skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> My preference would be for generative content to be disclosed as such. I am aware of no law that does this.

What you asked for was a space without generative content. If you had a space where generative content is labeled but not restricted in any way (e.g. there are no tools to hide it) then it wouldn't be that. If the space itself does wish to restrict generative content then why can't you have that right now?

> Why did we pass the FFDCA for disclosures of what's in our food?

Because we know how to test it to see if the disclosures are accurate but those tests aren't cost effective for most consumers, so the label provides useful information and can be meaningfully enforced.

> It seems inevitable to me that without some sort affirmative disclosure, generative AI will follow the same path. It'll just get mixed into everything we consume online, with no way for us to avoid that.

This will happen regardless of disclosure unless it's prohibited, and even then people will just lie about it because there is an incentive to do so and it's hard to detect.

> You are saying here that some companies would break the law and attempt various reputation-laundering schemes to circumvent it. That does seem likely; I am not as convinced as you that it would work well.

It will be a technical battle between companies that don't want it on their service and try to detect it against spammers who want to spam. The effectiveness of a law would be directly related to what it would take for the government to prove that someone is violating it, but what are they going to use to do that at scale which the service itself can't?

> I am not optimistic that doing nothing will be considered acceptable by the general public, especially once the effects of generative AI are felt in force.

So you're proposing something which is useless but mostly harmless to satisfy demand for Something Must Be Done. That's fine, but I still wouldn't expect it to be very effective.
I think the explanation is a little incomplete, but it makes sense if you expand the explanation a bit.

What really happens is this: when GMail receives a lot of email from domain xyzzy.com, and a lot of it seems to spam (either it's marked spam explicitly by the recipient, or maybe Google uses some weird AI or whatever to identify messages as spam) then GMail will start marking email from that domain as spam. Obviously if you own xyzzy.com and you're not a spammer you want to avoid this. So what can you do?

SPF and DKIM are ways to prevent unauthorized senders from delivering mail that appears to come from your domain. SPF is a way to list IP addresses authorized to deliver mail on your behalf, and DKIM contains cryptographic keys needed to sign email coming from your main. That means if you have SPF and DKIM enabled, the only people able to send mail that appears to come from your domain are people that are authorized to do so (there are a few more bears on the road, but broadly this is true).

It's true that spammers can register their own domains for the sole purpose of sending spam, and they can enable SPF and DKIM on those too, but if they use domains exclusively to send spam, they will still be marked as spam domains by GMail, at least eventually.

But this doesn't explain why GMail should be distrustful of domains without SPF and DKIM records. There are literally hundred of millions DNS records worldwide, and only the tiniest minority (think, 1% or less) of those have SPF/DKIM records, and not having those records isn't evidence of being a spammer per se. But look from the perspective of spammers. If GMail adopts the policy that email from rare domains without SPF/DKIM records is accepted so long as they don't send high volumes of spam, then it's trivial for spammers to collect 100 million domains without SPF/DKIM and send literally 1 message from each, which results in a 100 million spam messages being accepted by GMail.

That's why GMail wants you to add SPF/DKIM records to your domain if you're not a spammer. It allows GMail to block email from the >99% of domains that don't have SPF/DKIM enabled. And for the remaining 1% of domains, it can either delete email outright (if it's forbidden by SPF/DKIM), or else it can reliably identify a domain as being spammy.
7 9's is 3 seconds of downtime per year. That was never a thing.
No, he dismissed McKernan and Ortiz because they didn't register their images for U.S. copyright, which is a foundational prerequisite for any copyright lawsuit (in the U.S.)

This simply means that they need to register their images for copyright before they can re-join the case.
(https://www.gibsondunn.com/supreme-court-holds-that-copyrigh...)

EDIT: reading the linked PDF further, and it appears that McK and O's legal counsel stated that the two weren't asserting the copyright claims at all, which is why they were dismissed with prejudice. That means that they can't re-join the case by filing for copyrights for their images...Their lawyer fucked up pretty badly and if I were either of them I'd be filing a malpractice lawsuit.
You could probably try to mount a legal fight if you've got the money and the time, because they probably didn't delete anything, and there's a chance doing so was illegal. But, it probably wasn't even illegal for them to ignore your request.
I didn't even mention regulation. You're circle jerking with yourself with a fantasy idea of the "free market" that doesn't exist in reality. You can't consume your way out of large corporations having market dominance, idk where that insane notion even is born.
The Git Parable: Making Your Own Simple Version of Git
I don't have a dog

This largely disqualifies all your subsequent opinionation. I could tell you some stories about the ups and downs of owning/training large working dogs, but instead I'd urge you to reflect on whether your elaborate critique of abstraction is grounded in anything firmer than your assumptions.
So spamming is fine, so long as you stay under some threshold. Thanks a lot.
While some people seemingly didn't like your post, yes, that's how rights/laws commonly work.
He said a few thousand queries per week, which is maybe 3000, or 156k/year. That's 1.56 million cluster minutes, or $500k/1.56M = $.32/minute. A single snowflake node is $.05/minute, so maybe it's an 8-node cluster. They could shrink the node count down to 4 or 2 to save more money.
But are you an entity with Person or a Person with Entity?

