skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No one (in this thread) has suggested science is bad or we should throw it away, that is your own straw man.

I have suggested we throw away a part that is causing problems. You seem to be rushing to defend scientific failures by saying “it doesn’t matter that a lot of studies don’t replicate, we should follow the status quo regardless.” We can throw out the status quo and keep (the good parts of) science intact.
I remember several classes I wish I could have taken, but classes aren't free and I was already overloaded with useless "required" classes.
If you believe the demand for code is elastic (people want more if it's cheaper), then it looks set to explode as a profession.

Won't be doing exactly what you were doing last year, just as last year, you weren't rewiring plugboards for mainframe programs. It'll be more like systems analysis.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plugboard#Early_computers

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_analysis
Apologies if this sounds completely defeatist, but wouldn’t it be better to just mostly get rid of colors in product design? That is, yes, you absolutely want to use color for branding and recognizability, but given the fact that widely deployed color models and accessibility metrics do not completely reflect the reality of human color perception, using them to convey information is just not worth the trouble.

Again, there are exceptions to everything, but WCAG 2.1 says UIs shouldn’t fully rely on color to convey information (please correct me if I am wrong), the same goes for icons.

I can see how other sectors and industries will treat this differently (think color bands on resistors or topographical maps), but for me, creating a SaaS product with a focus on accessibility, I have almost completely given up on this topic.

Charts, statistics and so on are way easier to make accessible when using good old HTML tables.

The increase in product quality is marginal when optimizing for color.
Classes covered under Title IX aren't necessarily covered by the Constitution, but our democracy has recognized that they need protection. Civil rights are rights outlined in law and reinforced by the courts. They're not pulled from thin air. If you believe that there is no right to spend your income without first depositing it into a third party for-profit bank for safekeeping, then make that case.
A price-fixing company on home rentals, in this market and economy... I'd cheer on officials imprisoning all the execs and board members, seizing and dissolving the company, clawing back gains from investors, etc.

And landlords who'd used this company to collude would be offered plea deals, in which they're wiped out financially, and permanently banned from investing in residential properties. Bonus: they can see what it's like to be an exploited renter.

The resulting funds can partly compensate some of the renters who were harmed, including many of those impacted by the effect this collusion had on the larger market.

Hopefully, that would double as a warning to any other startup founders who want to pull yet another "it's not illegal, if you call it an app" scheme.

Justice fantasies aside, at least HN could condemn these awful companies and the people who make them; never celebrate them.
It seems like this couldn't hold. A lot of companies are developing visualizations or interactive systems to look cool, look high tech as shit, but where the 3d is somewhat bolt on, not the core product.

If these companies just give away their 3d stuff, how was Epic ever going to make money on them? Epic is probably happy doing a couple feature pieces like virtual production in the Mandalorian, but eventually they're going to want to not just give Unreal away to any enterprise who wants to use the tech.

It's boggled my mind wondering what Epic would eventually turn to to convert this Unreal for non-core-product from a give-away into a market. I guess per-seat licensing shouldn't be a surprise; few others have figured out straightforward predictable pricing models to supply software with.
If I were the Epic CEO, I hold these bad news for several months, because the people has in their brain the Unity fee.
You are clearly a smart guy, you are also clearly on the far side of the spectrum. Since it took you a while to notice that I was yanking your chain. That's ok, I'm somewhat of a full spectrum spaz myself.

The problem with smart people is that they have a very hard time to notice when their brain has sidestepped rational thought, and started to go into an emotional latent space. The reason for this is that your emotional life has no problem utilizing complex topics to shield itself from your conscious attention.

Face it. There isn't anything special about what a bio-neuron does. We just choose to ignore a lot of the intricacies of the bio-neuron. Because it is clearly irrelevant in order to sidestep halting. If a task suffers from halts the NN will simply side step the problem. Just like us.
We are at a stage of technological development. Where we need to effen stop, and put all our effort into alignment. You realize this is true inside that cholesterol bag you call a brain. Your brain is just doing gymnastics of a preeteen soviet girl level, to stop yourself from getting it. Just get it.
I feel like Bay Area salaries are much closer to even "zone c" places like Alabama now. Been lookin at this a lot lately.
>A "you" can, and many individual "you"s presumably did that, to general satisfaction

I was chatting with the person that was in charge of marking the fields for the local youth soccer league. I volunteered to help one weekend, and one of the first things he asked was if I knew what a 3/4/5 triangle was since it was the only way to know you'll be squared. I never did figure out to what level he was dead panning his joke or if he was even meaning for it to be a joke. Either way, I laughed.
Same here. I'm really surprised that after Pebble's implosion nothing appeared to fill the void. I could've bet real money that within a couple of years we're going to see at least a couple of products at least close to what the Pebble was.
Air Safety Institute's Richard McSpadden Dies in Crash
They do, but they were also doing it before the phones were routinely designed to be waterproof, and I don't recall an epidemic of water-related phone-killing incidents.
A single piece of hardware would take the image, then sign it. All of the chips for this would need to be integrated together as a secure element. The only way to get the image is from the hardware. Then it would be in the manufacturer's interest to keep the keys a secret. The keys could even be to a specific camera or batch of cameras. You then authenticate the images from the camera like your browser authenticates bytes from a web server. On X, the image gets posted, and then the browser can check the signature of the image against a key from the image sensor manufacturer. The browser displays "this image is authenticated by Sony" if they're the ones that made the image sensor.
That's not quite the full picture you're painting here.

