skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's all true. I think this is where my love for the local bike mechanic comes into play: each small town here has a couple of them, and the density is such that no company serving only a single brand could set up that kind of network. And it's also why I will never buy a bike online: these people are essential and to buy a bike with them ensures they stay in business. Every now and then when they are short on time and I have something I need fixed right away I'll be happy to do it myself assuming I have the tools. But for some bikes (for instance: a tandem that we have that has a lot of rare stuff on it) I'd rather have the bike shop work on it than that I'm going to end up risking wrecking something. Older bikes are easier in that sense, far less hard to source stuff.

I think Van Moof could have made it if they had been far more strict on QA and designing for reliability from day #1, bikes are as you correctly noted operating in a hostile environment and you need to design for that. Bike electronics are hard (super easy to mess that one up), batteries are hard, software is hard. If you then add a bunch of custom stuff you've set yourself up for failure. I did not do DD on any of the Van Moof rounds but when evaluating what bike to buy I looked at their bikes and decided that I did not like what I saw and went for a Riese & Mueller instead, which has served me extremely well (12000 km and counting, not a single failure in the field other than a broken spoke which was easily remedied, and likely the result of bumping the bike with another one in the garage here). Van Moof had their shot, they failed and I doubt the buyers are going to make this work without a total departure from both the business model and that bike design. They should make a deal with Bafang, Shimano or Bosch or some other experienced manufacturer to make their custom parts for them in return for some margin, the bikes are plenty expensive to leave enough room for that and they can pay for that from the reduced warranty reserve. As an added bonus they get certification thrown in as long as they don't change the wheel diameter. Then they can focus on the software (which had plenty of problems).
When we bought our place we put a rooftop mounted antenna, and Distribution Amp (essentially a zero loss splitter), and then pulled RG-6 Quad Shield to each room.
Infrastructure for examining and patching ThinkPad embedded controller firmware
> ISO/FDIS 8601 (section: 5.5.4.2 Representation of time-interval by duration only, pg. 21)

Alternatively, simply refer to the ABNF definition of “duration” in RFC 3339, Appendix A.
it’s not fair to compare early web platform death to todays web. the user bases are much higher. the content between them is more consistent and less exclusive.

maybe back 15 years ago you could have a single social platform dominate but today that’s far less likely. now there’s a bunch of platforms that all more or less share the same content and creators cross post to as many as possible

reddits death is greatly exaggerated
> Another critical point is that users who jumped ship are probably disproportionately power users and content creators

That’s definitely been my experience with Twitter. It’s weird because the overall number of users and therefore general level of chatter doesn’t feel any different. It’s just… worse. Algorithmically prioritising people that have a paid subscription has definitely made it even worse than it would have already been.
The penalty is that your life will be turned over, you will give all your money to lawyers, and then you will spend a lot of time in jail.
Going over some of the initial announcement videos, seems like a lot of nice additions and improvements. If price remains similar to current Model 3 then this is a really compelling vehicle. Hard to see any competitor EV with the same level of features, range, and a least a bit more refinement.
> (which is why there is a BA but not BE, BO, or BU: it would be hard to distinguish BAldwin from BEldwing, BOldwin or BUldwin).

But there is a BU, as immortalized in the Oscar-winning Elizabeth Taylor film "Butterfield 8"
By all accounts the apparatus is already quite capable of (and practiced at) quickly locating and dispatching officers to the locations from which fools are shining laser pointers at aircraft, so I can't imagine the first part of your statement is a good idea.
> It may or may not be local time in London, but it's unambiguous.

True, but unfortunately humans only care about local time. Setting a meeting for "6PM London time" is how pretty much the entire world operates. If your app can't deal with that, your app is doing it wrong. The world doesn't care that it isn't "well-defined", as developers we just have to deal with it.

> Thus proving that what you want does not exist and cannot exist.

But it does exist, and many calendar apps operate exactly like that. It just requires them to update their timezone database every few months - which in many cases already happens automatically as part of OS updates.

"2030-07-01T18:00:00+01:00" conveys no more information than "2030-07-01T17:00:00Z". The UTC offset is meaningless because it is impossible to get a timezone from it, so it cannot be fixed in the future. It essentially screams "we tried to do local time and failed".
If you want to use grep in Nushell, you can use grep and pipe the output to `lines` to split the raw output by line.
Spam isn't necessarily cyberly-criminal.
I believe my semi-rant does provide valuable grounds for discussion, as I discuss the state of news subscriptions and offer ideas regarding micro-transactions for paywalled content on the Internet.

Since more people than not will be blocked by the paywall, it's a relevant discussion to this thread.
> If they really knew what was best for everyone it would be obvious and people would vote for them.

I'm not sure most-- or even any-- people really know what's best for everyone. It gets even more complex when it turns into what's best for one group versus another, or what's best for today comes at a cost to be paid in 5-10-20 years.