If one cannot analyze words to w/i an inch of death, what is one to do on the internet other than speak in the 3rd person?
> Every DNS provider I've used in recent memory, has offered a non-authoritative / non-DNS-exposed "comment" or "description" field for each record.

In my experience this is not at all common. I think I know of 3 that do, and I've used many more that don't.
Yes, a good point, I think the more dynamic the language, the more one gravitates towards microservices as a problem solving tool, because you'd give up a lot of the value of the dynamic environment by enforcing strict rules.

Though I'm seeing a lot of convergence between environments over time, which makes me think we're all headed towards a nicer future.

For example in Scala, which does a lot of type inferencing, it's typical to tell the linter to require that public methods have explicit types, even though the compiler will reify them at compile time anyhow, because that makes the interface much more robust to refactoring. Meanwhile in a more dynamic environment, in Python it's getting more typical to use type annotations, and, similarly, to especially use them on functions that define a reusable interface.

I figure that the ideal languages in the future have module-level systems where they can define strict interfaces across modules, but then get as crazy and dynamic as they want inside of the modules.
This is probably not going to go well because good-faith discussions on this topic are pretty hard to have, but here goes.

Government regulations often represent losses of liberty when applied to individual citizens. The government has a monopoly on violence, they can forcibly make you do things, with guns.

e.g. California now forces people in buy and install solar panels on their house if they are building a new house. What do I do if I try to build my own house without solar panels? They cost tens of thousands of dollars so it is realistic that someone wouldn't be able to afford them. Well the government will not give me a certificate of occupancy. What happens if I just live in my house anyway without solar panels? The government will condemn my house and show up to demolish it eventually. What happens if I try to stop them from demolishing my house? They will arrest me and put me in jail, if I resist they will shoot me.

This is a loss of freedom: before I was allowed to build my own house without being forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a thing, and now I do not have that freedom.

This type of thing plays out in a million ways: cars, generators, gas stoves, etc.

Green versions of technologies are better, a first-principles understanding is that more efficient things are better and cheaper and should naturally succeed in a market. A good example is lawn care products: gas-powered mowers edgers, blowers, etc are being phased out naturally because their electric alternatives are better and cheaper. This same thing will play out with electrification of other things given enough investment and scaling-up. Which we are currently seeing already. Take cars: the % of electric car sales is going up on its own without the government needing to force people to buy them (though yes, government incentives are accelerating this). This is by dint of the technology just being better and more efficient, companies like Tesla investing in the technology has proven it to be better.

My example of the solar panels is only a small one, there are other things like the ULEZ cameras in London which literally restrict freedom of movement for people, which are even worse, but those types of things are not happening yet in the United States so I won't dwell on them here.
very hard to read, but worth it
Good.

I'm someone who a) uses Google Suite (or Workplace, or whatever it's called) b) runs a newsletter service [buttondown.email] that sends millions of emails every day, most of them to Gmail.

The amount of cold email I get from prospecting/outreach tools that is nigh-impossible to unsubscribe from is _infuriating_. Any legitimate bulk sender is already conforming to DKIM + one-click unsubscription, and anything we can do to cut down on obvious spam is a win in my book.

There's a lot of things Gmail does as de facto tsar of email that I don't love — initiatives like AMP for email come to mind — but this is an unalloyed positive in my mind.
What do you mean? There’s a huge difference between “Product Spotlight” and “Best Deals” /s
> everybody just name their json serialization/parsing library json and user now needs to remember if they should use "dtolnay/json" or "google/json"

What's the problem with that? You will have to explicitly state intention which is always a good thing.

> and of course this makes it completely ungoogleable

You are aware that just pasting username/projectname gives you exactly what you are looking for in the several top search engines, correct?

> We've had the namespace discussion for hundreds of time in the various Rust town squares, and the main reason why we still don't have namespace is because it doesn't actually answer the problem it's supposed to address and if you dig a little bit you realize that it even makes them worse.

OK, if you say so. Is this worse state of things documented somewhere?
Or even worse, premiums went up because you could have inherited costly diseases (but didn't), and they have no way to verify it unless you also prostrate yourself on the altar of no privacy.
In accordance to the promise they made to their customers, or in clear violation of it ?
> Senior roles are expected to be able to independently reach quality results without too much extra attention/help from their direct management or technical team leaders.

