skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A lot of companies do this and lie to themselves and their users by pretending ads for their own stuff aren't ads. Spotify is one of the worst offenders with popups for whatever crap they are pushing, I'm not surprised to see this. Given it's microsoft I'm surprised there isn't some MSN taboola style toolbar at the top by now. Anyway, one more reason to switch away from them. (The first is the product they are advertising is trained on your private repos)
> is going to put a lot of the enterprises at ease and embrace ChatGPT in their business processes.

Except many companies deal with data of other companies, and these companies do not allow the sharing of data.
The normal method is to generate a collection of a 10k NFTs and sell back and forth between your own accounts for $100 each.

The hope is that some sucker will buy them for $10, thinking that it's a bargain.
Sure! Here's an implementation of nand and a 2-bit adder that uses it: https://github.com/jewel/nand
Are there already some profitable businesses using chatgpt i am wondering. To me the tech is really impressive. But what kind of really big commercial product exists at this point? I only know of assistants like copilot or some word assistant. But what else? Isnt this just a temporary bubble?
Care to offer some evidence of that? I haven't heard that and I am in the vertical. I agree that Impact Theory was selling securities, and I think it's pretty clear. But bored apes a security? I don't think many share that opinion. How is it any different than art or pokemon cards? People buy both all the time with the expectation they go up in price.
Why not just allocating the blobs off-heap? (That is something you probably want to do anyway if it's cryptographic material, to avoid being at the mercy of the GC leaving copies around)

ByteBuffer.allocateDirect should do that IIRC. This allows you to use the standard ConcurrentHashMap while being able to get a stable pointer for use by the rust logic.
I am sorry, i will start writing on my clay tablet right away.
> Like, do you want a 0.01% chance to raise money or a 2% chance to build a business that keeps you and a few others well paid and perhaps out of the rat-race.

Or, you do a raise; it keeps you out of the rat race for a couple years; and you move on when it implodes.

The problem VCs are having right now is that people have figured them out. If I have a business which can throw off cash, I don't need VCs unless I have a competitor I need to outrun. If I don't have a business which will get to cash, it's fine to take VC money to leave them holding the bag if I never find a "real" market.
> When I purchase a baseball card, I do not have the expectation that there is any additional value attached to the baseball card beyond what the collector's market will pay.

What about music royalties rights? Those are almost always purchased with expectation of profit. Those are even explicitly marketed on the basis of how big an artist is going to be. Yet the SEC does not consider them securities

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490161/000104746910....
The NFTs did purport to give ownership rights in the business profits of the NFT, as represented by the value of the NFT increasing specifically because of the labor of others acting to increase the value of the NFT.

And that is part of what makes them completely different from baseball cards. Even if the value of the cards are dependent on the labors of others, with the baseball cards, the laborers (i.e., players) are not performing that labor with the intent of increasing the value of the cards; the value of the increase in the cards, if any, is wholly coincidental.
It's not just you; engines like Inform also struggle to maintain coherence.

Things go in a CONTAINER. Things go on a SURFACE.

Then there's FURNITURE, which does both but not really. People sit on a bench, but they sit at a table. Only Things sit on a table. People sleep in a bed, but all Things sit on a bed.
> They want to completely own the market for skins and other virtual assets. Why would they ever share their revenue with you guys?

Or, even worse: why would a game publisher share some of the revenue for in-game purchases with customers who have lost interest in the game and are selling off their items?
False canopies on fighters work, one almost killed me
You can get ones with certain dB reductions instead. Those will allow you to still hear but at a lesser level.

This is great for reducing wind noise while riding, but still being able to use in-helmet comms and hearing things like sirens/honking horns.
This is one of the main advantages owner operators have over PE funded or publicly traded businesses.
Speak for yourself, brother
I wonder why the cascaded triple for loop for GEMM is not just hardcoded in assembly for each architecture. And while we are at it, why is MKL > 5GB again?
> SF is pretty much always about the current day.

I can't comprehend this. Scifi is famously occupied with the future, and not the current day. Space travel, advanced technologies, artificial intelligences, and generally things that don't yet exist are par for the course. Most of SF is literally not about the present.

Do you mean to say that SF's subtext reflects the zeitgeist at the time/place of its writing?
HFT is not rent seeking, it is providing a valuable service (liquidity provision)

Skkkkkritttttt

'Liquidity provision' is just 'fast cash for your distressed equities'. Yes, if prices are trending in an unfavorable direction investors/speculators would suffer a greater loss in a market without HFT as orders took minutes rather than seconds to clear. But you are indirectly collecting economic rents by trading so fast that retail investors can't connect with each other, they always end up connecting with the HFT. So in that sense you are collecting rent on the expensive high speed trading infrastructure by getting to the front of every queue. A brilliant/knowledgeable retail trader is unable to monetize their comparative advantage because they can't compete with the HFT operator on execution speeds.