It's easy to catapult yourself into office by promising people ice cream instead of broccoli. The leader you want has to be persuasive enough to convince voters they want broccoli. An autocrat can just mandate broccoli.
Strangely everyone here is suggesting overt attacks on the drone. That will get you put in prison. Rules for thee but not for me is how the police operate. The drone will have an FAA number and it'll become a felony for "shooting down an aircraft".

On second thought: Perhaps I should edit this post. LOL.
When/if I leave tech, I intend to become a union electrician.

Pay and benefits are reasonable. They seem to be in high demand in my area (Pacific NW) and the work is physical without being so grueling that it destroys one's body.
We as a society have a relatively healthy setup for people to create art and content. Sure there are problems, but on the whole it mostly works. What AI will do is destroy that by removing the profitability of creating that content.

Although generative AI operates on a similar principle to a human being exposed to a large number of artworks, it does so at a speed blindingly faster, enabling it to outcompete humans at many tasks. The number of such tasks will only increase in the future.

Thus, small-time content creators who make an independent living from content creation will be squeezed out and left in the dark. In some years, it will be very hard to make money from content creation at all.

The access to information and entertainment will also become more anonymous, will most people consuming things through AI generation. Of course, that will be convenient at first, but we will end up with a world where a significantly SMALLER fraction of people controlling AI supply us with everything. (Including manipulative advertising to consume more of their product.)

For every benefit that AI gives us, there are 10 losses.

I used to dislike draconian copyright laws, but now I like them. And I sincerely hope they are used against AI to make AI unprofitable. I believe further that AI will be society-disrupting in a variety of other ways and thus, as a society, we should destroy it. But I am pessimistic.
Did our ancestors nearly die out?
It does, kind of.

It's not really officially advertised but it is first party, this guide [0] shows how to find it but it's just https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=CHANNELI... and the guide just explains how to find CHANNELID since it isn't explicitly shared (which amounts to going a channel page, viewing page source, and searching for "browse_id" which will be a key in a JSON string where the value is the channel ID).

[0]: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/08/01/how-to-subscribe-to-youtub...
An entire forest of hallucinated trees, sounds tranquil yet disturbing.
The arrogance of the NYC and New York State governments regarding the entire Bill of Rights apparently knows no bounds. This is a stereotypical example of a government which believes its citizens aren't constituents whom they serve, but stupid proles who have to be kept down by their alleged "betters."
I think the deciding factor is going to be how we define "observable to the public" now that flying cameras on are the table.

My sad guess is that the general rule will change to accept things that can see your property from public airspace as "observable to the public", and that eventually building design and landscaping will change to give you private spaces outdoors if you have money and desire.
They don’t need to prove anything. They will know it’s the local hawk guy. That person will then sped all his or her money on lawyers, and then spend a long time in jail.
How do you actually come up with good icons for these things?

I can imagine a few for things like sns, sqs, and lambda, but what's the right icon for kinesis?
This is the SDK and some parts of the engine that make the SDK easier to use and grok. It is not the engine.

You cannot compile that and get a fully working engine.

It's a bit like claiming the Win32 API is the Windows NT kernel.
Sweet, I can run it on my new book 8088 laptop

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005534146618.html
YIMBYs are useful idiots of the development lobby
> You believe something is done wrong so you open it up with an accusation

Nowhere is this belief stated in the text. It's simply not what the words mean. It is being fabricated entirely in your mind. The only appropriate thing to infer from a question is that the asker wants to know the answer.

> I've been asked "why" so many times in an accusatory tone IRL that it's always going to put me on the defensive.

The onus is on you to cope with that. Don't transfer this burden to everyone you communicate with. It's unprofessional.

> If there's one thing I'm not going to rely on an AI for, it's for human tone.

Sentiment analysis is actually something LLMs excel at.
Do the artists pay other artists they "trained" on consciously and subconsciously?
The training model for Stable Diffusion has a lot of copyrighted images mixed together into an output which makes the plagiarism non-obvious, but let's reduce the set by 1 image. Shouldn't affect the output too much, right? Maybe some prompt will have a slightly different image.

Now let's reduce it by another image. Again, less options for what to display, fewer images to take pixels from, but still a lot of options, output may sound copyrightable.

Now lets do that N-1 times. What output will we get when the model was trained on a single image, let's say an image that is labeled 'dog'. If your prompt is "an image of a dog" you will get that image, the only image in the training set. When going from latent space to image space, taking pixels from that image in the output, despite it being done in convoluted ways, is that not an obvious copyright infringement? I think it is. There's a cloud of mumbo jumbo about latent space, but after the dust settles and it needs to generate pixels in the output image, Stable Diffusion has a step that is essentially copying pixels from the source image into the output. When there's only 1 image, it will reproduce large portions of that image, necessarily infringing on copyright.

