skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Most of my internet dollars in the past have come from ads and affilates on various blogs I run.

My first real "somebody paying me for my product" dollar, came in January of this year. I launched IndexGuru - solves a super common issue I had been dealing with on my blogs. Posted it to show HN, and had two separate people sign up and pay me money :)

Pretty great a-ha moment. Business is doing well, but nothing to write home about, I unfortunately do not have yacht money yet.
This doesn't seem to match the data I've seen.

Yes, food is a significant portion of energy consumption, but typical transportation and housing (including heat/cool) easily dominate. Going from a daily mixed meat (chicken/fish/beef/eggs) eating diet to a vegan diet saves ~1 ton CO2 per year. Average is about 4-5 tons per year for a person living in a small apartment in temperate climate, who only uses public transportation, doesn't go on vacation, or buy any unnecessary consumer items. A more typical westerner who can afford meat every meal is about 10-20 tons per year.

Now, if you're eating 150g of beef every meal 3x every day, you could double your footprint (+20tons CO2). Eating only chicken, fish, and eggs gets you below 1ton/year for meat in meals. Vegan is about a third of that.

https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-ecol...
I would settle for something much simpler.

All of your engineers get 5,10 votes for important libraries they use. The vote history is aggregated, and voting is twice a year. For every N votes we send $100 to that project. That way you’re not cutting little checks, and you have a finite number of projects you have to hunt down funding contacts and charitable status for.

Due to aggregation across votes, all the projects that perpetually come in 10th to 20th place get paid every year or two, and first place is likely to see a little more money each year. $300 in June and $400 in December for instance.
There's competing losses happening here: Marginal operating losses per user which would be realized if I use the app, and "market cap" loss as a result of aggregate loss of users. If substantially fewer people use the app, the company is worth less. ("Market cap" in quotes because it's privately held).

If I were acting in order to maximize losses, I think the latter would be more substantial. It also has the added benefit of not being exposed to the musings of Musk himself and the fascist crowd his reign has attracted to Twitter.
Yeah, I don't buy it.
OneDrive consistently corrupted files in my organization. Garbage software.
Nothing in "fair use" is about the new work making money or not.

You can write criticism or commentary that includes bits of the original work and make money selling that new work.

You can't give a free concert and argue that it being free makes that music performance fair use.
I am OK with AI being allowed to train on publicly accessible data, I'm not sure I see a big difference between me reading something publicly accessible versus a computer program reading the data.

I do think however that we are mostly ignoring cases where the AI literally does plagiarize the training data. I've seen some very egregious examples of Chat GPT "generating" code that is line-by-line copied from Open Source code and could be in violation of licenses, and Chat GPT does not cite the original source.

You ask Chat GPT to write something relatively simple and the output looks OK, but you ask it to do something very specific and it seems to like to spit back a copy of OSS code that someone already wrote.
While other countries have sun when it is night here, realistically we cannot build the needed wires to get that energy here. We need 20,000km of wire to get power around the earth at the equator.

Wind suffers the same problem as the sun in that sometimes there is no wind anyplace close, and it is even less predictable. While tide power is predictable and consistent, I don't live anywhere close to the ocean so we still need 2000km of wire to get it to me. Geothermo is useful when lava is close to the surface, but I don't live in such an area.

Note that my power is 80% wind, but it was done via several decades of building wind turbines, and I live in Des Moines which nobody would call a big city, if you live in a big city you have even more work to build it (you are both way behind us in building wind, and have a lot more to build)
I think the assumption that all bad grammar is the result of speaking a non-native speaker is a bad one. I work with a lot of native English speakers and they get all kinds of grammar school grammar wrong.
> We need to find way to make sure the access to this data the models were trained on, and the resulting models, is open and fair.

Hear, hear. Unfortunately this is more or less impossible given current copyright law.

Suppose you scrape libgen and turn it into training data, then you release the training data publicly. Since the vast majority of every book appears verbatim in the training data, is this sufficiently transformative?

I think yes, it is, because nobody is going to read those books from the training data. When I made books3, I felt it was important to render each book into high quality text. But it turns out that when you convert Jurassic Park into a text file, there's no good way to read it anymore. Good luck trying to bookmark wherever you left off -- it's all one gigantic file.

But nobody seems to agree. The Danish Rights Alliance (https://rettighedsalliancen.com/) aggressively DMCA'ed anyone that hosted books3, even going so far as to DMCA The Pile from academictorrents: https://academictorrents.com/details/0d366035664fdf51cfbe9f7... with the justification that ~100 copyrighted books appear in the training data, so therefore they have the right to DMCA. Right now most of the world seems to agree, but I'm hoping that opinion will shift as the years tick by. Surely no one can believe that a plain text document poses a serious threat of economic harm to the original author. So the question is whether the original author should be allowed to deny everyone else the right to transform their work into a form that machines can read.

