skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm trying to get you to stop throwing around the word "free market" in a meaningless way, especially in a negative light, because it muddies your argument and throws mud on "free markets" which most people have a positive impression of. When you say "free market", it is completely unclear to anybody who is not in your head wtf you are talking about; it only comes out when you finish your sentence slagging it.

"Free market" does not have a clear or set definition. It is not a term used by economists except as a catchall in the context where the audience knows what the economist is talking about. It comes from the time of "classical liberalism" when the liberalizing was "freeing" markets from the control of the aristocracy, but today we also need to keep them free of collectivism, even though collectivism in modern parlance fits the thinking that we now call liberalism, so I don't think it's a great idea to use those terms either.

To keep out of that linguistic morass, stop slurring the term "free market".

Markets always exist, because people will always trade, even if it's a spoonful of my prison rations for a spoonful of your prison rations. If we as prisoners make a trade, are you calling that a freedom? So just talk about markets. The little description I just gave is a clear thought, and the word free doesn't add anything. Black markets are the truest free markets, they entail free trade of all items. Everything not free about a black market is exogenous.

Learn the terminology of markets; economics studies "perfect markets", and then identifies sources of "market failures" and "market inefficiencies". The type of unregulated free market that devolves into cartels and monopolies and caveat emptor is better known as laissez faire. Markets that are regulated within western democracies are free markets that don't devolve.

on the surface you're just throwing words around on top of however many layers of more complex thought goes into your arguments.

Free markets are a good thing. If you want to talk about market failures, don't use the word free. Free does not mean "unregulated".
I have not, but I've been around.

Beyond pictures, chats, HIV status and GPS data, I cannot imagine what you're alluding to.
In Korean, "mamma" is baby-talk for food, "eomma" is mom, and "mama" is "Your Highness" (which is also a euphemism for... measles).
I've been very excited for Bun.

And while the premise is still great, the enthusiasm has waned a bit in recent months. A lot of the decision making process seems a bit arbitrary and off the cuff, at least as presented on Twitter. Could be a mischaracterization as I haven't followed the Github threads closely.

I also question the use of Zig for a project that's intended to replace node and be production ready. It may be fun to work with and something fresh/new, but taking something very unproven and in heavy development is not a way to inspire confidence among your potential adopters.

I hate the Rust meme as much as anybody else, but I really question why you wouldn't use it here. The author of Bun posts about tracking down memory leaks on the regular... which shouldn't even be a problem space a modern runtime deals with.

All that being said... I will definitely use Bun for CI/builds/local projects... much more hesitant to use it for a production/live service at this point
Anytime government assets go to private hands there’s always some back room deals going on. Though it strange seeing neoliberal used when it’s usually the conservatives pushing this agenda in the US, that’s what it’s called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Now if headscale could support thia that would be baller
> You _cannot_ trust 365/OneDrive.

Cloud is _not_ a backup.
« Whether or not that’s accurate » is not a minor detail. Some people need to be told when they’re doing shite work, otherwise how can they learn ? The forever supportive culture has some limits and sometimes a bit of spanking can be a great boost, and help you make the required radical changes in your life that you need.
because it would slow down the unjust concentration of land ownership into fewer and fewer hands.
Given your example of a company unwittingly adding GPL code to their proprietary code base, I have trouble seeing how Microsoft can offer to take liability for such an infringement.

The GPL requires that any software based off of it be GPL licensed and have public sources available. I can't imagine a situation where Microsoft pays a fine, and their customer gets to violate the GPL license by not removing the infringing code, or open-sourcing their product as GPL and providing sources to the public.

Enforcement of the GPL can't just involve paying a monetary settlement to get away with stealing open source code. It must involve the direct targeting of infringing software with demands that the software either take efforts to remove illegally borrowed code, or license the borrowed code as legally prescribed by the original license agreement.

That an AI got in the way of reading the license agreement should not be an excuse for doing zero due diligence in maintaining a lawful code base.
That's for a whole unit with batteries and some other components. I'm not sure if that means that the sensor itself only lasts 5-7 years.
"Paddington 2" is one of the best movies ever made, it is up there with the "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari".
I used to do film reviews quasi-professionally. There's zero excuse for bribery, the work is hard enough to perform well as it is. Reviewers have at least three tasks before them.

1) The TV Guide summary, which consists of one or two sentences describing what happens during the film, perhaps a categorization, then some references to the actors wherein based on a scale which multiplies how much time that person is in the film against how famous that person is. The runtime part is easy. Then you have your star rating, which is almost agonizing. This product is used to determine whether or not you will just sort of put something on while you fold laundry.