I'd add that in a number companies this is more of a mid-level role, with senior level having significant impact within the team and some impact outside (like driving initiatives involving other teams). It is difficult to show this after working solo for a while, and some companies might not know how to approach it and drop candidates with experience like that. I guess one angle to address this would be to show how you worked on longer-term projects and coordinating with founders/whoever.
What could possibly ground your faith in the Israeli government, given the intelligence failure of massive proportions we all witnessed on 10/7? How can you believe that the same government which failed to foresee a massive Hamas offensive on its own border just weeks ago, is now suddenly aware of the exact positions of underground Hamas bases deep within the Gaza strip, and is even privy to phone calls between Hamas operatives?

That's also not to mention the many times Israel has been caught lying to cover its own military actions. You only have to look as far back as the targeted killing of Shireen Abu Akleh
The plaintiffs apparently failed to plead sufficient factual allegations to support their infringement claim against MTD, which is a rookie mistake.

Factual allegations at this point don't have to be correct (that's what discovery is for), but they do have to at least satisfy the legal requirements for each prong of a legal claim. In many legal pleadings, the plaintiffs will state, "upon information and belief, we [assert X factual allegation]" since they don't yet have the discovery to support a more specific factual allegation.
> do I know if we are communicating and do I have your focus thing.

I have friends who keep their AirPods in. I've literally never had this problem. Might it be that there are cues they're sending that you aren't picking up? Or that the issue of AirPods being in or out is not causing the lack of attentiveness transmission. (I can empathize with what you describe, but most commonly because someone can't get their face out of their phone or watch.)
Now do Kaseya!
I touched on this a little in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38075723 - but tldr; OSM has it's own versioning model, and their data model isn't a great fit for the flat-table structure of most of the GIS data we commonly work with.

That said, the general issue of "data supply chains" and keeping track of who did what, and when, is largely unsovled outside of OSM, and if you're looking after your own GIS data and you're concerned with tracking and detecting unwanted changes, Kart is a great option. You get all the cryptographic verifyability of git for free.
>best weapon against AI (in the hands of power) is equal AI access for all.

That assumes the threat isn't complete annihilation of humanity, which is what's being claimed. That assumption is the weak link, and is what should be attacked.

Again, if we assume that AI poses an existential risk (and to be clear, I don't think it does), then it follows that we should regulate it analogously to the way in which we regulate weapons-grade plutonium.
So a 50% chance in 12 Friedman Units
The traditional method of regulatory capture is not to purport to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, it's to go look around for whatever people are actually worried about, over-hype it if necessary, and then propose a solution which shuts out competitors whether or not it does anything about the problem. It may even reduce that specific problem while still being intentionally crafted to shut down competition.

This is not incompatible with honest people having legitimate concerns about the original problem, because the dispute is not existence of the problem, it's the net benefit of the proposed solution.
It's still faster than manually marking hundreds of spam though.

In the spam folder I just scroll down the list as fast as I can skim, and then close the tab if there's nothing.

If they were all just in my inbox I'd have to manually mark each one (and risk accidentally doing it to a real message while going through hundreds of messages).

There's no perfect solution here. Just personal preferences. I think I'd prefer a clean inbox with a 1% false positive rate vs having to manually flag a bunch of missed spam all the time.
Here's what makes it worse imo.

Imagine someone invents a machine that can give infinite energy.

Do you

a) sell that energy, or
b) give the technology to build the machine to everyone.

Clearly b is better for society, a is locking up profits.
I struggle with this constantly. I think there are two problems:

1. I like interesting puzzles. A lot of code - especially commercial code - is pretty boring if you do it right. I find myself subconsciously pushing for features that will be fun to implement. And by "fun", I mean, features that will overcomplicate everything.

2. While I'm in the middle of programming something, all the choices that I make seem straightforward and necessary. Its only later when I step away from my code and then try to understand it with fresh eyes do I notice what a mess I've made of everything.

I also think that a lot of the time the most obvious solution to most problems is quite complex. It takes wisdom, skill and domain knowledge to know where to look for simple solutions to any given problem. Simple, clean solutions are rarely obvious.

"Oh, it looks like we're slowly implementing a halfbaked message queue. Lets use a standard message queue instead." "Oh, we're slowly building up a custom, buggy, binary framing protocol. Lets just use protobuf/msgpack". "How about instead of writing a custom RPC protocol to fetch data, we just use REST over HTTP. And then we can put nginx in the middle to cache our backend responses, and we can throw out our custom cache."
This person is asking for a $30k raise to do the baseline of what's expected of them: their job. It's your job to know what needs to be done and assert that it needs to be done.