For my part, I've been planning a books4 dataset, but this time similar to LAION: it's a script that spiders libgen torrents (https://libgen.gs/torrents/libgen/) and converts all the epubs into text files. That way, if LAION isn't infringing, then books4 can't be infringing either. (Of course, hosting the actual training data anywhere is pretty hard nowadays, but it should only take a few days to convert 38TB of libgen into ~2TB of plain text.)

This is the only way to create an open source competitor to ChatGPT.
Eh, the article is extremely unclear as to what the context is surrounding the assertion since opening statements should be finished on the day after the jury is empaneled, and so "when it's their turn" could refer to either opening statements (which is aimed at essentially nobody but more of an outline of the case from each side for the jury) or cross examination (which might be a bit early, but not impossible, but certainly would be directed at Ellison specifically).

It's impossible to tell without transcripts or at the very least better reporting, but the whole "it was someone else's fault" defense tends to work better when that someone else openly admits that it's their fault instead of the other way around. Federal prosecutors, in any case, don't fall for that anymore, although it is still very very very occasionally seen in state courts where a witness given immunity testifies that they were the guilty party when the issue involves identification and the act can only involve either/or and not both potential codefendants and there are no witnesses. Those are the types of cases that the feds would much rather decline prosecution to let the state prosecutors have their shot if they don't think they can get a plea anyhow. Cases where the feds are willing to go to trial on are almost always cases where defense ends up trying to mitigate instead of going for a straight acquittal on all counts, especially since this is really just a fraud/money laundering case and there's little chance of the government making their case too complicated for the jury. SBF not taking a plea is frankly idiotic but then again, the first murder trial I've been part of the defense for, we worked our asses off and got a hung jury, prosecutor offered a manslaughter 2, time served, which is as close to a win for us as we can get outside of acquittal, but the client adamantly refused and retrial on the same evidence got the kid 28 years so, lead a horse to water, etc.
>Otherwise, you'd have to argue that software reading the text contents of a book are copyright infringement.

How so?
Salaries, hiring, AI: Here’s what’s happening with U.S. tech jobs
The main technological advances already happened relatively early via printing, first through the printing presses and then later through desktop publication. Other advances are more peripheral such as better indexing via computers.
Crazy engine swaps are not uncommon. There are some Fiat 500s and such with v8 double motorcycle engines, wankels or even v12s and racecar v6s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A52W20Z38Bw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6SZuionhqQ

A turbine is relatively exotic, if only because they are even more impractical.
Bought a side project doing 2k MRR (4 months old). So technically it was already making money.
Honestly this is mostly fair. The fine is small but non-negligible. The infraction here is really the poor propellant tracking which is a mistake, not some nefarious plot or gross negligence. The satellite didn’t quite make the graveyard orbit but it’s out of the way. Tracking in GEO is only getting better, so it’s not really a debris risk. But you do have to issue fines to signal to the industry that getting deorbit plans wrong has a consequence.
> It may be the middle of indie game development, but across the whole landscape, the "missing middle" would seem to refer to the "single-/double-A" studios/publishers/games that died out between the launch of the PS2 and the release of GTA IV.

To be fair, the author specifically listed their definition in the opening:

>These are games that are bigger and more polished than a game jam game but are not huge, 30 hour epic triple-I indie game. A “middle game” should only take 1 to 9 months to create and can be profitable (or at least not a money sink) because it is expected to earn in the range of $10,000 to $40,000.

if you don't agree with the definition, then of course the rest of the arguments run hollow. But this was an article aimed at existing (or soon to be) small indie developers, not consumers nor AAA developers.

>here is very little opportunity today for any team (let alone individual person) to push the boundaries of the technology in a meaningful way.

Sure there are. But you aren't making a game at that point, nor should try to sell a game on that premise. maybe a tech demo, but that can still be a multi-year venture depedning on the tech. Consumers don't care.

People who do that sell tools to other devs who may make games based off that, and that's probably a more profitable venture than indie devlopment.
Aella: Half a Million Kinksters Can’t Be Wrong
Exactly. Unauthenticated encryption increases the costs of pervasive dragnet surveillance at a minimal cost/hassle.
“clear harm” meaning what role of the government involvement, to you?

as it stands I’m not sure that observation or rebuttal has any bearing on anything aside from “oh well”
No. Some lines are definitely better than others (like I only buy the T-series now), but some are on the same level of Apple minus the hardware DRM
I personally think our law regarding covers has been heavily influenced by record labels and is wrong about them, in practice. I’ve already heard the original enough times that if I want to hear a string quartet perform Viva La Vida it’s because it’s a new refreshing piece of art. The whole compulsory license thing indicates the law got it wrong. Anyway…
This railbus is adorable! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rail_bus01.jpg
The file server is only infringing when it serves those files. Photoshop itself isn't infringing just because someone recreates a famous art piece in it, it's the end user that is infringing. The difference between server driver vs user driven creation shifts responsibility.
Ugh, this is the result of a "right to copy" and capitalism rears its ugly head with systems that can ingest massive quantities of information.

