skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think natural language to SQL may not be as great as it sounds in many real-world applications. You often have permissions, tenants, rules about who-can-see-what. I love the idea of letting users use natural language to query and possibly even bulk-update data. But if the app has rules like those, this would just be a SQL injection vulnerability. You could possibly limit it - just allow query over certain views or something - but the risk of the GPT crafting a dangerous query is still high.

What would be more useful IMO is natural language to OData, GraphQL, and OpenAPI/Swagger. Then you could let users do ad-hoc query but only against data they are allowed. I did a PoC using GPT3 to query OData and it was pretty fun, but did occasionally get the query wrong. I also ran into the context window issue. It would get lost when fed larger OData schema.
We haven't figured out a great solution yet, but bad actors and the cognitively challenged have been handed a megaphone in the Internet and social media algorithms have given them echo chambers. Speech informs action, so bad speech will hurt some number of people. It hurts flat-earthers to people drinking bleach
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...

I don't know how Twitter will reimplement content moderation, but I'd support something like what Google has whenever somebody mentions 9-11 or COVID, etc, there is a factual blurb there to attempt to moor readers to reality.
Climate change brings more extreme weather, not just warm but also more extreme cold weather. (And storms and floods and fires etc.)

(That's why I try to call it climate change instead.)
You could check out portfolio performance for an offline, open source portfolio tracker.
Mr Burns answers the phone "Ahoy-hoy" because Alexander Graham Bell proposed that as the greeting for answering.
He predicted the privatization of social networks 5 years ago.
Which isn't that brilliant, the trend can be casually observed.
Smol-scheduler: automate scheduling emails with GPT-4
I have to schedule a lot of meeting for work, and don't really like using Calendly since I want more control over what times they pick in order to maximize long blocks of free time.

smol-scheduler is a simple utility to draft scheduling emails:

- Set generic rules in the prompt

- Connect your Google Calendar

- Pass an additional prompt through the cli to give meeting-specific direction

- Get an email draft to send back to the person

I previously built smol-email-drafter to draft responses in Gmail and smol-podcaster for our podcast post-production (both on my GH). I've had a lot more success with this than trying to go down the autonomous agents path.
> I think you've fallen into the trap of "AIs don't generalize, they memorize."

Binary classifiers don't generalize?

Just because my output is not generative does not mean we are cannot learn / generalize elsewhere. Think of it as a 2-stage process.
In the rivers with minimal debris, with long enough stretches to place them all, with enough infra (read: cabling) to supply\gather electricity from them all to the one/two/three substation... All these while providing an efficient way to grind all the fishes.
Having been there when there was no other option, yes I pretty much consider some people prefer to be stuck in the past of green and amber phosphor terminals, like admiring the golden age of punch cards with diagonal red lines to avoid losing the deck order.
The Great Filter is really just an arbitrary speculation since we don't know most of the parameters in the Drake equation with any certainty.

It's also a fallacy to assume that a great filter, if it exists, must be a single discrete climactic test or have a single explanation. It could be that there exists on average a continuous low probability of an event or evolutionary path that rules out advanced intelligence in a given biosphere.

Let's say that the yearly probability of such a terminal event or path is about 0.00000002%. Over 500 million years this would amount to a 99% chance of failing the great filter.

If this is true it would mean that we're almost there, very likely to succeed, but also very likely pretty alone at least in our galaxy since there won't be that many advanced intelligences around.

The difference though is that unlike the discrete great filter hypothesis there is no single apocalyptic event to fear. It's a small probability spread over aeons.

This is just to show that we don't know the answer to the Fermi paradox at all. There's no testable or scientific answer at least. Only way to really know is to go out there and look around.
Giant worms go wandering in man’s innards, cause dangerous traffic jam
You are joking, but still: this was likely not the only group of humans in existance, just the one that became us.
Mochizuki is an extreme case, but the problem of "bullshitting" is omnipresent in academia, and particularly (pure) mathematics which is a) perceived as consequential and b) impossible for laypeople to verify.
On a level playing field without any regulation or subsidies, nuclear gets crushed.

> Isn’t that true of literally _every_ possible means of power generation though?

No, some peaking power plants get paid to sit around not generating power so they will be there for extreme events. They are paid not for power but for the possibility to generate power. This is viable because their operating costs when off are very low. Nobody can afford to employ 1000 people at a nuclear reactor so that someday the grid might want them to turn on for a few hours a year from now.

The operation vs standby costs of various types of energy generation vary wildly. It’s actually profitable for a natural gas turbine operator to install solar panels that only get used 1/2 the time simply to offset their natural gas fuel costs.