So then adding back images one by one into the training set, each one being used as source for the pixels being copied, what makes that model OK? Just because the output is 50% image A and 50% image B, or 0.1% image A and 0.1% image B and 99.8% image C, doesn't suddenly make it OK.

Once there are millions of images, you end up with just tiny blobs of pixels being copied from many different images. That's still infringes on the copyright of all those images, because it's essentially a map-reduce process that maps pixels from copyrighted images and reduces them into a single image.
lets go fly a kite,,,with a good bit of monofilament in the tail so its sturdy.
So then yes, it is about the human input into the process. Thats what I just said.

Having large amounts of human input is the thing that matters for this stuff, which is the case for many forms of AI art.

In the same way how photoshop uses a computer, and the computer creates the art, the resulting computer generate art can still have copyright protections. (because of the large amount of human input, even though yes it used a computer)
True.

I made (and corrected) three further typos writing my correction.

But the point remains that what I'd originally intended to show was that local-part email addresses which read differently, and in cases quite differently, but are identical save for the location of the dot, are treated identically by Gmail.

And that in different contexts this might not be clear and/or lead to confusion.
IANAL, but it might. As the article mentions, it almost certainly violates NYC laws as well[1].

The NYPD has not historically shown an institutional interest in laws enforced on them, rather than by them.

[1]: https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-nypd/policy/post-a...
For me at least, it seems fairly unintuitive and primitive vs Slack or even various open source options (Mattermost, Zulip). It feels like a product where Microsoft just did the bare minimum to claim they have a competitor in this area.
Hypothetically, of course.
Is intelligence really a factor here?

Say I use the same training set as one of these LLMs, copyright protected text and all, and use it to derive a compression algorithm that uses very little space to store tokens and token sequences that are common in that huge collection of text. The resulting compression scheme includes some sort of statistical artifact derived from that copyrighted text. Is that allowed? And if so why is an LLM different?
Who teaches the AI? I think that will become a mostly unnoticeable but persistent and growing problem in the coming decades.

We currently have a huge amount of pre-AI knowledge to train them on, but in the future that could slowly get replaced by AI output with all its inaccuracies, which then gets used to train future AIs, and transitively the people they'll have taught, etc.
What do you mean, missing? Both durations and periods are defined in RFC 3339.
Excerpt from her book Heartland. I think people should think about the following quote:

“ There was no language for whatever I represented on campus. Scholarships and student organizations existed to boost kids from disadvantaged groups such as racial minorities, international students and the LGBTQ community. I was none of those things, and professors and other students often assumed from looking at me or hearing me speak that I was a middle-class kid with parents sending me money.”

To add to that: I was an international grad student at Purdue in mid 90s, and didn’t see any boosting. In fact the grad assistant pay was so little that in the first year I either skipped breakfast and lunch or just ate a Snickers bar from a vending machine, for a quarter, because that was the cheapest thing to eat. Once a week I splurged on the Big Mac menu, I still remember the price: $3.14, I think they had a special discount on those days. We were forbidden to work since the assistantship covered the whole 50% work allowance given to H1-B holders.

Good old times.
They were. It was a fun usenet meme I used to see, much like Trumps earlier runs for president, at some point you noticed that a lot of people didn't laugh.
Legal or not I personally know a number of individuals who would down these without any hesitation. It is on their property and is not a human being: fair game as far as they are concerned.
There is an almost infinite amount of things to reasonably blame the NYC and NYS governments for, but this doesn't look like one of them (other than in the basic sense of enabling this behavior through budgeting): it's the act of a largely unaccountable police force, rather than a legislative order or rule.
> In other words: you know what beats one elite with an AI? Ten thousand well educated people each with their own AI.

So, now we'll be constantly fighting each other with endlessly evolving AIs. The world is already a cuthroat place with fierce competition.

Think of this analogy: imagine a karate match with people fighting each other. Sure, some people will get hurt but it's mostly controlled. Now imagine a world of people fighting each other by flying airplanes into each other...everyone dies.

We are unprepared for a new world where thousands of people fight for their slice of the pie with advanced AI, and it will either result in insanity or else a hugely more efficient use of resources (the FIRST thing people will do is find out how to use advanced AI to get a bigger slice of the pie) so that the natural biosphere will be even more efficiently destroyed.
Hello, thank you very much for your meticulous comment. The 85.3% accuracy reported in our paper (I'm one of the authors of the DIN-SQL paper) pertains to the test set. However, in the blog post, we are reporting the performance on the development set, which stands at 74.2%.
In case, like me, you wondered what an "Interceptor window" was:

"NeXT also have an internal kit called Interceptor Kit, which allows a privileged application to punch a hole through the Postscript windowserver directly to the display card."

https://www.paullynch.org/NeXTSTEP/NeXTSTEP.TechReview.html
Since it'll be real people driving the efforts; the final results should normalize out about the same, statistically speaking.

