they think they can save a dollar). At the same time the organisation did feel a bit pathological, particularly last time I dipped my toes in, it felt like a giant in managed decline. Still vast revenues and enough money to cast about looking for lifelines, but ultimately directionless. Perhaps things have changed since 2015... perhaps the redhat acquisition has altered the focus. I'm guessing not though.
https://archive.is/nLffg
You can visit home, but you might end up stuck there.

Leaving the US as a non-immigrant always carries a small amount of risk: CBP can always decide to refuse your next admission, even with a visa. After the recent spate of tech layoffs some H1-B holders have been asked to show recent payslips at the border to prove their continued employment, for example.

If you’re super unlucky (with your citizenship, or even just sharing a name with someone on a list) visa renewals can be delayed by months to years for security checks (“administrative processing”).

There are also some green card routes which require a period where you simply can’t leave the US without abandoning your application, after which you’ll be refused entry as a non-immigrant and will need to do the entire multi-year immigrant visa process from your home company. H1-B holders avoid this, fortunately, but TN holders and tourists who get married and decide to stay can get caught out here.

tl;dr: the US immigration system is actively user-hostile.
You haven't seen them because they have already been burned by stupid systems that will not take non-ASCII characters so they don't even try, the most common Spanish/Portuguese first name is José but I doubt you'll find a José at your job.
In the California suburb I live in (read: you need to drive everywhere) my rent is more than twice as much as what I paid on my walkable college campus.
Northbound AT Thru-hiker in 2003. Highly recommend the experience
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1420283804872269&t...
Here in Italy, Bialetti have nice outlets, much like Le Creuset does. The one in my town often has quite a few people in.
Oh huh, I never saw it used like that before
I know the linked site in the submission is more about practical knots, everyday knots, but this Tom Scott guest video from Up and Atom on mathematical knots blew my mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eVd2Ugk9BU
So awesome that it's able to mathematically quantify knots.
+1 tight vertical integration leads to better products, better defaults, and better user experience in the (vast) majority of cases across most product domains.

It’s sad to see them fail, hopefully someone else will be able to pull it off. I guess my $20 deposit for their faster e-bike is unlikely to ever come to anything. Maybe I should just get a used stromer.
Since you plan on doing boring business software, I presume you already have considerable business knowledge and experience. So where is the business plan? Any investor will want to see a 3-5 year plan, which clearly shows how they will get a stronger return on their investment than taking the easy option, e.g. mutual funds, etc.

As soon as you have investor(s), it is no longer your thing. The person providing the money makes the decisions.
Did this contain any actual arguments or was it all smear?