skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The umbrella topic to this is one of my favorite topics in all of software and one where strangely we as an industry don't seem to have internalized its lessons: That the right approach to building a software program (like a DAW, NLE, bitmap/vector editor) emerges early.

This is why these applications have lifespans measured in decades, and it's extremely rare for a new player to be able offer anything new, different, and valuable because the design space has already been solved for the problems these applications are solving.

I wrote a piece on this subject, e.g., why, how, when software transitions do happen for these kinds of apps: https://blog.robenkleene.com/2023/06/19/software-transitions...
This is good.

I love Free Software (all my personal projects are released under GPL) but I'm appalled by the terrible quality of software in general (under Free, Open, or other licenses.) Not a day goes by when some bug or breach or crash makes the news, eh?

Speaking broadly (and setting aside art) software is either toys or industrial machinery.

If you're writing toys (or art) this legislation won't bother you. If you are writing industrial machinery then it behooves you to do it well, and this legislation seems like a very good step in that direction.

I mourn for my hobby, but it's worth it to be sidelined in favor of software produced by responsible parties.
It's not a great insight for you today, or a recent workshop on consciousness.

It is ~150 years old and it's a well-known foundation for all current discussion of emergence in general, and consciousness in particular.
It's not at all. If someone was sitting there going "Oooh, jqpabc123 is into anime" then maybe.

There are paid alternatives now, if you want to opt out of what allows them to offer search for "free" then go use those.
Distracting NATO with a second conflict doesn't influence the first? Come on.
If you graze animals the right way you can also increase biomass/help the ecosystem.
GP is alluding to the fact that social pressure on girls to be “nice” is so intense that many develop coping and masking mechanisms at a young age, confounding the diagnostic process. Boys have a more bohemian lifestyle and are easier to catch.

Same happens with ADD. A lot of parents are diagnosed in hindsight when their child is diagnosed. “Wait my son had ADHD because he acts like this? I acted exactly like this.”
don't forget beer and bread! it's EVERYWHERE
Dbg() – A macro for printf-style debugging fans
Until someone asks for a disease treatment and dies because it tells bullshit
It's a bold statement but I think it would be highly worthy of analysis. For example, while I like that I can search easily for better flights, it seems like the airlines have gamified the entire process, and it feels like just calling a travel agent was much easier way back when, and did not cost more. But is that true? Same goes for customer support ... how maddening is email support and offshore support. Isn't chat support much worse than just calling a human? Has all of this automation really made things holistically better? Is it easier now to be a human than it was in 1980? Or is it actually much worse ... are we living in a technology dystopia?
And what does that mean? That person can still sell it. That person can still claim they own it, because they own that NFT of the thing. You both own it, effectively, now.

Without an authoritative chain that is the chain, it doesn't matter.
If we're monkeys then companies are monkeys too and they aren't responsible.

You're sneaking free will in the back door. In your view, "victims" don't have free will but big companies do.
I thought about rewriting that part for a while and couldn't come up with a better version. I'm not even saying it with anger, more with sadness to be honest. I wish people could see how capable their body is and how relatively easy it is to upgrade oneself.

I've seen friends and family members let themselves rot and wonder why they always feel like shit, it's just plain sad, so much long term happiness wasted for short time joys.

It's never too late to turn around either, my gf's dad is in his 60s and lost 20kg in a few months because we motivated him. He had trouble walking because of painful knees for years and what a miracle!!! he's cured now, all it took is eating a bit less.
You’ve clearly not used Linux for sometime. I’ve not had to compile anything for years to fix my systems

Things have improved a lot.
Absolutely, REAPER. While it may be a little obtuse to learn, it is absolutely as powerful as the big guys in music production such as ProTools. Plus it works on both Windows and Mac, unlike Logic.

There is a big community around REAPER also, and tons of YouTube videos around it. Plus, you can download it and work with it for free, but after a while, it will want you to pay for it, which is only $60...but you can keep using it if you don't (though I would encourage you to pay for it if you like it).
Some cool (albeit pricey) devices to toy with are the AIRA compact series by Roland[0].

In the same vein, the Novation Grooveboxes[1] offer some expanded capabilities that don't require a computer. Second-hand pricing is quite reasonable for both.

[0]: https://www.roland.com/au/categories/aira/aira_compact/

[1]: https://novationmusic.com/categories/samplers-grooveboxes
Meh. That whole issue is way overblown by the twitter researcher types trying to build buzz and make a name. It's a serious issue don't get me wrong but security incidents are a question of when not if and the dialog surrounding the issue doesn't come across as charitably capturing the scope and impact. Microsoft's response, which has been to handle the issue responsibly is far from the "radio silence coverup" and "the attackers are still in the network" and "you can't trust anything Microsoft signs anymore" reality you'd be inclined to believe if you only read the hype angle and believe the alarmist comments from other "any chance to bash on M$ is a heyday" types.