First of, at the moment the effort is super asymetrical: it takes way more efforts to check a paper for image duplication than it takes to alter an existing image to add it to a paper. So the journals are losing against the counterfeiter as we speak.

What's more, it is possible to run the detection tools long after publication, which makes it harder for someone to fake images because they run the risk of being detected later on with a more advanced version of the tooling. Typically malware devs try to erase all traces of their bad deeds and to run away undetected for this exact reason. But how do you hide an already published paper?

Finally, it takes efforts to run the tools. If this effort is greater than the effort it takes to fake an image, which it is, then the cost may become prohibitive, so fakers will try to avoid faking+prechecking in favour of faking+hiding (by publishing in unchecked journals for example). That is until they group together to organize faking at scale (setting up and automating a tool like that is probably were the cost is, not running it). Faking at scale does exist, some countries practice it eagerly. So now the question becomes: do we turn a blank eye to such blatant misuse of research or do we try to take them red-handed and to ban/punish bad behavior? Not such a hard question since being on the offensive is the only scenario where we have a remote chance of stopping or at least reducing the influx of faked papers, you don't stop the mafia by ignoring them.
How did he live for so long?!
> We put huge amounts of (unpaid) scientific resources towards peer review and it has hardly improved anything.

What was the alternative (and when?), and what were the results? Who will fund all this replication - basically double-funding all research? Do we want our scientists spending their limited time on old things instead of discovering new ones?
Meanwhile, mortgage rates his 7%
> However, the Hexagon DSPs are notoriously hard to program.

I disagree the Hexagon is "hard" to program - the HVX intrinsics are fairly straightforward if you've used neon/avx/etc. The problem is that you don't get access to the HMX/HTA/(whatever they call the NPU currently), just HVX. So for running on DSP your options are (1.) Qualcomm's Hexagon SDK which doesn't give you access to the tensor hardware, and (2.) their SNPE SDK, which actually has access to HMX/HTA/etc, but doesn't let you program against the hardware directly. Instead, SNPE is supposed to convert your caffe/tf/onyx/torch models to Qualcomm proprietary format so it can map ops to the most appropriate hardware. What actually happens is that their conversion tools fall apart the first time you don't use one of their AlexNet/ResNet vanilla examples and try to convert a prod-grade model. Combine the brittleness of their conversion tools with the lack of documentation/support and it becomes impossible to use the hardware.

All that being said, would be interested to hear if anyone has had luck with other means of using their (admittedly impressive) hardware. Maybe a better approach would be to try using Halide for Hexagon and OpenCl for Adreno? They were also going to release a QNN update this year or next year - not sure if they've allowed anyone access to it. Its really a shame that the hardware is so good, but the software is so clunky.
The fundamental idea of testing units and then integrations between units is unassailable and unkillable (today).

We should have serious discussions about HOW we test units, and whether example based tests are sufficient when we can do property based testing, etc...

...but the suggestion of the idea that the unit/integration distinction has somehow been surpassed is absolutely baffling. You would need to rewrite more than half the languages in use for this to make much sense and even then I don't think you could shake this core abstraction. It's built into the tools we use and may even be built into the way we think about systems far below any language or tool choice.
> I don’t see Russia running out of tanks.

There’s evidence they are running out of tanks, like activating T62’s and using Indias T90S’s.

They aren’t out of tanks altogether but they are clearly going through tanks faster then they can make them.
How much research have you replicated?
Well I keep seeing people suggest that humans are also really just sophisticated LLMs.

If that’s true then this behavior difference (identifying and admitting when you don’t know something) seems like a pretty fundamental difference between humans and LLMs at least at this point.
I found this one out 10 years ago when I got a Pebble.
Getting notification on my watch was increasing my stress rather than decreasing it.

Also looking at my watch for a notification got many people thinking I was late for some appointment or that I was trying to find an excuse to stop talking to them.
When I disabled the notifications I was left with not-so-smart watch with terrible battery life (still many times better than current models!).

