skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>In general, I find the idea quite simple that showing a behavior in an enticing form to someone will lead to an adoption of the behavior.

Again, the same "violent video games cause violence" nonsense is being used here to justify your personal (but wrong) feelings about pornography.

>Otherwise you ought to explain this to advertisers, I'm sure they'd be happy to save hundred of billions in tv ads in the US.

Is this a reference to "sex sells"? Sorry but so far as we know, nobody ever raped someone because they saw a suggestive television commercial. But please go ahead and find some evidence of that.

>PsychologyToday is a pro-porn outlet that likes to cherry pick badly designed studies.

You can say that but your opinion doesn't make that statement true, and you yourself are cherry-picking one out of many other studies that contradict what you want to be true.

>Anyone familiar with porn can only see that creating porn involves sexual violence in most cases.

That's false, that's your opinion and it is quite divorced from reality. There are many studies showing quite the opposite of what you think is going on.

- While one study shows 88% of porn depicts violence against women, *five other studies estimate between 2% and 36%*.

- Studies on the amount of violence against women in porn vary widely because some count consensual BDSM as "violence" while others don't.

- If 2% of porn videos depict violence against women, it could be said that porn depicts less violence against women than TV cop shows.

Yes, I'm using this site again because your personal opinion of the site means absolutely nothing given you're using your feelings to assert a falsehood:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201606...

"New research findings published in the journal Trauma, Violence & Abuse suggest there is no connection between pornography consumption and sexual violence"

https://www.utsa.edu/today/2020/08/story/pornography-sex-cri...

Since the availability of internet porn, rape rates have steadily declined over time.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

Women enjoy watching porn too, in case you're too puritan to realize that. Sure it's easy to find studies that agree with your world view, because other people use their feelings more than evidence too. You want to believe it's true, so you find others that have the same bias. But there's far more studies and evidence that porn does not cause sexual violence, and most porn produced isn't violent in nature although the classification of "violence" can mean different things to different people, and in your case it seems like any sexual act that is filmed would count as "violence".
It's surprising to me that GitHub currently doesn't attach review comments to specific commits, but only to timestamps, and I agree that it would be great to improve that.

But I don't understand how a contributor can feel pressure to address all of the reviewers' comments in a single commit: They can commit as many times as they want, and only push when they feel it's ready. And in the case where they may want to offer multiple different solutions for a reviewer to choose from, I like a small adaptation of a suggestion I saw by another commenter here, which is to make a PR for each option off their existing PR's branch: When one of those option branches is accepted and merged, GitHub will fast-forward the original PR's branch to include those commits, which is exactly what you would want and expect.
It's exactly what I said, intelligence is polygenic (not a too complex word for you I hope). Intelligence is a proxy here for the general mind. Homosexuality tendency is probably the same, which means it's not "on" or "off" as you initially said. You are not "born gay", there is 0 evidence that a one day newborn is homosexual. Epigenetics also probably play a role here. Twins studies, which are the golden standard, are not conclusive on this matter.

Here is a clue-by-four.

Find where I said that it is "on" or "off". Find where I indicated that I thought people are necessarily "born gay". Find where I indicated that epigenetics can't play a role.

Good luck. I said none of those things. I said nothing indicating that I believe any of those things. And I actually don't believe those things. As should be obvious from the fact that I identify "bisexual" as a category.

You're right, I misread, probably because it's false: https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-tick... Also, 20% of zoomers identify as LGBT, totally an organic movement only determined by genetics and not the current liberal kulturkampf.

The headline figure there is that 7.1% of adults classify themselves as LBGTQ.

https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/historical... gives various historical polls. Hunt in 1974 found that 7% of men had spent at least 3 years in a homosexual relationship, and about 2-3% of men are exclusively homosexual and under 1% of women. Let's see, that's around the same that are LBGTQ today, and about the same percentage that are gay today!

You can compare with other polls over the decades. Depending on how the poll was done and who did it, you get different percentages. But they are all in the same range.

Also, 20% of zoomers identify as LGBT, totally an organic movement only determined by genetics and not the current liberal kulturkampf.

Most zoomers have not actually had sex, and most of the ones that I know have been walking back their trans declarations. So I don't take that figure seriously. Let's wait and see what they say when they are 30.
From talking to people, I would say it exists on a spectrum. I can imagine an apple, the color and texture of its skin, how it feels to touch it, its weightiness, its smell, the sound it'll make when I bite into it, as well as its taste and texture. I can imagine it at different levels of ripeness too, although I don't have the same amount of information for all of them. For me it's so clear that it's almost as good as the real thing.