I hadn't seen the article you linked though and will say it seems to be in good taste.
Because there are massive variations in severity
There's a lot of boilerplate that actually takes quite a while to write from scratch. If the people involved have a pretty good idea in their heads of what fundamentals are fairly sensible and which are probably sort of irrelevant or even wrong, something like ChatGPT is actually pretty good at churning out at least a decent pre-draft that can save quite a bit of time. I've used it a fair bit for introductory background that I can certainly clean up faster than I could put together from scratch.
I recently got up to speed on CSS flexbox thanks to this game. Really great!
So, we may need to add a "Not for use in the European Union" clause to open source licenses?
It's a garbage study. The confidence interval is a literal order of magnitude. And the data is a 300 person self-reported questionaire asking questions that can go back decades. Do you remember how many diet cokes you drank back in the 80s?

It's a shame this kind of science is allowed publication.
I'm happy so long as it can score really high in Cinebench, which is probably the most relevant benchmark for my work.
The thing is, aspartame is one of the most well studied chemicals in the human food system.

It's also a favorite target of the sugar lobby.

Really, what needs to happen most of all, is to let special interest out of nutritional research completely. Unfortunately, that is highly unlikely.
What consistent bias are you suggesting that would result in this?
You: The regulation to require USB-C was effective. [no citation]

Me: By what standard? In my specific case, it wasn’t.

You: Blah blah blah burden of proof hierarchy of disagreement.

So do you have any citation or do you plan to keep deflecting? So far, my anecdote has been the only evidence provided about the matter, even if it’s weak which I already conceded.
[Sigh\]

If humans could live on red tape alone, the EU could feed the world.
The lack of those features made it very difficult to use for an advanced business user, of course that wasn't Apple's audience in the beginning.
You want to... eat the parasite that convinces its host to grow new weird parts?
If you “trust nobody” and you aren’t immediately and cripplingly paralyzed by the task of rigorously verifying every piece of information you rely on to live, then you’re not being serious.

How do you trust that your car, electrical wiring, water pipes, food, medicine, and consumer products are safe? Foreign reporting is true? Politicians aren't secretly selling votes?

Your have to trust other people. If you “trust nobody” you’re just obscuring who you actually trust, and that makes it harder to think about whether you should actually trust them or not.
For the cases of copyright trolling and patent trolling, the metaphor comes from the “Three Billy Goats Gruff” story: a troll just sits there under “his” bridge until someone walks over the bridge, then he jumps out and threatens them. That’s more akin to what goes on with copyright trolling.
All of your examples offer up immediate, obvious harms that have actually hurt people in real life in measurable ways (injury, death), and that we've put mechanisms of control in place to reduce. I think that's good. It means society chooses to control things when a clearly articulated risk is both present, and manifests enough to warrant that control.

Not regulating lawyers leads to direct harm to the people hiring them, and the outcome of their court cases. It also has knock-on effects regarding the integrity of the justice system, which is part of the government. Exerting control makes sense for a bunch of reasons, from actual harm being manifested to the fact that justice is a government responsibility.

Not regulating who can drive cars leads to additional injury and death.

Gun control laws are attempting to address the harm of gun violence, which leads to injury and death.

Regulating spam addresses the harm of one actor externalizing their costs onto all of society, making our messaging systems (like phone calls, texting, and email) ineffective at their main purpose. This harms societies that use those systems for vital communication, since all of these are "push", in the sense one can get overwhelmed by incoming messages, emails, and calls.

Regulating drug manufacture addresses the case of manufacturers producing "medicine" that harms those who buy it, or extracts money from them despite the "medicine" being entirely ineffective. Both harms are well-documented going back decades/centuries.

Regulation of spectrum (broadcast and otherwise) is a result of the inherent scarcity of spectrum. Much like the automated messaging example, this system of control maintains the utility of the communication channel.

Regulating who can pilot aircraft has similar arguments to cars, but more so: costs are higher and damage is higher.

Dumping waste into rivers is again an externalization of cost onto society, and addresses harms of companies that dump toxic waste into public water supplies, thus poisoning citizens. This is a real risk, and regulation helps address it.

In every single case, the control society exerts addresses a real, actual harm that has been observed in many, many cases.

I have yet to hear anyone articulate a real, actual harm caused by an uncensored AI. I run Mistral on my laptop using kobaldcpp or llamacpp. Even if someone were to host Mistral publicly and allow folks to chat with it, the harm is unclear. People say inappropriate things (at least in some contexts) to Mistral, and Mistral responds in kind. Where's the harm? If I want it to help me write a violent fight scene for a novel or play, or describe something sexual for an erotic story, so what? This sort of stuff is discussed by humans constantly.