2) The "do I want to exert effort and/or money seeing this film?" review. This is the most dangerous part. You have no idea who is reading this. How will you know that they will or will not like this movie? Your best bet here is to cover the most objective portions of the film in detail. Your subjective impressions must highlight their subjectivity and point out your own biases. This allows for the "Ebert doesn't really do most horror films well" factor, as well as some of his other quirks. For all that I might disagree, he wore his heart on his sleeve and I could predict which films he might give short shrift.

3) The third product is a monologue, hopefully something which can start a conversation somewhere, about the more abstract businesses of film-making. How has this actor developed over time? Is this a worthy entry in this director's career? Are there rip-offs, allusions, homages, nudges and winks? You can talk about anything which struck you during the film, so long as you leave room to begin a kind of dialogue with someone, somewhere.

The best you can hope for is that a reader understands what you have said in your review to the point where they can decide not to see a film you like, or vice versa, because you have sufficiently explained your reaction. I would not call myself a tastemaker, but I am good at, with friends, identifying what they will and will not like, whether or not I care for the film. A great deal of that just comes from examination of my own biases (my turn-ons, my turn-offs, my habits and my aversions).

It is a shame, but not especially shocking, at how we have just another clumsy fumble at our wallets and minds.
Llama2 chat performs worse and wasn't included for that reason.

The numbers are different because the measurement is different. The blog post explains that we sample from the models and expect answers rather than relying on perplexity measurements.
I think that's only for comments, but I'm not sure.
> For the first time, a native Bun build for Windows is available! Previously Windows users needed to use Windows Subsystem for Linux to use Bun. Not anymore.
Very nice insight into libevdev and x programming!
Being a blockbuster movie is not an indicator of quality nor success. One thing is certain about them: they sell like hotcakes because they have millions poured in their marketing.

So highest-grossing doesn't mean absolutely anything about how good a movie is, or whether people actually liked it. There is a huge contingent of people that follow religiously a franchise and will pay to watch the new one even if they've been told it is not very good. You don't skip the latest Star Wars movie if you call yourself a Star Wars fan, and it is marketing's job to create the Star Wars fan in the first place.

As a cynic, I'd argue the opposite to what you said: you have to spend more on marketing if the material is not very good in the first place. The result is a terrible movie that becomes a meme and still makes bank.
Ah, I see what you are saying. That wasn't really what I was even getting at though. Because of the tier/baseline system, even the marginal rate you pay per joule is way higher in coastal California, to subsidize interior California. That's before we even start looking at the fixed charges.
While there are no IP protections for “style” there are certainly elements that are covered. Particular colors be trademarked, characters can be copyrighted separately from the works they appear in, design patents are a thing that cover more than most folks realize.

I don’t think any but the most copyleft segment of society thinks it would be reasonable for a generative AI trained on exactly one persons work to be used for profit by someone else.

An AI trained on two or ten people’s work probably feels the same for most folks, but what about when it’s thousands or millions? What if instead of one persons work it is the works held in copyright by an entity like Getty Images?
Brew feels slow and does not seem to like older MacBooks, so I've been using MacPorts more often or downloading things on my own.
As long as the change is to reduce copyright restrictions on everyone, rather than just giving AI a pass to copy and launder the work of others with impunity.
Ironically I would use it to filter out AI / LLM content.
It's more than two dimensions. For instance, The Last Jedi measure doesn't take into account Disney extorting and/or paying off critics to boost the movie.
I actually wanted to reply, but can't, so I'll thread here...

> [ things lots of people do ] is disgusting, because [ my personal value system ].

I'm hoping by framing the quote this way it'll help demonstrate how statements like this promote a dualistic discussion. The way this was worded really says, "Fight me on this unpopular opinion! Also, I'm judging you if you disagree."

Maybe a better wording that still retains its salience, without so much preachiness:

> I am disgusted when I see [ things lots of people do ] happening, because [ my personal value system ].

This is communicating the same essential message (that you're disgusted by what you're seeing), but it leads the reader to not fight you, but ask, "I wonder why he feels so strongly about this?" There is a rich diversity of viewpoints on this site, and that's an asset for us. It allows us to discover WHY people think what they think.
Yeah, this is "servant leadership is great. Here are some examples of people who are great servant leaders: X Y Z". Great, thanks, since I don't know any of them personally, I have no use for that.
So a few things to think about with regard to this and related concepts (numerology in general, and really with different arguments about almost any other kind of divination):

Understanding _what math is_ is a very deep concept that we didn't really have a firm foundation of until the 19th century.