The whole thing is built on FOMO, and creates the illusion of value by endlessly accelerating transaction speeds. This is like arguing that people who drive way above the speed limit are creating value by arriving at their destination sooner (leaving more road space available) and encouraging others to drive fast (making the road transport system more efficient). Accidents that occur int he vicinity of speeding drivers' trajectory can be blamed on inferior driving standards.

regulatory interventions aimed at reducing HFT [...] increase volatility and spreads and raise effective trading costs for retail traders

Good. Volatility is opportunity for the smart and risk-tolerant, and trading costs are a good proxy for risk. This is how financial markets are supposed to work, offering the opportunity of a good payday for clever traders and discouraging the mediocre with excessively low or high risk tolerance before they can drag or blow up too much. Trading is meant to be a human activity that serves human needs. The more it is automated and accelerated, the more it tends toward monopolistic concentration of capital in corporate entities and increases overall fragility of the system.
You could also check out hazard pointers. This is basically the example used in https://melodiessim.netlify.app/intro-hazard-ptrs/
To use similar ridiculous tropes but in reverse:

The Minneapolis PD officers might kneel on your neck, keep bystanders from rendering aid, and murder you. It’s possible they might even execute you, acting as judge, jury, and executioner in the blink of an eye.

That said, the likelihood someone working downtown might run into a police officer on any given day is much higher than running into someone rioting because their ethnic community is routinely targeted and sometimes executed because officers feel threatened for their lives primarily by those with non-white skin.

Maybe that’s the reason people are afraid to work downtown?
Not in any successful way, because the entire profit margin is being eaten by delivery companies like Uber Eats. There is no financial future in restaurants, worker-owned or not.
In CA, giardia is a big concern.
This is a concept that dumbfounds people today (at least many on this startup incubator forum) but that Adam Smith explained over two-hundred years ago. Yes, workers and owners end up forming two distinct groups with two distinct class interests.
Often the problem is that the guy who has made something his career posts incorrect things more often than the guy who hasn't. Some of the reasons for these are:

- self-interest

- intentionally since it protects their interests

- accidental since they've spent so much time they need it to be meaningful

- accidental since they want to please their fellow experts

- intentionally since they want to go with the herd

- selection bias towards being someone who cares about this very much goes with lack of aptitude

- historical bias

- most people are better equipped than experts to spot paradigm shifts because experts are over-indexed on the status quo

- no field expertise

Ultimately, it's up to you how you weight people's opinion, and may each person's epistemology serve them appropriately.
Your comments have also been crossing into personal attack. Please don't do that, even if other commenters are being unfair or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Similar in flight rules: one cannot fly a paraglider over "congested area". But what is "congested area" is intentionally not defined in the rules, and left up to judges to decide for each case separately.

Because if FAA tries to come up with a definition, there will always be weird unjust corner cases. Or just ban the paragliders whatsoever. I think the current ambiguity is the best compromise.
I agree that there's friction between the greater public good and private interests.

But I don't agree with the reductive take that compromised security means companies don't care or are greedy. Companies that do care and have an army of security staff still fuck up.

The reality check is that security is incredibly complicated, expensive, very easy to do incorrectly.

If anything, us software developers should do some reflection on our software stack. It's honestly quite shit if it requires daily updates and a team of security gurus to not get it wrong.
When storing an object in an array, the value is checked to be a Value::Object (which can't be null), but you also have Value::Null, so storing null in an array fails (I think). Storing null in local variables, a static field or an instance field works fine.
Or, to put it in terms of the Howey test: eating lunch is not a common enterprise, and not dying of hunger is not an expectation of profit.
Significant security concern prompted internet outage at University of Michigan
Brita/ZeroWater filters make potable water cleaner such that it tastes better.

This filter makes non-potable water cleaner such that it won't kill you/make you seriously ill.
to be fair its an "ad" for another one of their services.
A “standard large pizza” is 14", the size of their small; 16" is a common extra-large size, their large is 18” (1.65× the size of a “standard large pizza”, by area.)

$43.20 ($40+8%) is quite reasonable for an 18" multiple topping pizza.
you, on the other hand, are just a fool. a nincompoop, if you will, or a dunce, if this is the word you prefer, but a sad tosser anyways.
Yeah, TM is quite a different thing.

The recent scientific interest in meditation is primarily focused on the mindfulness variety, which is more about observing your state of mind without judgement, and learning to stop getting lost in discursive thought, vs. TM's focus on mantras. (there are TM studies, but mindfulness has gotten wider attention, with good reason I think).