Some people I've talked to said they couldn't do most of that. They said they could think of an apple, but couldn't tell me much more about it, other than that it was an apple. Now, obviously I can't peer into their heads. Were they actually imagining more but were unable to put it into words? Were they underestimating the vividness of what they were imagining? Or were they accurately describing what was in their minds? Although I can't directly experience their minds, there were certainly differences between what each of us could describe.
Maybe if you measure it by what hit radio songs they remember from childhood, but the things most people would consider more fundamental paint a different picture. If you take this source I haven't vetted[0] (I'm getting this from common knowledge, not surveys, to be honest) the evidence seems pretty clear that immigration from south of the border is actually supporting our most longstanding conservative cultural institution, far from "diluting" or "eroding" it.

If any reader is curious, the irony only developed around the time a certain presidential campaign normalized anti-immigrant rhetoric; until then the "old conservatives" were fully aware of the importance of immigration to business owners and the lack of any real cultural incompatibility and never took any steps to reduce it. They sided very much on the elimination of the welfare state which was the solution they saw for the supposed cost issue (highly questionable to begin with, in a country with as little in the way of social programs as the US after the 1980s drew to a close. In a system designed for people that thought social security should depend on the number of hours you have worked, it is hard to imagine what costs they'd be objecting to.)

The way the shift in alignment was carried out always struck me as a sobering example of the shortness of memories, or the impermanence of the public's convictions.

[0] https://www.prb.org/resources/immigration-gives-catholicism-...
a friend and I tried to launch a startup around this a number of years back with really nice mobile apps, and he has a web/Git-based incarnation of something similar going here now: https://cafeandcowork.com
What is there to "sink in?" That natural selection seems to disfavor "belief in evolution?"

I see this sort of statement sometimes, and I really haven't figured out what it means. I can point to exactly zero consequences in my life for either believing in evolution or not at any given point. The time scales evolution requires are simply too long to matter to even the next thousand generations of my family, and evolution is simply too flexible to exclude other worldviews (e.g. theism).

Are you suggesting a status thing, i.e. belief in scientific theories is high status and skepticism/alternative worldviews are low status?
The NTK newsletter I guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_Know_(newsletter)
Direct link to the reddit thread:
https://old.reddit.com/r/amazonprime/comments/16wmrhc/three_...

Not sure if there's been anything official from Amazon about this yet, but I bet there is having a bad night.
It’s very weird that PR approvals remain “approved” after changes to the PR that was approved.
I have read the explanation by various members of the OpenJDK team as to why that syntax was chosen and I still don't understand it. Even Brian's explanation, which otherwise gets right through to me even on more complex topics, did not really clarify it for me. He says choosing ${} would have made all the existing Strings a template if they contain ${} with a valid variable in the same scope, which breaks compatibility.

But I don't know what I am missing to not see the breakage. For an existing String literal having a ${...} does not make it into a template that will be processed. You have to explicitly invoke STR. on that to process it as a template. Else if will be just like any other String with no interpolation. STR. is a completely new feature and is illegal in prior versions so I don't see how this breaks compatibility.

Even if you had a variable named STR in existing code, it is illegal to do STR."some str literal".

I guess it is too late now.
I would rather look at the data than at the tone of the comment.

The person they were replying to referred to studies; the person you replied to essentially said they love their children and that childless people find emptyness towards the end.

I believe both, and both can be true at the same time, especially considering that I've also heard of studies which showed that people tend to diminish past negative experiences. The parent will view the here and now, with happy children that are doing well, and see that all is good and hard work paid off. The childless person may have fewer people around them in later years, but which has a greater sum of total happiness? Being able to do for fifty years whatever your heart desires, or some happy end where someone sees you go and has a lot of pain from that? (I guess the latter might be partially my bias talking, but I truly am trying to view this objectively, like how one can explain both the study and the subjective experience from the person you replied to.)
After WW2? Mortality rates were pretty good. None of my dad’s siblings died in childhood. In Latin America, child mortality isn’t bad either. Catholics (at least back then, and many today outside of the USA, especially in the Philippines) do not believe in contraception.
> The enterprise cards are clocked a little bit slower, which dramatically reduces power.

But you can (and should) undervolt RTX 4090s if you care about power efficiency. Anyone buying one would know how to.
When the drug doesn’t work they just push the “enhance” button and shareholder value goes up.
Thank you! Will give that a shot.
Recruiters or contacts within the company I’m interested in. Not worth playing the resume filtering game with random applications to companies.
I like the optimism of the author, and if their overall point is for there to be more open sharing of data in pharmacokinetics research, that is a valid and worthwhile topic of discussion. One that is worth advocating for, as the potential results it would yield for future research and for the progress of science.