Numbers in many languages were represented by letters. They understood that they could find true things about the world by manipulating those symbols and letters using rules (ie, doing math). It was not at all clear then (and perhaps not even now) why that should be the case, and it's not especially obvious on its face how to know which manipulations will yield useful results and which won't. A lot of _real_ math they were doing seemed like magic to them, and indeed were sometimes used in the context of magic or in theurgical rituals. And there's nothing wrong with numerological methods as mathematical manipulations necessarily, it's interpretations of those results that are where they go wrong. These people were not _stupid_, in a lot of cases they make quite sophisticated arguments to justify the validity of it, and invalidating those arguments required invalidating many of the assumptions they held about the nature of reality (many of which are still held by many people today, intuitively, if they haven't thought deeply about it).

It's also the case that divination had a practical value in terms of being a way to get out of analysis paralysis and bike shedding. You can't decide what to do, you go to some theoretically neutral third party and he does some random process that produces an answer and you just go with that. It doesn't really matter what the reasoning is behind it or if it "works", the important thing is that it's a decision that stakeholders respect and nobody gets blamed for following it. It's no different than flipping a coin, really.

Also, if you squint, word2vec and related concepts are sort of a very sophisticated version of this.
imagine thinking that we will stop slaughtering them for life saving organs when we slaughter them for snacks because they taste slightly better than tofu
Doesn't your history already fill in this? Why the need to bookmark?
So cancel it and tell said MIC companies to build something we actually need, like missiles.
Hey again _august, just wanted to let you know that I updated the gif to have a bit longer of a delay on the 2nd screen. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if it's easier to read?
Darwin has gone by lots of names, but that doesn't really change anything.
This might come in handy but it's much inferior to the frink units file [0] which is much more complete, more rigorous, and includes dimensions.

[0]: https://frinklang.org/frinkdata/units.txt
The WFH phenomenon is a US phenomenon [video]
> New languages are still using “&&” and “||” as if it’s 1975

Because it's consistent and people don't want to relearn minor details each time they switch. And Python has a lot of those little differences. Though the "and" and "or" keywords are among the few things I actually like.

> meanwhile for the most part anyone can understand Python syntax

What matters more to me is how the syntax works in the long term. I have no trouble reading and writing a lot of Rust code, but even after years with Python I still can't remember the difference between "[-1:]", "[1:]", "[:1]" etc for slicing lists/strings. Recursive list comprehensions with their lack of parentheses are unreadable to me to this day (e.g.: `[item for sublist in list_of_lists for item in sublist]`).
Python is very easy and quick to pick up, really productive for prototyping, but I don't consider its syntax to be its big advantage.
I've never seen one go to court
I believe Lennart explained things well enough - being _end-user_ targeted means much more dynamic things vs servers targeted.

> Hardware and Software Change Dynamically

> Modern systems (especially general purpose OS) are highly dynamic in their configuration and use: they are mobile, different applications are started and stopped, different hardware added and removed again. An init system that is responsible for maintaining services needs to listen to hardware and software changes. It needs to dynamically start (and sometimes stop) services as they are needed to run a program or enable some hardware.

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
Yes, I’ve been running it and you can’t click on any attachments.
I see. It does make me a little concerned, given the Librem drama.
I haven't said whether it's fair or not but oversimplifying a complex topic isn't going to shed any light.

Where you like it or not this is an undecided area both legally and morally. Pretending it's clear cut is either disingenuous or delusional.
Hawaii has received and will continue to receive relief.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
The Paradox of EV Car Rentals
I think of monads mostly as "an implicit context on which we can perform operations in sequence", which is maybe similar. But I'll agree with other people here that you really have to build up your own intuition by working through examples and maybe trying to write your own Monad instances, etc. Otherwise you will apply this intuition in a subtly wrong way.

There are so many cool monads that work differently from IO, Maybe and such types, e.g. the binary package allows me to write

data Header = Header Word8 Word16

parseHeader :: Get Header
parseHeader = Header <$> getWord8 <*> getWord16le

or for a more complicated example

data Header = Header [Word16]

parseHeader :: Get Header
parseHeader = do
size <- fromIntegral <$> getWord8
fields <- replicateM size getWord16le
return $ Header fields

and then I can later run parseHeader on some binary input to parse a header, and I can do it in one go or I can run it incrementally, it really doesn't matter, because the Get monad only describes the way the input should be parsed and not the actual parsing algorithm.
I do password resets for clients fairly routinely. I run into greylisting behavior about 2 doz times a year. Often happens in spurts.