They didn't make $500k, but saved $500k from a mistake that the company themselves made. Why does that deserve a raise? I've seen people implement features confined to a single file that made over $1m/year but they didn't ask for a $30k raise.

I could see a one time bonus or stock gift and maybe a more modest raise next year if they stick around.

My overall point is this: If you want to make the big bucks, you can go make your own company, but be prepared to take on the mountain of risk that comes along with it. Otherwise, a tech salary with guaranteed income ain't so bad.
> a strong argument can be made that it’s not a proxy per se.

I suppose, although lots of proxies make changes.

Either way, he should probably change the URL that it uses if he intends to argue it's not a proxy of any kind. ;) I still have a tab open with an article, and the URL is:

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww...
If you have any good ideas for interesting and fun features let me know, should be enough contact info in profile here!
These aren’t transactional. An email isn’t transactional just because the sender has a relationship with the recipient.
> Did these 14 million users all actually provide informed, active consent?

Virtually impossible, even without preconceived notions of this company's ethics (which... should be obvious), because it's actually very difficult to get informed consent. Not only does it take longer and more work to get the consent, you'd actually have to work pretty hard to define a system that >90% of people would consider true informed consent. There's no blueprint for it in the corporate world. The default consent-getting is so bad that even doing a bad job can look amazingly progressive in comparison.
Interesting. How do you see the Getty v stability lawsuit going? That looks much worse for stability. Do you think they will just settle and stability will pay them some licensing fee?
I'm pretty sure they invested it, and have fine exceptionally well from it
Does unionization really make companies more successful? If unions have such high interest in the company stability and success I presume the evidence shows union shop companies have more success and longevity after unionizing vs like ones that dont?

And my biggest fear as a worker is not longevity but my marketability to gain new jobs. If unions make it easier for me to get hired and promoted without consideration of tenure of other union members I'd probably be interested in joining
This parallels my progression:

I made my first site with frames. I made my next with static headers and the 8 million files to update (some programs in that day did this automatically). Then I learned about server-side includes, and did that. Nearly immediately I heard about PHP (php4!), and built this huge site with CMS, user accounts, voting, posts/comments, karma, and karma-spending--with flat files.

Nearly as soon as I completed that, I heard about databases. (I was like 17 by now)

Whatever new tech I got exposed to was implemented in my personal website. My "scene" at the time called them E/N sites, which meant Everything/Nothing.
sand?..
for houses, there are many others materials to build (clearly forget burj-khalifa), sand can be left for bridges and others infrastructure..
Wood, to mention one, and:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian_tulou
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-bale_construction
> You're proposing a law. How does it work?

The same way law works today, or do you think this is the first time the law has had to deal with fuzziness?
Isn't that linked case because they started to file for copyright and then sued rather than waiting for it to be completed first?

In this case they never filed in the first place, and it was dismissed with prejudice.
Be a shame if your AI was deemed a risk to national security.

Not to worry, for a reasonable fee our surprisingly large team of auditors with even larger overheads can ensure you meet lengthy and ambiguous best practice checklists (which we totally did not just make up now) by producing enough compliance documentation to keep even the most anal of bureaucrats satisfied.
Not the person you're replying to, but I think they're referring to situations similar to the "classic" case - an inquisitive student in class may learn it's "better" to keep quiet in presence of an unreasonable/angry teacher, than to ask questions.

A neurotypical kid might quickly pick up that asking questions get you scolded. Or worse, saying the teacher is wrong gives you detention. A neurodivergent kid may fail to understand that these actions hurt the teacher's ego. (Teacher can be replaced by parent/adult). All this leads to masking.
After you knock out those and exceptions, what's left in (C++98 - C99)? Destructors and templates?

98 won't have moves, so I'd imagine you'd end up boxing most of your structures to avoid needing to copy construct then all over the place.

You still have to manually delete things but now there's extra indirection.

Templates might be nice, but having STLy containers is where the kernel would need them most, but then above boxing issues start to exist.
The rise of private equity is also correlated with major drops in the top marginal income tax rate and the maximum capital gains tax rate in the US. When individuals become so wealthy they couldn't possibly spend all of their wealth, this creates an a new market of extremely wealthy clients with a risk appetite.

Financiers can cater to this clientele with exotic investments that feature more concentrated risk/reward and pay out exclusively to the uber-wealthy and institutional investors: Private equity, hedge funds, and venture capital.
> Which has happened to me before where people wondered why I was ghosting them.

Same, but I feel like it's almost kinda socially acceptable now. Happens to everyone and it's not something to get upset about... "oh, it wasn't me, it just went to spam." Like Gmail managed to alter our public norms instead of ensuring a zero false-positive rate :)