skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You install a package today. In 3 months, that code won't build.

Skill issue. Like I do that regularly. And I'm not even particularly great at frontend tech, so after 3 months I need to hit the docs to actually change anything. But the build pipeline works just fine.

> And I did I get to the 100s of config files that need to be set just so I can run "npm build" ?

..."webpack.config.ts", "package.json" and "package-lock.json" is not 100s. I mean I've seen places with, like, _a dozen_, but those folks could do the same to bash scripts and Python, some people are just messy about it.
How does Cave/Glade Generator Work
Can't tell if this is a joke lol
there's a principle of small batches that would be worth following

https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2945077
The impact that corporate shills have on public perception is quite powerful. It's peculiar how the general public acknowledges it in other fields such as entertainment, such as with Hollywood movie stars or prominent musicians. However, people often become frustrated when someone points it out within their own field. Kudos to you for noticing it.
The for-profit arm was always meant to be subservient to the non-profit arm - the latter practically owns the former.

The important thing for the non-profit arm is the mission, its own existence is secondary.
It's just not language I would come to expect from board members and/or statements from the board to employees or any form of official communication. A better phrasing and one that wouldn't invoke worship speak would be "The challenges we face are due to the pop-star like treatment of Sam Altman". I agree the meaning behind it is as you describe. "See what we have to deal with now..." but using words like "dare" invokes conflict before a point is even taken.
The fact that it is useful to criminals does not mean it is not useful to non-criminals. You asked for examples of utility; it was provided.

Firearms and cryptography are two additional examples of things that provide a lot of utility to their users, both innocent and criminal.
My interpretation of that was that Sam felt Helen's duty as a board member is to come to the company with her complaints, and work to improve the safety measures.
That's literally not the job of this board.
The invention of "anxiety" as a condition afflicting everyone under 40 means it's a faux pas to knock on a door, call a phone, or otherwise interact with anybody unless you warn them ahead of time.
Could this be a case of the Dutch disease?

Where gas revenues in the sixties increased the value of the Gilder, and so had a big impact on the rest of the economy.

With state income a sovereign wealth fund in another company could be set up, to smooth out the income over decades; however this is a private company.

If Denmark was in the Euro zone then the far larger based currency wouldn’t be so destabilised.

I am not an Economist, any or all that I have written could be wrong.
From my experience there's definitely context beyond the current set of LLM state. It's how they're able to regurgitate facts or speak at all.
I'm writing a book, "Bytes Of Wisdom: From Start To Merged" that focuses around code reviews.

I agree that larger PRs can increase the latency of getting feedback and getting quality feedback. I also have another view.

Most code reviews struggle not from the reviewing part and shockingly not the authoring part, but the laying groundwork part. The laying the groundwork part is before any hands to the keyboard to write actual implementation. This part focuses on explaining what is trying to be solved and for what problem. It is bringing everyone who would like to participate in the conversation up to speed on terminology, background, understanding of past decisions and the different proposals looked at, ruled out, etc.

I've seen too many PRs ask for reviews where the reviewer had to read the description half a dozen times and spend an additional hour understanding other systems that interact with the diff to be able to even attempt to discuss if the implementation solution is even the "correct" implementation that should be tackled for the problem at hand.

IMO, there are four key parts to better quality PRs, laying the groundwork, authoring the technical implementation, reviewing and feedback.
> I hope that lawsuit gets laughed right out of the court

You have no clue what Media Matters did. Do you?
hoeing for prompts
Google Chrome is dead to me. Migrated to Firefox recently. Some learning on the developer tools side, but not looking back.
Nope, it can't create the events.

does it still just say that it will then not actually do anything?

It will now say:

I can't directly create calendar events for you, but I can help you create a
calendar event description. Please provide me with the following information so
I can create a detailed description for you:

* Event title
* Event date and time
* Event location
* Event attendees (if applicable)
* Event description
* Any additional notes or reminders

Once I have this information, I can provide you with a calendar event
description that you can then add to your calendar.

And if you provide that information, it'll just format it, add a few tokens and just display it to you.
>> Due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth for day to day existence, it's only value to an extremely wealthy person after endowing their heirs is power.

> I think this is a non sequitur.

I mean after someone can afford all the needs, wants, and luxuries of life, the utility of any money they spend is primarily power.
>"But I do think there's been nothing but recklessness in terms of what has already been accomplished."

Could you elaborate on this? Specifically which accomplishment(s) you consider to be reckless.
Codeium Live – free up-to-date in-browser codebase chat
Pithy quote: "Because history tells us when there's a vacuum thing tend to suck"
The author isn't saying margin collapse should go away entirely (though, having had to implement it, it sure is tempting to get rid of the feature). Rather, they're talking about the situation in which a div is empty and has top and bottom margins. In that case, the top and bottom margins of that element collapse together into one combined margin, along with any preceding and following margins from elements lexically earlier and later in the document, respectively. This is a feature most designers probably don't realize exists, and it makes margin collapsing horribly complicated to implement (and, in CSS, it's important to remember that "complicated" typically means "slow").