For me to buy that we need control and regulation, I need to understand the problem being solved, and the cost of the solution needs to be far outweighed by the benefit. So far, I haven't heard such a tradeoff articulated. My hypothesis is that most companies working on training AIs have a lot to lose, so most of the "safety" talk is intended to provide legal cover.
Anything "free", Cakewalk, Garageband, Waveform, MPC Beats, or whatever license that comes with your midi keyboard. All these are already crazy powerful for a hobbyist.
I'll bet the publicize whatever benchmark looks most competitive to get the next funding. That's no criticism, just the way every business somewhat has to work in a competitive industry.
That sounds more like a bizarre brag than anything else, a "we would have invented it if you hadn't" statement.

There's value in being unencumbered by the directions of others, but there's an even larger value in being able to understand the state of the field and your new work's place in it, even if your new work is just a spark of an idea.

Doing otherwise is wildly inefficient, like trying to place an order at a restaurant with no menus and a no modifications policy. Unless you need to do it yourself to truly learn (plenty of people learn better by doing than reading), I'd recommend a healthy practice of reading about the cutting edge and building/inventing, without restriction on either.
> Why would those inner workings not themselves give rise to consciousness, in the way you suppose second-order workings of the brain do?

I don’t think that “consciousness” exists other than in the form of “perceiving inner workings”. (That’s basically the point I was trying to make. And that “perceiving” itself constitutes “inner workings”, and is thus partly subject to itself.) In that sense, there is nothing that arises. I’m one of those who don’t think there’s a hard problem of consciousness. My impression is that, for the most part, it’s the recursivity that leads us to believe there is something extra there which really there isn’t.
Nice to add a very vague statement here.
Except it’s already available at labs.perplexity.ai so you can easily indulge.
What we need is to stop throwing fearmongering articles left and right.
Original article title is "The European Cyber Resilience Act", but OP has editorialized it to "European Legislation Could Create Liability for Free-Software Developers".
A lot of straw-grasping. The whole thing "commercial activity" thing, for example. The legal guide says:

> on a case by case basis taking into account the regularity of the supplies, the characteristics of the product, the intentions of the supplier, etc. In principle, occasional supplies by charities or hobbyists should not be considered as taking place in a business related context.

And apparently the author decided to ignore everything but "regularity of the supplies" and decided that a widely used product that makes regular releases is commercial activity. Sorry, but I'm absolutely not convinced. "Characteristics of the product" and "intentions of the supplier" is already very broad and you could easily argue that a non-commercial open-source project is, well, not classified as open-source according to the regulation.

The author also truncated the paragraph about open source from the regulation. Here it is in its entirety:

> In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source software
developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity should not be
covered by this Regulation. This is in particular the case for software, including its source code and modified versions, that is openly shared and freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable. In the context of software, a commercial activity might be characterized not only by charging a price for a product, but also by charging a price for technical support services, by providing a software platform through which the manufacturer monetises other services, or by the use of personal data for reasons other than exclusively for improving the security, compatibility or interoperability of the software.

It is absolutely clear that the EU has thought about open-source software and is intent on not harming the ecosystem with its regulation. But it is stating the obvious: if you write free, open-source software, but you charge for support, then yes, you're engaging in a commercial activity! You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You want to take money from EU consumers? Abide by the EU rules and ensure that the products you distribute comply with the regulations. You don't want to deal with that? Don't take the money. It's as simple as that.

Every single link to a reaction from a foundation or developer in this newsletter is in that vein: complaining that they want to continue taking money for support or a platform but avoid falling under the "commercial" category. That just doesn't work.

Sorry for the rant but I'm genuinely upset. The EU wants to protect me, an EU customer, from vendors who sell software or software support contract but don't take cybersecurity seriously. They've recognized that OSS is special and even went as far as making special exceptions for it - but without allowing loopholes where vendors hide behind open-source to avoid liability. And yet, what do we get? EU bashing. Because apparently the only good regulation is no regulation. I don't want to live in a libertarian hellhole. If you do, don't force it upon me, and abide by the local law if you want to do business with me.
The gevulot is not good enough. Linking knowledge access to everybodies' consent doesn't work.

There is another way...
In the same way I don’t expect a biologist writing for biologists to explain “DNA” stands for “deoxyribonucleic acid”, it’s probably not necessary for a music producer writing for producers and engineers to define “DAW”.

Users here probably feel the same way about HTML, FIFO, DAG, etc
All the companies I know (all major enterprises though) use Office 365. I didn't realise google suite was so common.
Have you considered using dictation? It’s come along way since the Nuance Dragon Speech days.
> It points to the discipline not being coherently built on shared theories but rather being a set of disjointed hypotheses.