Actually, seeing solar panels installed at a fossil fuel power plant is however seriously trippy.
As a developer here is a scenario:

Start day on task A. Open Task, Open Subtask, Open git PR to check comments, Open Azure portal to check something, check Kibana Logs. Do a seperate second Kibana query.

Get asked about task B

Open Task, Open OneNote docs on that task, open a chatgpt session for that task

This is a mild example

Why not close tabs as they are used? Because if I need them again the load time of many sites is atrocious and then I also need to remember how I got there. I would need to save my kibana query or make a note of how I got to that Azure blade. Neither of these update the URL to capture the state (they are not HATEOAS) or I donn’t trust them to.
I and my friends 3 years ago switched to closed group on Signal. We switched from our makeshift mail group we used for 10 years (we all were just using "reply to all" to the infinity). Thanks god Signal has mute option. The emails always waited for me not knocking on the doors like Jehovah's witnesses!
Can someone not just make a wealth management spreadsheet in Excel? If anyone has a good one, can you share or sell to me?
May I ask why you'd want to know about zinc, C, B6, magnesium specifically?
>A bigger problem for me personally is the high cost of reducing developer productivity and increasing operational risk just for the sake of cyberponies trying to defend their job.

This is why programmers are not licensed engineers, and I have my doubts about being a serious engineering profession.

"Oh, the bridge fell down and killed 15 people, but it was worth it because I built a lot of bridges this week"
The success or failure (in terms of an individual's outcome) of what could also be called rational actor theory seems very context-dependent. Cynicism as described in this article, i.e. extreme selfishness, is an understandable response to societal breakdown of various kinds.

For example, people might resist paying taxes in the context of high levels of governmental corruption, as evidenced by a governmental failure to deal with widespread problems like poor roads, endemic homelessness, etc. In contrast, if the government used tax revenues wisely and efficiently to improve citizen's quality of life, rational actors would be happy to pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes, as the benefit to themselves would be greater (as even if they paid no taxes, they still wouldn't have the resources needed to address societal-scale problems).

Take Prisoner's Dilemma as another case. In a stable society, players develop reputations as cooperators or betrayers. Two people with long-standing reputations of cooperation would be much more likely to trust one another, while in an unstable society without any reputational basis, the opposite would be true (and damage to one's reputation wouldn't have any persistent negative effect). This can be treated as Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma (pdf):

https://www.u.arizona.edu/~mwalker/10_GameTheory/RepeatedPri...

Of course humans aren't rational logical actors, which is why advertising often works, and those who try the hardest to achieve that status don't seem to be very happy people.
Regrettably little known is that she's a superb oral dramatizer of her own gently ironic social satires:

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-authors-voice/zadie-sm...

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-authors-voice/zadie-sm...
I liked that page too, but did a double-take when they said that the skin of a pomegranate protects it from "predators".
> All the while, people will see a half-assed psychology study with a questionable procedure, weak at best, erroneous at worst statistics and therefore tenuous at best conclusions, and this study is taken to be "true"

...

> Yet when we're talking about extremely complicated topics that exist on the edge of the horizon of human intuition, no matter how obvious the impact some people just refuse to accept things as objective simply because they fail to intuitively understand them.

I think the intersection of these two groups is the null set.

> Foundational fields like mathematics and physics are as objective as we can get.

Objective? Yes. But objective does not equate to "true"[1]. One requires data, and the other lives only in the mind. It is not at all problematic to ponder over whether mathematics is "true" - most mathematicians have an opinion one way or another, and they are not unanimous in their opinions.

[1] True w.r.t reality, not true in the logic sense.
Hopefully someone will build a pyramid on the Moon and store all the tablets within it. This will fulfill all my science fiction hope and dreams for the human race.
There is a minimum in the fossil record at that time. There may be other explanations for it, but one very reasonable one is that there just weren't very many skeletons to potentially fossilize.
I'll add to my excellent sibling comment that you just composed a rebuttal that ignored the substance of my comment. You say "we should be able to agree to ban them like they do in civilized countries". But the point of my comment is they don't ban those abortions. To support your argument, you composed another deceptive comparison, between Denmark and Canada. Both allow the abortions we're discussing. But several US states do not.
https://archive.ph/y1WaD
A usefulness out of historical accidents and sunken cost.
Jeez bro. This is a pretty intense reaction to a lukewarm and reasonable take. Personally I appreciate an "AI influencer" being down to earth and being willing to say that the technology isn't magic, amidst a huge amount of hype. If you think people are parroting swyx uncritically - that's hardly a criticism of swyx, is it?