While the mindfulness family of practices has been well secularized, it does seem that TM brings a lot more baggage along with it.

I think this still boils down to the person practicing. While researching/evaluating meditation practices, TM was something that I decided to steer clear of, for many of the reasons you describe.
You're doing the same thing the other commenters are: you're trying to derive from first principles what "ethical hacking" means. That's why this marketing trick is so insidious: everybody does that, and attributes to the term whatever they think the right things are. But the term doesn't mean those right things: it means what the vendors meant, which is: co-opted researchers working in collusion with vendors to give dev teams the maximum conceivable amount of time to apply fixes (years, often) and never revealing the details of any flaws (also: that any security researcher that doesn't put the word "ethical" in their title is endorsing criminal hacking; also: that you should buy all your security services from I.B.M.).

You can say "that's not what I mean by ethical hacking", but that doesn't matter, because that's what the term of art itself does mean.

If you want to live in a little rhetorical bubble where terms of art mean what you think they should mean, that's fine. I think it's worth being aware that, to practitioners, that's not what the terms mean, and that people familiar with the field generally won't care about your idiosyncratic definitions.
Yeah this. Let them know what you're using them for and they'll tune the NRR and frequencies for your use case.
>The simple fact that you never ever heard about something like that

actually there are lots of examples, so it can't be that simple.
True, but those filters last a very long time. The Sawyer Squeeze (what I use) produces ~1000 gallons of filtered water before needing replacement[1]. I assume others using the same technology perform similarly.

It also filters the water much more quickly. As fast as you can drink it.

[1] Assuming you properly maintain it by backflushing every so often, which is quick and easy, but still necessary.
Ask HN: Pinboard is dead, long live whom?
Archiving is broken since years (goodbye $$), the site is slowing down, and the maintainer is unreachable. What are the alternatives?

Like the original, alternatives should at the very least have tagging, comments, portable backups & import functionality, simple bookmarking from mainstream desktop and mobile browsers, and archiving (downloadable PDFs of all your bookmarks, in case of link rot).
Never do a 100% rollout.

Partially release to your users and monitor the health of the release as it trickles out. If everything is fine then increase the percentage.

Only very late increase to 100% as then there is no going back.
> It's like acting like building a house requires two jobs, "Inside Builder" and "Outside Builder".

Your anology is flawed. There are different tools and different skillsets involved. A more apt analogy is that building a house requires two jobs, a “carpenter” and a “cabinet maker”.

A back end developer need not concern them self with UX design, CSS animations, accessibility, browser compatibility, etc. and very seldomly with localization. These are all things a skilled web programmer will become an expert at if they are building websites served to tens of thousands of people.

Similarly a cabinet maker need not concern them selves with ventilation, load bearing walls, stud spacing, etc.
> From a technical (i.e. useless) point of view SBCL very nearly already has a real-time GC

If your technical (theoretical) definitions are useless, you need to use different definitions. A practical definition of “real-time” GC is a minimum mutator utilization bound for any program given sufficent RAM, but the only GC I’m aware of that does this (despite the abundance of papers on GC wirh “real-time” in the title) is Klock’s regional collector[1]. Unfortunately, it seems to be impractically complex. [To be fair, I don’t think any implementation of malloc() in common use would satisfy this constraint either.]

[1] https://eschew.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/summarizing-gc/
Couple of notes:

- the UK, or rather UK trade unions, basically invented the concept of modern cooperatives 150 years ago.

- by now, cooperatives have effectively been out of fashion for decades. Even the flagship Cooperative Bank has recently been de-facto "normalized" into a regular business.

- the cooperative model can, however, still be attractive for small groups of artisans, like software developers. Hence the link from parent poster. This doesn't mean that it's been "adopted" at large scale, or seen a mainstream resurgence - it has not.
>But from what I've heard it's still at least 15% behind GPT-4 for code

More. But you're comparing the performance of something that runs on a macbook vs something out of a datacenter full of H100s.
They are in France so the FAA doesn’t apply, but you think the FAA shouldn’t approve hydrogen airships because in the event of war, attackers will not go for cities or nuclear power plants or military bases or national scale gas storage or highway bridges but will instead target hydrogen lifted blimps in remote areas?

If a small drone explodes and takes down an electricity pylon in nowheresville in the middle of a war, I reckon most people would be very grateful that’s all that happened and willing to fund drones just to draw fire from more important areas and nothing else.
Wouldn't a family-owned business also qualify?
And yet, free and open source software licenses are meant for licensors and licensees from around the world, so far more than just two jurisdictions for any of the common licenses, and rarely for only one or two jurisdictions even for more custom licenses except in the case where the license is different per jurisdiction or where almost all (licensor, licensee) pairs are in one or two jurisdictions.
Hey, I can entertain the possibility without attaching much weight to whether it is true or not. It doesn't really change anything anyway.
Is intentional "no delivery" a thing? It should be.
I don't think I've spent nearly as much time as you thinking about these things and I'm not entirely sure I understood your perspective, but I have a couple of reflections for you which perhaps you can comment on:

> By themselves, sequence to sequence models are not computationally capable of deductive reasoning with an arbitrary number of steps, since that would require recursion (or iteration).