My understanding is that this is one of the hallmarks of the replication crisis in psychology - studies that claim high effect sizes or otherwise high impact results without any plausible mechanism of action to explain them.
What an annoying way to misunderstand a point. And also the entire discipline of marketing.
I hazard a guess that the most popular diet soda is Diet Coke, which contains significantly more caffeine than regular Coke. Even if there is a causal link between autism in the son and diet soda consumption in the mother, jumping to the conclusion that it is the fault of aspartame specifically seems dubious.

Additionally, do we know whether autistic people drink more diet soda than others? If autism is at least partly genetic, as it seems to be, then the mothers in the study might themselves be autistic or carriers of autism-linked genetic mutations.

I have read in prior research that overweight mothers are more likely to have autistic children. Another possibility is that being overweight is associated with frequent diet soda consumption, and it’s the mother being overweight that is more the issue than the soda consumption per se.

Anyway, I am not at all convinced of the implication that a mother drinking diet soda increases her child’s risk of autism, especially if the mother is at a healthy weight.
Funnily enough, as a business consultant I use GPT to create executive summaries and sell people on the idea that my reports are as short as they possibly can be without information loss.
No, but you may refuse to provide paid support to EU customers if you don't want to deal with your product's cybersecurity (risk assessment, vulnerability reporting, etc).
Even the dimmest view of management should expect them to care about extremely bad PR.
If I recall there is a marked difference in ADHD between genders. In boys it manifests the way we typically imagine ADHD: the physical hyperactivity, etc., while girls are much more likely to have “inattentive” ADHD which is much more easily missed. They simply can’t hold attention on things for long and frequently have emotional outbursts but they’re aren’t as physically obvious.
Before jumping to conclusions, this is a single epidemiological study.

Waiting for replication of the study is practically a necessity before trying to make any sweeping policy decisions.

At the same time, a cautious person may decide that there's a probability that this correlation is both true and also a causal association. And in caution, stay below the one drink per day cutoff in the study, or even go to zero, when pregnant. Already, there are many guidelines on for for pregnant women that are based on abundance of caution rather than full knowledge of definite risk.

TL;DR the scientific literature is not a textbook, it is the active working document and communication between scientists as they are working through the self-correcting scientific process. And the scientific literature should treat any single paper as a collection of data that is incomplete, may not be fully understood, and may have faulty conclusions attached to the data. It takes time and further evaluation do fully understand natural phenomenon. The rare paper that conclusively proves something is the exception, and in the end it is only proven when it has been replicated by others.
That's terrific, thank you!
Fluoride is fine for cleaning your teeth, but not ingesting. Thankfully I don't have city water.
The CM4 exposes a PCIe 1.0 x1 (Not sure about the revision) lane and can boot from an NVME SSD. It will be nice to have this capability on the Pi 5 with all of the other connectors (except for audio.)
For bioinformatics:

https://biostars.org

For them intersection of tech builders and bio people: Bits in Bio Slack

https://bitsinbio.org/
Tripnotes: AI Smart Trip Planner – Guidady
JWST discovers the farthest gravitational lens ever
Off topic, but I had to follow up. It seems that "Write drunk, edit sober" is mis-attributed to Hemingway, who advised writing sober [1].

[1] https://www.writersdigest.com/be-inspired/did-hemingway-say-...
Is that only a service that Bandwidth.com offers or would it work on a regular cell network?
> A confident GPT hallucination is almost indistinguishable from typical management consulting material...

Sounds perfect for both Harvard and those linked to the institution.

My employer has hired McKinsey a few times, known to recruit from HYP, and their output has been subpar to say the least. My entire experience with these institutions has been fairly uniform in that regard.

I know it’s anecdotal. But it feels like there’s a lot of confirmation bias with these sorts of studies.
There's that. There's a cultural fear of aspartame that could cause people who don't like their child's diagnose to over report aspartame consumption* because they want something to blame. There's self selection in the study group (235 kids with autism vs 120 without is not a random population sample). I made the quip in another comment this is self reported consumption from memory.

*That 200+ vs 100+ ratio in the groups kinda implies they went looking for this specific connection rather than it just popping up as they did various regressions, and if you're looking for a specific connection it's easy to accidently-on-purpose pull in people who already believe in that connection which can color their recollection.
My Big Toe? It's a tedious frustrating slog. His MBT YouTube series from Calgary is much more rewarding at about 1.5x speed.
SuperAGI: V0.0.6 Now Live [Updated Jun 2023] – Guidady
I wonder if people with the genes for autism are more likely to drink diet sodas. Drinking diet coke appears unusually popular amongst my autistic friends.