I think you should keep reflecting on your realization about how people got swept up in the cryptoasset hype. You can believe this technology is promising and will improve dramatically without being a fanatic. You can disagree without going for the jugular.
These tools are already fantastic at our 80% average case, even without fine tuning. We are seeing some value, but the real pain is in that other 20%.
To understand why the poster is asserting irrelevant materials. Is it their confusion or are they being purposefully obtuse. May I ask why you asked me?
LinkedIn is a perfect social media. Does exactly what it says on the box. You post a profile, and recruiters will hit your inbox. You can post if you want, and the feed is full of sometimes cringe posts, but it's not super algorithmic, they don't really care if you're spending a lot of time on the site. I've spend this last year curating my feed, muting annoying connections, following people that post genuinely interesting content. I probably check it twice a week, check in with people, then I get bored and log off.
Ask HN: Did you leave Reddit or did it creep back in?
So what? The person who is accused of owning the emerald mine says they owned the emerald mine. That's at least some evidence that its true.
OK, Thanks. I forgot that the subject was the US constitution.
The Hunt for the Giant Squid (2004)
Violence is the use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.

Writing and speech does none of those things. It may inspire people to take those actions, but that does not make it violence in and of itself.

We can discuss the morality of speech and writing that stimulates others to violent action without the coercive construction of attempting to convince people they are the same thing.
Right, I believe this is the more normal framing. I think Hubert Dreyfus spent his life constantly retelling the story of the 50s and 60s with a pessimistic narrative, and that is what made it stick, to the extent that it has. But it is a bizarre framing that, even if it once looked like a guiding light on how to set AI expectations, I think talking about the 50s and 60s over and over is not a helpful way of engaging with what has unfolded over the past 2-3 years.
crappiest commercial truck that leapt to mind.
While it is a cool piece of software, it doesn't really work like Mastodon or SoundCloud.

That said, you can post audio clips on Mastodon quite easily.
> One is a constructive criticism, one is not.

The other one is accusatory in tone and puts the user in a defensive position. Even a simple tweak to say "did you consider this approach" is better than a direct "why did you do it this way/not that way"? So I argue the original form leans a bit away from constructive.

> I'm defending a more direct style that communicates the same message, not a difference message all together.

and unfortunately, that direct style has histories of being used to put down. Hence my allegory. Good intentions, but if you can't consider how that language was used by others in less savory ways, you will simply end up the same when you dismiss someone's personal concerns: Tonedeaf.

>If you're consistently authoring inadequate contributions

And here's the assumption that once again comes out of nowhere. Why are we assuming that the hostile employee is right and everyone else is dumb? There are very few cases where these kinds of workers are truly in the right, and those that do tend to have enough emotional intelligence to go on a tirade against every co-worker, as opposed to talking to a manager or director.

Complain up the ladder, not in your immediate radius. I'm assuming we're all competent professionals, so there's almost no reason to ever lash out at a co-worker over their code quality.

>some people understand that they're fulfilling a professional function in exchange for compensation and don't see that their feelings have anything to do with it.

Then they shouldn't care about their co-worker's code quality unless they are constantly asked to fix it. Which is a managerial problem, not a co-worker problem. Same matter applies.
People are cheapskates when it comes to OSS. OP put in thousands of commits and only has 18 supporters. They are not exactly a software baron are they?

On the other hand you have some onlyfans girls flashing their ass for 10 seconds getting thousands or even millions.
> In a lifetime? Potentially enough yes to not opt for such.

Maybe? I'm an older guy and know a lot of people my age with tattoos. Very few of them regret their art, even when their art isn't as meaningful as it once was. It still serves as a totem of a certain time in their life.

But it's also true that lots of people regret tattoos. I do think that people younger than 30 or so should avoid them.

A friend of mine is a tattoo artist, and he has a lot of advice for how to avoid regretting one later, because his specialty is doing cover-up tattoos for people who later regret one they got. The most common reason for regretting a tattoo is that the tattoo they got was done or was placed very poorly and didn't get any better with age.

> Alice thinks Bob is the one, and Alice gets a Bob tattoo

This is touches on a piece of advice he has: never get a name tattooed on you. Not your lover, not your spouse, not your parents, not even your children (he has a couple of stories where children have died young and the tattoo their parent had became a constant reminder of grief).

He considered this so important that he would personally refuse to do such tattoos at all.

So it all depends. People who take seriously the fact that tattoos are forever tend to be fine with the ones they do get, even over a lifetime.
I was a kid when Seinfeld aired originally and didn't find it that weird. My grandmother would often give her phone number to older people as SHerman-2xxxx. She stopped doing that after Chicago and the suburbs split 312 and the suburbs became 708 in ~1990. I can see it still being common among older people in the 90s in Manhattan until more area codes were added towards the end of the decade (there was also some restriction of the 212 area that factored into a Seinfeld episode too).