That said, their view that it is simply a matter of collaboration and coordination is entirely wrong. Sharing of data and collaboration would absolutely be worthwhile (though it runs opposite to the direction of incentives in profit-driven drug development) but it's like saying we could start building a Dyson Sphere tomorrow and solve the worlds energy problems if we just pooled our talent and resources. In contrast to what the author claims, we need HUGE advances in technology and our understanding of the human body, pharmaceutical sciences, drug development, etc. before this is possible. To use their example of GLP-1 agonists, prior to their development and wide-spread usage, the psychological effects of these drugs were completely unknown. Both positive and negative, clinically. But what if those effects were much more dangerous? Many SSRIs have a black box warning, which is mostly applicable to specific age groups. Negative side effects that we see in teenage patients are much less common in other age groups. These kinds of effects are why medicine moves very slowly and experimental work is costly, because ultimately we are talking about peoples lives and not a machine that is easily replaced if we break it during the testing phase.

Millions of animals would be the first to rejoice and praise a model that didn't require in-vivo testing but, we may sadly never see that day. I'm skeptical that even the development of an ASI would be enough to get us there.

I did find that the author has a knack for explaining difficult concepts with simple and illustrative metaphors. As a clinician and scientist in the pharma research space, this is one of the few articles I would send to a friend that finds the topic interesting but lacks the background knowledge to understand most literature about drug research.
I have a rad rover 6. It’s a fat tire electric bike with disc brakes that can go 20mph. When I got on it the first time and hit max speed, I was like this is definitely fast enough for me. A lot of people say you don’t need the fat tire but I’m heavy and I live in Michigan and the roads are crap here. I never ride it without a helmet and the side view mirror but even then I have to be attentive. The boosted boards and one wheels always seemed too dangerous for me.
Tracking Change(set)s in a Code Review
This topic came up today on the homepage, so I figured this post from 3 weeks ago could be relevant to folks!
Here is what I hate in modern completion UIs.

You type one character, and the thing scampers off like a rabid squirrel, hogging the CPU, so that the UI becomes unresponsive to me typing the remaining characters.

If you just prioritize the interactive response, the algorithm is almost moot.

When the user types m, you could as well show a completely random selection of 20 things that start with m. Or nothing. Take your time; the user will type more stuff.

When there are enough characters of context so that the selection is pruned down, there you need to be responsive. The user starts to see meaningful things in the list. When they type another character to refine it, they want it updated instantly.

Completion that is too eager is exactly like a person who doesn't wait for you to finish talking, jumps to conclusions about what you're going to say and starts replying.

Here is another thing I hate: when I see a completion I like that is itself not complete, let me continue! Sometimes the completion gives me the word I was going to type, but there is more; i.e. I wanted just to complete a part of my typing, not to choose that item as the result of the query.

I find myself manually typing the word I see in the completion list, because I know that if I click on it, it will search for that, which is not what I want.

The completion should always go into the query box, where the user can refine it before submitting it. Or at least make it an option.

It doesn't actually cost an extra click. All it means that if I use down arrow to go into the completions, the currently selected completion is copied to the query box. Then I can type more characters, or hit Enter to dispatch the query. If all I want is to dispatch the completion, it's the same number of keystrokes: down arrow to pick a completion, then Enter.

Do not have it so that when I hit down arrow, the text I typed stays the same, so that the only choice I have is to hit Enter to dispatch "microsoft" or else continue my original text from "micr". Maybe I want the word "microsoft" and then continue typing " teams" or whatever.
This video is incredibly long, dull, and lacking in any technical depth (as new product releases often are) but I watched Zuckerberg's keynote speech - the 45 minute-long one - and the engineering guy's speech in which he talks about LLMs because I work in the language models space and was hoping to hear more news about open-source LLMs and Llama2, Llama3, etc.: https://m.facebook.com/MetaforDevelopers/videos/meta-connect... (I wish that video were on a seek-able platform with a searchable transcript like YouTube.)

In any case, the digital avatars of famous people were introduced in Zuckerberg's keynote speech, along with the absurd RayBans+Snapchat camera sunglasses that now record and transmit audio (great...), as well as the third generation of their AR/VR headset. (It seems they're leaning heavily into the _augmented_ reality instead of a virtual world in the 'metaverse'.) Oh, speaking of the AR/VR headset: Xbox games are coming to it in December 2023. I didn't expect that: Microsoft and Meta joining up on an AR/VR headset.

As someone who works in tech in the United States, but who had previously lived in a country in the EU that is more privacy minded than a lot of other EU countries and is decidedly more privacy-oriented than the United States, I must say that the RayBan + Snapchat video and audio sunglasses thoroughly creeped me out.