Just last week I ran into greylisting a bunch of times, while testing a new mail server against gmail accounts. Same thing two weeks prior for a diff server. This is with SPF, DKIM and DMARC setup. Corp and personal gmail accounts - no rhyme or reason to when it happens.
My point is that it DOES have a different interpretation. In particular, we don't interpret it as saying that there are somehow fundamentally more reals.

Incidentally the "exists no surjective map" interpretation may or may not be correct, depending on the exact choice of definitions.

Here is how it can be false.

Suppose that we define a function f in some programming language to be a real if it can be proven from a specific set of axioms that f(n) is always a rational, and that |f(n) + f(m)| is always less than or equal to 1/n + 1/m. Let's call those axioms, ASSUME.

It is now straightforward to write a program that maps the natural numbers onto the reals. Just do a breadth-first search for all proofs from ASSUME that some function f represents a real. Given n, we return the program that is the subject of the n'th such proof. It is also straightforward to do Cantor's diagonalization argument. But proving that the resulting function produces an output for every n requires proving that ASSUME is consistent. Which, as Gödel pointed out, hopefully doesn't follow from ASSUME. And therefore the construction does not result in a real by the chosen definition.

(When we start thinking carefully about reasoning, we find that there is an important difference between "X proves" and "X proves that X proves".)
Irreproducible Research in the AI Era (2018) [video]
The term "side hustle" always bothers me. It's not a side hustle if you need that money to survive, it's a second job. Also, multi-level marketing schemes were the classic side hustle for a long time, but they generally only appeal to (prey on?) desperate people.

Convince a desperate, hardworking person they have a way out of desperation and you can get them to "side hustle" themselves ragged until they stop making you money because you got too many complaints that their car had hail damage or some similar excuse.
They will stop using Google because of the disastrous quality. The question is if they'll pay for another search engine or just search within Instagram, or install an AI agent.
I have issues on both x11 and Wayland, but the least amount of issues on Wayland.

I think it is mostly because of individual applications, not particularly KDE/Plasma. Some software works better on Wayland, some on x11, some on both.
It's a fascinating psychological technology for saturating your brain with associations between anything and anything else. Eventually you can start to read numerical coincidences or synchronicities into anything - bus route numbers, time of day, order numbers... strangely reminiscent of Arronofsky's Pi, where a mathematician straddles the boundary of number theory and numerology [0]. All of it tied back to some notion of divinity, or whatever notions of "the most important things" exist in your head.

I've sometimes wondered if occult instruction in gematria, numerology, tables of correspondences, relating names, colours, symbols, scents, etc... to mythological figures is intended to produce this hyper-associative, nonlinear form of thinking - a different mode of cognition than the typical linearized, rational sort of thought, that is able to leverage our ability to quickly and subconsciously make inferences, associations, and snap judgments about phenomena, instead of using slow, deliberate, deductive forms of reasoning. Kahneman's system 1 vs. system 2 maybe approaches what I am getting at here.

The associations that surface may give insight, if only dimly, into one's psychological state - how they feel at the moment, or what meaning a particular event has for them. A sort of looking glass for the mind, similar to the way one may lay out a tarot spread and not seek to prophesy the future, but speak some symbolic language understood by this hyper-associative faculty to see what meanings the practitioner projects from their subconscious and out onto random phenomena; or the way one may consult the I Ching to partake in an "experimental dream" - in which, instead of trying to isolate and remove the subjectivity of the observer, the experiment embraces the fact that observer and observed are inextricably linked in this game of trying to ascribe meaning to phenomena. Where "synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves as well as with the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers." [1]

If you find yourself bereft of meaning in this life, a practice of gematria may provide you with the semantic infusion you seek - though it may not be exactly what you bargained for. You can really blow yourself up if you get too deeply into this.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1IzNKIHhp0

[1] http://the-iching.com/extra/iching_jung_foreword
Of course he understands. But it's hypocritical to be lamenting the lack of innovation when you are also actively working to block innovation and help create a monopoly for yourself.
Have many Texans started generating/storing their own power since the last big outage?
You should write tests to catch such changes.
Indeed, the trilogy were my favorite movies growing up, and I went to see TLJ on the opening week. Haven’t watched a Star War since.
This was a great podcast and well worth a listen. It answers most of the questions I see folks asking here.
Isn’t that a form of affirmative action that the Supreme Court took issue with?