It's worth noting that during the run of Seinfeld the number of telephone numbers was growing rapidly. Until dial-up internet took off it was pretty uncommon for a house to have 2 numbers - usually just well off people or those who ran businesses out of their homes. Then dial-up internet happened and phone rates were also getting cheaper, so a lot of families opted for a second line in their home to not tie up the primary phone for hours on end. At the same time beepers, then cell phones went from something for doctors (and other important people) and drug dealers to "pretty common", adding to the growth rate of assigned telephone numbers.

Put another way - during the run of Seinfeld my grandmother lived in the same house and had the same 7digit phone number that she had since the 1940s, but got 2 new area codes (708 split into 847, 630 and 708 in ~1995), and 10 digit dialing was required not long after. All the rapid (compared to decades of sameness prior) change is what finally broke the old habits, more than silly things like touch tone dialing or direct dial long distance.
This limits your meetings to surface of earth, what if I want to meet with you on Mars?
Would an example be to celebrate someone who is doing something I think is great, and overlook celebrating others whose work is less my crusade?

Or is the point to avoid critiquing coworkers TO management, bypassing seeking feedback of the person first?
The thing that AI has already made possible is a total police state. Communication analysis can now feasibly be carried out on all text/spoken dialogue transmitted within a given domain, whereas in the past it was limited by the number of human agents available for this work.
> Have you heard the sound balance on movies these days?

Yeah, it's not always great, but it's usually enough to drown out the sound of the disc rotation. About the only time I hear the player is on DVDs with rough layer transitions, the video and audio pause a bit and you can often hear the pickup seeking or refocusing, especially if it's a parallel track path disc so the next layer begins at the other end of the disc from where the current layer ends.
I dispute the notion that there is no "correct" size of ruling government for a given issue.

There are some issues, like mail fraud, that are not adequately dealt with on a local level because victims and perpetrators may be in different jurisdictions and the jurisdiction of the perpetrator may have no interest in addressing harms to someone outside their constituency.

Then there are issues where the costs and benefits of a given policy are felt predominantly by the local population and have to be tailored to local conditions, for which local policy is a better fit.

(It's also not a law of nature that larger governments overrule smaller ones. You could have a constitution that says that in certain domains the national government can pass defaults that apply unless the local government passes a specific law that says something different. Or that allows the national government to regulate interstate commerce but only actual interstate commerce and explicitly not intra-state commerce.)

The question of where to address a given issue is a matter for debate, but that isn't to say there can be no reasoned justification for doing it in one way or another. And so what I'm asking is, what is the argument for setting this kind of economic policy at the national level, when the optimal policy depends on local conditions and predominantly affects local people?
That helps, but it reads like the manifest is optional.
I call them startups because you never know how it turns out
> Initially, Newton and Leibniz came up with objects called infinitesimals. It made their equations work, but by today’s standards it wasn’t sensible or rigorous.

It would be great if mathematics was widely presented and taught in this messy, practical, human, truthful way rather than the purist, mystical, mythical manner.

Calculus wasn't "discovered", it was painstakingly developed by some blokes that were trying to solve physical problems.
Change in Guidance on Committing Lockfiles
> Dried arterial blood red

... Horrifying

I got 3/20, because I've never used AWS professionally.
By that time we had mastered fire by probably a million years already.
Man am I glad I asked. This really helped to turn my day, and maybe my life, around. Thank you!
> "How does this approach handle {problem}?" is very socratic. You're asking a question meant to make them reconsider their idea in a very round about way. I think that actually comes off as assuming you're right in this conversation. I would imagine the person asking me that is being a snobby asshole showing off how intelligent they are.

Alternatively, the questioner might not have your context on the situation and they might sincerely want to know if you've considered the problem they're asking about.

"Not sure, but I'll look into that" is an acceptable answer most of the time.
Free neutrons do, but bound ones do not afaik, and electrons and protons do decay but we do not know how long it takes, but there is some lower bound. And yes, you're correct, I should not have used the term 'half life' because that implies a different kind of event. Lifetime would have been a better term to use.
> to dress like a teenager even as one nears retirement

For some of us this is a KPI of our life/job satisfaction.

I can tell you that if I was in some job that did not allow me to schlep around in hoodies and cargo pants I would be much, much less happy than I am today.
Been using JS for 6+ years and never felt the need to upgrade, so I tried to keep the boilerplate minimal
Funnily enough the Example Page 1 is wrong. Rendering du^n as du^*, and then nu^n-1 as nw^*-1.

It is impressive but...it really feels like those are the details that really really matter.
This. I went into the CS program cold, no prior programming experience at all. After CS3 and CS61A/B/C my relationship with my brain changed entirely. My approach to deconstructing and then solving problems, of any kind, radically improved.