Nowadays I stick either with a Casio Waveceptor or a mechanical watch depending if I need the time precision of the Waveceptor or not.
You fundamentally do not understand the works you are linking to and it's hilarious that you would use it as a way of saying that neuroscientists think otherwise.

I would note for other readers that the commenter didn't go to college for neuroscience, or any science, based on their previous comments.
Based on your other replies it's probably just a fundamental disagreement on how you view notifications compared to those who find watch notifications to reduce stress.

For me, watch notifications reduce stress by allowing me to get absorbed in the moment while still being able to quickly check up on any important things without having to "context switch" by pulling out a phone.

It means that I can actually take advantage of my flexible work schedule and go out on a walk or be visiting my niece and playing with her, yet still available to others who might be working at the time.

In the early 2000s, sure there weren't devices vying for your attention, but such flexible work requirements were also not that common.

I get to do things whenever I want as long as the overall work is progressing at a decent pace. If I had to avoid getting into something enough to remember to keep checking my phone, it'd defeat the point of such flexibility, and if others had to wait an hour or two for me to notice and reply to them, work would not progress at a decent pace and the flexibility would be taken away.

This is probably also a function of my position. I'm at the start of my research career, so most of the emails I have ultimately involve me asking someone else for something which benefits me much more than them. My being extremely prompt with my replies helps a lot with making a good impression and getting things done, and a watch helps a lot with pulling that off without having to actually stress about paying attention to my emails.
The earlier drafts of the proof were rejected by editors. He had to fight.
I had a Pebble smartwatch for years and loved it. I was a very reluctant switcher to Apple Watch and battery life was one of my biggest concerns.

Turns out it doesn’t really matter. When going to bed at night I used to plug my phone in. Now I plug my phone and my watch in. Pick up both in the morning and I’m ready to go.

Ironically I find myself in fewer low battery scenarios than I did with my Pebble: because I need to charge every day it becomes part of my routine. With the Pebble I’d lose track of when I last charged it and leave the house with it running on fumes. Still miss it, though.
This is comment is orthagonally-related, something I read just yesterday: Douglas Adams' short story on "A Puddle's Perspective":

tl;dr:

If a water puddle had perception, then the containing "outside" always seems to be "the perfect fit" for the puddle, no matter how much nor little rainfall.

Until eventually, the last water vapors dissipate, and the puddle is no more.
A car capable of 80 mph, assuming some gearbox/rpm headroom, will jump off the 80mph treadmill too, normally there's a lot of drag to overcome which isn't there on a treadmill.

The second paragraph checks out: with a realistic plane on an unrealistic treadmill either the wheels will fall off or the treadmill will produce enough airspeed to lift off the plane vertically up.
Japan's Bubble-Burst: The Party That Wasn't Supposed to End [video]
If you could retroactively give me 7 years software support on my pixel 5 that would be great thanks
In my experience it's because the monitoring system is usually controlled by another team. So you they don't know what they should be testing, and the developers who know how to do it aren't easily able to set it up as part of deployment.

Add issues like network-visibility, and you wind up talking about a cross-team, cross-org effort to stick an HTTP poller and get the traffic back to some server - and so going into production without it winds up being the easier path (because it'll work fine - provided nothing goes wrong).
Do they use 'off-the-shelf' passenger jets?
Not an investor at all. Not even a capitalist, just an entrepreneur in capitalist markets.

Did start out as a teenage stockbroker over 50 years ago, so I've been studying companies for quite a while now.

Always have been interested in things that don't show up on the balance sheet or company prospectus.

Flexport is one I've been watching to a degree for a number of years. A lot of the things Petersen has said I could really support.

Maybe even as one of the companies I would return to capitalist action to work together with. With my cargo experience I could definitely add millions to their bottom line, but figured I would have to work directly under Petersen, anything less probably wouldn't cut it. And that would be just a drop in the bucket at the scale they are targeting.

Never knew who Clark was until this debacle, so I'm trying to bring myself up-to-date. From what I know so far, if he does run for Governor of Texas I would be enthusiastic about helping him any way I can.

I'll probably have more comments in the future as more real information becomes available.
But then again the only thing it can do is receive and send calls. You didn't buy an iPhone only for the call feature.
It seems weird to think of money as something you have to spend. We just added it to our savings.
Software is a mechanism that can copy its self infinitely and in multiple forms with limitless layers of abstraction [1]. If you need to make new software, by default you are making something new/unique, otherwise you're reinventing the wheel.

[1] factoryfactoryfactory.net
Albedo increase (shooting sulfates or other light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere) is naloxone for fossil addiction.

Enhanced weathering, which is what this is, would be intensive care unit support, in this metaphor. Or maybe palliative care.