Isn't the fact that LLMs perform their inference step by step, where in each step they output only one token, an instance of deductive reasoning with a (potentially) arbitrary number of steps?

I say this because on each inference step, the tokens that were previously generated do become part of the input.

At a higher level of abstraction, I'm also thinking about chain-of-thought prompting, in which the LLMs first output the easier-to-deduct steps, then build on these steps to perform more deductive steps up until they finally produce the desired answer [1].

Of course, they have a limited context, but the context can be (and has been) increased. And humans have a limited context as well (except if we consider long-term memory or taking notes, perhaps).

The main difference I see is that in LLM chain-of-thought reasoning, they are currently outputting their intermediate "thoughts" before actually giving the final answer, whereas we humans are capable of silencing ourselves before actually having figured out the answer, which we then "output" as speech [2].

So I think there is still a form of recursion or iteration happening in LLMs, it's just that it's in a somewhat limited form in that we are observing it as it happens, i.e. as they output tokens one-by-one.

That said, something that I think could really make LLMs take a big step forward would be to have something akin to long-term memory. And the other big step would probably be being able to learn continuously, rather than only during their training. These two potential steps might even be the same thing.

So I don't know. I'm obviously not an expert but these are my thoughts with regards to what you've just said.

[1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/05/language-models-perform-re...

[2] Interestingly, there have been studies that show that humans produce micro-speech patterns when we are thinking, i.e. as if we are really speaking, although imperceptibly. That said, I have no idea how trustworthy these studies are.

Edit: added a clarification at the beginning.
Their announcement says they cut their connection to the internet, not just taking out campus internet but taking all the university web services offline as well.

https://umich.edu/announcements
Protecting service members is a real challenge. I have a couple of papers investigating hearing protection and voice use in noisy military environments.

https://journals.lww.com/ear-hearing/abstract/2021/11000/eva...

In this study, we evaluated whether an extended-wear hearing aid could feasibly work as a hearing protection device. There were some issues, especially comfort, but perhaps once those issues are solved, extended-wear hearing aids might be a way to protect hearing while still enabling people to hear important situational and environmental sounds even if they have some hearing loss.

https://pubs.asha.org/doi/full/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00150

In this study we found an important effect of noise exposures and temporary threshold shifts on voice problems among service members. To quote myself:

"A fourth hypothesis is that the relationship between voice concerns, hearing difficulties, and TTS arises from the trade-offs of wearing hearing protection in high-level noise environments. The use of hearing protection presents a challenge when selecting an appropriate vocal loudness level for effective communication (Brungart et al., 2012; Vaziri, 2018). In particular, individuals who wear hearing protection in high-noise environments tend to speak quietly, making them difficult to understand. People may overcompensate by talking too loudly (placing their vocal health at risk) or by removing their hearing protection so they can communicate more effectively (thus increasing TTS and placing their hearing at risk)."
As a reference point: An 18” Whole Foods pizza is $15 at full price and $10 on Fridays.
No, I mean you take the test and if it's positive then present options like this:

Risk of death: X% with treatment, Y% without treatment.

Risk of side effect A: X% with treatment, Y% without treatment.

Those numbers take into account the rate of false positives and false negatives. They are clear and understandable.

There are definitely situations in which you shouldn't test: where the rate of the cancer is low, the false positive rate is high, and the risk of treatment is high. In that case, the numbers can show that risk of death is higher with treatment than without, so while (noninvasive) testing doesn't make things worse if we're giving clear numbers, it doesn't help either; we might as well not test at all. But that's not true for everything. As for side effects, we should give patients clear numbers like this so they can make informed decisions.

Adding up the number of false positives and negatives, and the number of patients with various outcomes, is not comparable to using AI.
> My fundamental disagreement is that I don't care about what an obviously biased guy has to say about the media

That's not disagreement, that's just covering your ears and going la la la. You're barking up the wrong tree, that book is a good primer for you to find out how, if you don't read it you're still barking up the wrong tree.
This is more in the neighborhood of contributory negligence.
It can be both. If you know the dimension at compile time, it is compile time, if you don't it will be runtime.
As a result of using this device, you'd drink only the microbes that are not attracted to your electrode?
You get that the legal situation for this stuff is even gnarlier in Europe, right?