Where this can lead to, I see, is that Universities and companies will move to claim "ownership" of their students thoughts and content, no matter how far away they are from that institution.

I know my username is "pierat", for obvious reasons... but sharing and learning from information is not just human, but most animals do this. And we all learn from our experiences and from what others do. Even reading stories gives us new ideas how to do things and think about stuff, yet nobody would say anything about inspirations stemming from experiencing content... even though if there's no "copyright" on our minds eye.

Now, we have what amounts to a simulacrum that has no real personality of its own, with the crystallized knowledge from terabytes of sources publicly available online. And it's mostly similarly functional to a young human in terms of connections and understanding (not much).

If the plaintiffs win, that sets the stage of IPR ownership of human and similar minds. If OpenAI wins, it means mass consumption of any data, anywhere, to be fed into a system for the profit of a very few.

Either way, we the public lose.
Just to be pedantic, you only need a registrar to globally register the domain name and associate it with DNS records. You could choose to point your system at a locally-controlled DNS server, or edit the local /etc/hosts file, to use user-friendly names without depending on registering the domain with any authority.
You're not merely depriving the original creators of royalties (e.g., in music or stock photos), you're shrinking the market for anything that can be artificially generated. One problem with this is that these might be the cash cows. An artist can't survive on sophisticated art that computers can't yet generate because customers may be satisfied with less (esp. for the price); they also need to peddle the potboilers that bring home the bacon. Also, budding artists will find it difficult to stay solvent long enough to become better than the computer. Being an artist is hard enough as it is. Now it risks becoming a pastime for the rich, even in rich countries.
The direction is good though. Instead of a fine they could be required to pay a space janitor to clean up their mess in the next N years. That would provide funding and motivation for space janitor companies to improve their technology faster.
It absolutely does go down if you're not making payments on a phone
Chinese EV Innovation vs. the West?
Ask HN: what does Chinese EV technological prowess mean in terms of competitiveness of open markets vs. a state-sponsored system in terms of innovation?
Generative AI architectures with transformers explained from the ground up
There was this BBC documentary where they tracked cats with GPS called The secret life of cats where they found this behavior. The cats would also visit each others house at different time and eat from each others food.
Don't forget, there are two discussions here. One is around whether use of copyrighted works in training violates current laws. The other is whether the answer to the first question is to society's benefit, and if not, how should the law be changed to make it so.
FlakeHub updates: fast mirroring and webhook integrations
> the company that seizes the worldwide market will simply have lower costs

Not necessarily. Let's imagine a company that does budgeting and bank account centralisation, sold as a SaaS. A global company has to work on integrations with banks all around the world, data privacy regulations all around the world, translations including in right to left languages, fun stuff like UPI in India, cash payments to a machine in Japan, currency conversions etc. Meanwhile a Bulgarian startup in that space only needs to interface with the 15 local banks and use EU-mandated APIs that make their lives easier (all integrations are the same), and provide only one language, one currency. They don't need employees policies for 50 different countries, with local HR and legal departments/subcontractors everywhere. Not to mention layers of management to scale.

Do you still think the global company will have lower costs?
There's a paragraph and photo of this very thing in the TFA
Food Chains Tap Robots to Streamline Meal Prep Amid Quality Concerns
Nope. That just indexing, i.e. making an index.

That said, Google does cache other people's content and walks a fine line doing so - there is also that AMP thing. They probably haven't gotten sued because they don't affect those websites' ad revenue - don't know how that works.
The big secret behind the Huawei Kirin 9000S chipset
Searches for Noah's Ark
RFC 9114 §3.1 ¶2 [0] requires TLS certificates, but I imagine you can easily modify existing implementations to remove this restriction. And even if the spec didn't require it I'd expect all major implementors (web browsers) to still impose this. I imagine something like curl has an opt-out for this (-k?).

Note that the spec essentially says "if verification fails don't trust this connection". What not trusting means is up to the application. For browsers that's probably equivalent to not allowing the connection at all.

[0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114#section-3.1-2
Prior to Framework I only bought Thinkpads (I'm a linux user), but framework has gotten really good. They've added a lot of fixes/polish from their first gen models, and I'm super excited for the future!
People know when they are reciting something they have memorized. Do language models not remember having memorized what they're writing?
SMD rework sucks if you're not used to it.
There are also already DMUs and EMUs in service in the United States.