This all gets boiled down to like 3 or 4 rows in a spreadsheet, anyway.
>while open AI became closed AI

OpenAI was never Open though. Remember pre GPT-3 they had this whole "Omg we made something but its so dangerous we're never going to make it public" bs?

https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/17/openai-text-generator-dang...

>OpenAI built a text generator so good, it’s considered too dangerous to release
No, we explicitly placed the photons to be traveling in different directions so that they could meet. If they meet, and they meet with sufficient energy, they can create particle anti-particle pairs.

You can read more about this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics.
5) never come clean to feds
If the court is convinced that prompt engineering is "original and creative".[1]

Maybe it is. Or maybe it's more like tweaking the random seed.

[1]: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-..., see "The Originality Requirement" and "Creativity".
Looks like Musk might be cutting the data brokers out entirely. Normally social media companies and ad networks have to share their data with data brokers who then use this information to track you across the Internet and assign a (likely or certain) name, face, SSN, credit card number, IP address history, medical-related search engine history, grocery store club saver purchase history, news article view history, Amazon and eBay histories, Netflix and Youtube streaming view history, and so on to the data, which the data brokers then sell on and share back to the companies they got it from, thus protecting them when they say they only collect anonymous data.

Must might just decide to keep all the data and stop giving the users the placebo-lie treatment and saying they don't collect personally identifiable data. His data becomes more valuable and the users actually benefit from fewer entities having access to this data too. Apple has promoted this exact model to their users as privacy-enhancing, in fact.
Given how prevalent remote editing workflows have become (VScode remote, I'm sure there are others), I 100% agree with this advice. If you're working on some projects on a remote VM, just store your project files there. It's of course critical to have a backup workflow. I have a bunch of development VMs on a baremetal hetzner proxmox instance, which is completely provisioned using Ansible.

Many years ago, I experimented with all sorts of syncing mechanism from my windows desktop to a remote linux VM and the sync lag was just unbearable. I'm much happier when the files live on the development VM.

I kind of went overboard and tried to plan for a disaster recovery plan for those development VMs, even though there's not really a very strict SLA required. I can provision those VMs using ansible, but any work in progress which wasn't pushed to github is at risk. To address that, I've got hourly rsync jobs of my home directory replicating to a rsync.net account in Zurich (why Zurich ? gives me the lowest latency from the hetzner server in Germany). I then asked rsync.net to enable 48 hourly snapshots on that account (with additional weekly, monthly). It has become essentially impossible to accidentally lose data and I feel very confident working for days on a git feature branch just committing locally, or perhaps not even committing, given i've got those hourly snaphots. My bare metal server could vaporize and i'd be back up and running in hours. Even if the hetzner datacenter was hit by a nuclear weapon, I would instantiate a VM on any cloud provider, provision it with ansible and be back up and working within hours.

I've spent WAY too much time working on my little disaster recovery scenario but it's been insanely fun.
It's safer here.
It's not really a fair comparison because much of the budget is the cost of labor, but the NYPD's budget is roughly equal to the budget of Ukraine's military (pre-February 2022).
Hi! I live in NYC too. Please don’t fire a gun into the air! As much as I dislike NYPD surveillance, it’s better than being killed by a falling bullet!
It's not just about "admitting they don't know." It's about giving up the control that they've used to define their entire professional lives as "managers." Thank you Frederick Winslow Taylor for your outdated ideas.
Well, yes, but only assuming that YouTube does not change anything. If they do, then your uBlock rules won’t work, but RYS will presumably be updated to still work.
> I feel like you are asserting that plugging numbers into spreadsheets as an accountant or doing string transformations "at scale" to convert DB queries into HTML and JSON is both: 1) A fulfilling life 2) The only thing humans could possibly be doing of value right now; if you take this away there is nothing left

No, that is bad too. I am rather asserting that we already have enough technology to work LESS, live more SIMPLY, and use our time to develop a sustainable way of living minimally without spending time endlessly seeking economic growth and industrial progress.
> Nushell is building an entirely separate monolithic ecosystem, which goes against the open ideology of Unix

I wouldn't entirely agree with that (but I am biased, I work on Nu). One of the nice things about Nu is that it's trivial to bring in data from elsewhere; if other tools speak JSON, XML, TOML, CSV, etc. it's easy to bring that into a Nu pipeline.
>And I sincerely hope they are used against AI to make AI unprofitable.

No, they'll make AI unprofitable for small time creators but not massive corporations. The latter either already have rights to vast quantitates of training data or will hire a thousands in Africa to create training data that is just legally different enough to count.
That name again is...sorry.