This article touches upon but a few of the reasons why I do like those devices: https://www-heise-de.translate.goog/hintergrund/Wie-Facebook... Yes, there's an application for hands-on learning with AR/VR goggles and it makes it easier to connect with one's friends and family on the other side of the world, but I don't want to exist in a society where everyone is wearing a potential surveillance apparatus on their face and where people interact with but a digital simulacrum of the real world.

I'm terribly curious as to if anyone has done market (or academic) research into these notions of 'digital avatars' of not-famous people since LLMs have grown in ability? I'd read some of the literature on the perceived helpfulness or utility in question-answering via digital avatars some years ago, but that was probably a decade or more. Can anyone recommend any recent research in the space? I'd also truly love to read any marketing-focused materials on this flavor of tech product as I'm just not convinced that there's a real market there for digital avatars / digital 'holograms' of real (live or dead) humans.
I, too, saw through Dan Ariely's dog and pony show. I just didn't want to bring it up because people would think I was just showing off my clearly superior intellect.
https://github.com/ArchGPT/insomnium

(IDK if it meets all your reqs, but check it out)
It's a double threat of a file manager.

One, it's promising cross platform. Really really cross platform: Download for macOS Windows Linux iOS watchOS Android. That's a big audience that can make what they already do potentially better.

Second, it's cross system. It lets you work across your computers. I think this is one of the biggest gaps open source tends to have; it's not enough to make great single system software. The modern expectation is an ability to work a ross machines, to have on demand access to a variety of data.

So this both intends to be usable on a huge range of systems, and it intends to work across systems. $2m is still an incredible hell of a lot for open source to raise, just a wild amount of money, but these characteristics it has - that it has general appeal, that it is connective software - both to me explain some of the allure & contrast against what most open source software looks like.
You can disagree! We don't hold that against anyone.

Your point is good. There's no set of rules that works every time.

I think the root issue is that the Wikipedia article just wasn't the best submission for this story. There were a number of other articles about Mr. Toma's story on the web. Picking the best of those would have been a better strategy, and then the title issue would most likely have taken care of itself.
I actually got excited about there being a TV series about drug discovery when I read your comment, until I realized it was a joke (I'm tired).
The majority of the population does not have the background to consider the implications of say, banning E2EE, they do have the background to understand that CSAM is bad. Thus, when told that banning E2EE might make CSAM harder to distribute, of course they're going to prefer it. That doesn't make them malicious or evil.

The entire point of representative democracy is that the elected representatives are the ones who work with subject matter experts to reach solutions that work best for the people. Thus, it is the representatives who are, at worst, malicious/evil for not listening to subject matter experts in favor of their political games.
Sometimes the best you can get in pharma is post hoc. And sometimes it turns out the apparent mechanism of action is wrong.

Just look at the recent GLP-1 agonists like Ozempic. They are still largely a mystery.
The 6000 makes a lot more sense than the 5000.

Nvidia uses RAM limitations as non linear cost scaling vector in the same way openAI used context window but that opens opportunity for competition to disrupt long term.
My goal is to build things that work, and can continue to be worked on and improved over time; where development doesn't grind to a halt in 6 months because nobody cares about quality.

Edge cases matter sometimes matter and sometimes do not. They particularly matter in cases where, if the happen, the leave the system in a bad state (corrupt data, etc). Having a second pair of eyes take a look at the code and think "where can this go wrong" doesn't cost much, but can save a lot of pain later.

Doing things in a simpler way and/or a way that matches the way we generally do things makes it easier to maintain. And it's fairly common for code maintenance and/or further development on the same code, to be more common than writing brand new functionality (code that doesn't touch existing code). This is directly related to the "grind to a halt" I mentioned earlier.

Literally nothing I mentioned can be solved by hiring standards or pay. Once, because hiring people new to software development is a thing. Two, because everyone... EVERYONE makes mistakes. And EVERYONE can do better with the help of their peers.

I prefer that every PR get reviewed by someone, with the (uncommon) exception of those where the developer says it isn't worth a review. It generally takes very little time, and it adds to delivered code quality.
For others who didn't read the article (I hadn't when I saw this comment), the store credit is only for owners of older boards, which cannot be 'fixed' with the software update that they're rolling out.

> For early adopters, however, owners can receive a “pro-rated credit of $100 to the purchase of a new board,” according to Mudd. The credit will only be issued after owners confirm that they have disposed of the old model.
Have you gotten good at reacting to a firmware failure that suddenly and drastically changes the handling of your bike? ;-)
Some people just want to make one of their own and I think it’s good
Is the article wrong?