What gets us well? I have no idea.
Both terms are problematic as they anthropomorphize an algorithm.
Yasa-1
I don't think it's that deep of an issue, or at least OpenAI seems to know how to fix it. ChatGPT often tell me when it's wrong and it also often recognizes that it has made a mistake when prompted (e.g. "are you sure?").
What's wrong with using 32 MiB of memory? That's a relatively small amount, especially if you're trying to patch a 225 MB DLL.

And I would argue that the 32 MiB is worse than arbitrary - it is pointless. I have been thinking about this for a while and I cannot think of a situation where it makes things better. It wastes (a lot of) CPU, and I claim that it doesn't actually save memory compared to letting the balance-set manager do the trimming.

Low CPU priority and low IO priority are important for being a polite background process. Not using too much memory is important. But a working-set cap fails to achieve that last goal.
>How many did say this?

I don't know about chess, though earlier computers didn't have the power, so people could've reasonably said that.

But we certainly saw it with Go. Many people said that a computer could beat a person at chess or checkers, because they were simple, limited games, but Go was too complicated, too many possible combinations. A computer could never beat a Go champion. And here we are, with multiple generations of AlphaGo pushing the boundaries. They might use a couple thousand CPUs and a few hundred GPUs, but they can do the impossible thing.
Show HN: ctoc – Count Tokens of Code (cloc for the LLM Era)
Hi HN, I'm building a CLI tool for counting tokens of code. I’m excited to share this project and would love to hear your feedback!

----

Token counts play a key role in shaping a Large Language Model's (LLM) memory and conversation history. They're vital for prompt engineering and token cost estimation. Various strategies in prompt engineering (e.g., contextual filtering and reranking) predominantly aim at token compression to counteract LLM's context size limit.

ctoc provides a lightweight tool for analyzing codebases at the token level. It incorporates all the features of cloc. (You can use ctoc in a cloc-consistent manner.)

Built on top of gocloc, ctoc is extremely fast.
One Does Not Simply Walk into Mordor: Julia, the Last Language?
My next door neighbor is an "executive level" car-booker, and (without my provocation) she brought up last week that "her job is safe from AI, because her clients like talking to her and need a human to verify this."

I pressed 'F' for her employment, remaining silent. She has obviously been pre-occupied with these thoughts.
"Gary Klein studied how firefighters make decisions in the workplace. To his surprise, the firefighters said that they didn’t make decisions at all, as they didn’t actively choose between any options. They simply acted and reacted based on their previous experiences without trying to come up with different courses of action. From this study, Klein developed a model, called the “recognition primed decision-making model,” which he claims is used in 90% of all situations, not just in a crisis.

Klein’s model consists of two steps:

1. Recognize the course of action that makes the most sense

2. Imagine how this would look in reality"
I grew up in Texas in the 90s and there was no way you would not know there was a tornado warning. People coped quite well with that reality, we live in a time where there is far more expectations to be always available. Before most people had cellphones if someone didn't know how to get a hold of you, they waited, and it was largely ok.

Emergencies are probably the only thing I will agree with you on, but, and this could be just my luck, I just didn't have many of those. One in particular I can think of was when I went off the road into a ditch in the middle of nowhere while trying to avoid a deer and my car was suspended over the ditch so I couldn't get it out. I walked down the road to a local factory and hitched a ride with a trucker who took me to the security office so I could call a tow truck. Yea it was a hassle but it wasn't impossible to get through emergencies without a device in your pocket.
The foreground applications will still be paged out, only now they will be paged out for longer.

Without background mode setup.exe would have a 48 MiB working set, for a short period of time.

With background mode setup.exe has a 32 MiB working set, plus 16 MiB of its memory is bouncing back and forth between the working set and the standby list.

Thus, none of its memory will get paged out and foreground apps will get paged out, and this will continue for 250 times as long.
Easy to configure, good looking dashboards with a lot of different integrations.

Meaning pretty much any team with basic know-how can get a monitoring dashboard going, or several for different resources and cases. It's main focus is monitoring.
I am such a person! I make J videos at http://youtube.com/@tangentstorm (many of them are recordings of live-coding on a single J application), work professionally in another array language called K, and also use forth (one of his other puzzle languages) for various things (currently working on a forth-like scripting language for an animation tool, for example).

I would definitely categorize J as having a strong puzzle culture. Many of the people who use it are just doing it for recreation and to stretch their brains, and insist on writing everything in "tacit" (J's version of point-free) style.

Personally, I'm more interested in building things. Most of my J and K code look like any other scripting language, but just very highly compressed.

I would agree that Haskell is not quite in the same category, and don't get the sense that Haskellers strongly favor a particular brand of bending over backwards to make things happen. But then again I'm not nearly as tuned in to the Haskell community, and he was writing this 14 years ago...
That claim is the basis to basically all other claims, it is fundamental to such a degree that questioning is in the realms of philosophy and not science. If it is false then just about everything humanity believes and knows is false.