Of the legacy carriers, New York’s MTA has been usig multiple units for the better part of a century. These days, a lot of rail services like SMART in Sonoma, DART in Dallas, and Sprinter in San Diego to name a few use them as well.
I worked for a verizon reseller in 2014-2015 and 2 year contracts were not very common by the time I left. 0% loans on 2 year periods were big by then. Functionally I don't think "normal" people really see a big difference.
What's amazing is that if your computer is not set to automatically sync its time, you can see how fast it's drifting.

My main desktop is 1.7 seconds ahead at the moment. Probably haven't updated the clock in a few weeks: which isn't that much. Other systems shall drift much more.

As to "why" it's not setting the time using NTP automatically: maybe I like to see how quickly it drifts, maybe I want as little services running as possible, maybe I've got an ethernet switch right in front of me which better not blink too much, maybe I like to be reminded of what "breaks" once the clocks drifts too much, maybe I want to actually reflect at the marvel of atomic drift when I "manually" update it, etc. Basically the "why" is answered by: "because I want it that way".

Anyway: many computer's internal clock/crystal/whatever-thinggamagic are not precise at all.
> now I cannot police it easly.

Somewhat the point. The issue we've had is that multiple ISPs and gov have been "policing" TCP in unsavory ways. Security and QoS are just fundamentally at odds with each other.
They do, but the KDE Free Qt Foundation agreement requires them to make those commercial-only releases open source after a maximum of 12 months.
I suspect you're looking for pristine-tar(1)?

https://manpages.debian.org/stretch/pristine-tar/pristine-ta...

It's intended to solve exactly this problem, but in reverse -- a tarball is extracted to source, and we want to ensure that the sources we've extraced can be traced back to the original tarball.
You're completely right of course, and I hadn't considered that.

However, there's apparently people scraping and reselling (or bribing employees, dunno) corporate directories. In my case everyone has firstname.lastname@corpo.com, so judging by the high volumes of creepy ass, targeted corporate spam I get on my work mail... this is hardly a public secret.
> From the corporate perspective, the tool is completely off their radar because their employees are using it to intentionally bypass corporate bureaucracy.

If something is priced cheaply enough to be paid for out of pocket by an "individual contributor," but for a work purpose, that's a big deal.

The bigger takeaway is that all seemingly B2B software is still B2C in disguise.

On the other hand, the kind, smart people making Krita aren't in it to run a sales pipeline. Like even if the diehard, nonparticipating libertarian rationalists are right, if it's true that every person on Earth would happily be a billionaire, most people think sales isn't fun or meaningful.

If you want to make the world more meaningful in your own way, I appreciate that the limit of fundraising to that goal is donations.
Ask HN: Does anyone support single-tenant on the cloud?
My company is setting up single-tenant via spinning up a new AWS account and spinning up all of our infrastructure in that account for a dedicated customer to interact with via their own vanity URL. This is because that customer is very security focused.

Do other companies support this for their larger customers?
The nature article is a bit over my head and the press release seems a little hand-wavy, so forgive my ignorance but....

It sounds like "all" they've done is develop a formalism that is (1) mathematically precise, (2) testable and (3) useful for describing evolutionary processes.

That is, they haven't actually showed how selection can overcome the constraints of physics and randomness; they've just developed a useful framework so that hopefully a future breakthrough can be found more easily.

Do I have that right?
This is not a new phenomenon.

Google image search produces copyrighted and restricted use images. On clicking an image it includes a little caveat warning “Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More” - but no specific attribution or copyright claim. It’s possible if you go to the source where Google found it you’ll find the attribution there but also very likely you won’t.

If an AI tool just says ‘this might be subject to copyright’, is it all good?

Words to that effect appear, for example, in the GitHub copilot terms and conditions.
HTTP/3 allows self-signed certs.

Chrome does not. But that choice is orthogonal, could happen with any protocol.
What if an AI model took the Barbie movie and added a filter to change the hue of every pixel and altered the voices to have Australian accents instead of American accents?

I wonder if Disney would sue if you tried to sell and distribute despite 100% of the pixels and audio file not exactly copying the original.

(Rhetorical question, Disney would definitely sue)
When it comes to AI, I'm less interested in the aspect of copyright infringement - it's more of an anti-trust issue, imho - as in the privacy concerns that the tech enables, but if you can forbid reverse engineering of your product, I don't see how's that that much different with AI.

Besides, no harm to the market of the original works? They're quite shameless.
It's simply not intuitive in the way it was presented that the line of text was a footer for the picture. The text and pictures are mistakenly read as belonging to the same "layer", sequentially, which is not what the author intended. It's obvious what that intent was, but it's not structured correctly to be properly interpreted.