I believe (but could be wrong) that this "collapse-through" feature was an accidental byproduct of the original CSS 2.0 definition of "adjoining margins", and not something that the original spec authors specifically contemplated.
Also it’s (indirectly) an ad for a product that they’re selling to help devs achieve this.
Opening books definitely play a significant part of chess AI. The early game is where the game tree is largest while the variation is lowest.
It's artificial to break up a PR to satisfy the rule of small PRs.

Often you need the full context when evaluating a new feature end to end.

Or you spend 2 days splitting up a PR into smaller PRs so that a person can review it in 30 minutes instead of 2 hours.

I can't say I've ever seen benefit from it both as a reviewer or as a developer, but it could be an effect of different companies and different teams.
> ...along the lines of: <person_with_specific attribute> becoming a manager, then every one on the team slowly being replaced with <person_with_specific attribute>...

The commenter made it clear the team is becoming not just less diverse, but completely homogenous: "every one on the team" sharing the same identity characteristic as the lead.
In them he says "HBD is probably partially correct" -- do you think that's not a NRx view (I agree others also hold it, but I would argue that it's a core view of NRx -- it doesn't need to be exclusive to them, e.g. Islam considers Jesus a prophet too), or that he publicly held that position previously?
Likely the Quebec privacy laws which are gdpr equivalent in many cases. This forces tech companies to create a different experience for Quebec vs rest of Canada. As neither have enough user size, it's often easier to skip Canada altogether till the team has the spare bandwidth for this.
Or nobody should have ever bought unsecured crypto on sketchy new exchanges... That would have saved the entire loss perhaps?

Pretty much every major marketing push and normalized on social media (Including NFTs and influencer Culture) ends up being a massive scam.

It worries me that no one sees the trend and holds social companies & people involved properly accountable for this form of crowdsourced theft.
Oh please... Can't you see how meaningless the phraes 'goodness of humanity' is? If only something like that can be so readily known!
I've being building something have similar functionality recently, thus have the underneath tech stacks in mind the moment I saw the title, (webcrypto: ecdhe, kdf, aes/gcm), further glance into the source code seems legit to me.

My only nitpick is for service like this, the shared private key shall be short lived one time using, storing into localStorage might potentially be a foot-gun with low ROI tho.
They are not on the board of a company. They're on the board of a non-profit that controls a company.
I suppose I agree but I don't think it's really accurate.

You can make large, easy to review PRs but if the commit history isn't useful then you have to view it all in one big chunk.

If instead you take a note out of the patchset workflow and make each commit it's own fairly discrete and digestible change after you wrap up development on the feature, then reviewers can just start on commit 1/N and review each one as if it was its own mini PR.

A 10k LOC PR is going to be a pain to review if it's treated as one big commit but if it's broken into a bunch of <100 to 500 LOC commits, each with a descriptive title, a useful message, and functioning code/tests, then even if reviewing takes a long time, you can review and test each discrete chunk fairly quickly without too much cognitive load. And then as you keep making revisions, the changes per commit revision get smaller and may only take a few minutes to review, even if it is a 1k+ LOC revision.
The memory cheats is how Game Genie worked!
If you do that kind of thing internally though or against the org with an outside interest it isn't surprising that it wouldn't go over well. Though that isn't confirmed yet as they never made a concrete allegation.
Not true. This page dated December 11, 2015 mentions Sam Altman and Elon Musk as co-chairs: https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai
What is a Canada? More seriously, is there some regulatory reason that makes releasing it in Canada more difficult?
> Just look at the Reddit reverse takeover as an example; Machiavelli would be in awe.

What were the details on that? (Sorry it’s not an easy story to find on Google given how much the keywords overlap with OpenAI topics)
Color me impressed. This is what I typed: “ageh man beh zabooneh khodemoon benevisam, to mifahmi?”

—

So above is a question in Farsi written using Latin alphabet. The q is “if i write in our own language would you understand?”

Answer: نه، من نمی فهمم. این زبانی است که می تواند به زبان فارسی به شما در این بخش کار نماید. اگر سؤالی دارید یا می خواهید به سوالی پاسخ دهید، لطفاً به زبان انگلیسی بگویید.

‘No, I will not understand. ... please ask in the English language.’
Most high-risk investments still come with an understanding that the recipient will have a duty to the investor, making decisions that they believe in good-faith will lead to a return on that investment on some time-frame.

This one is very much an explicit, "You're giving us a donation. Don't expect a return." It's in an impossible-to-miss pink box. They can't be more clear about this.

If investors are concerned about those things, then they should not give money to people who pointedly leave those things on the table. Like this one:

> The Nonprofit’s principal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors.

Also, Microsoft got something for their money already. They have an independent license to the tech they can run themselves and iterate on.

The OpenAI board has no duty to Microsoft to get their input. MS might have believed their investment amounted to de facto control, but they're wrong.
> 770 people will be the least of our concerns if the social disruption from this stuff gets bad enough one day.

Yeah, this is the common trend among these insane utilitarians like you and Helen Toner. It's all a game of "how can I justify doing heinous shit to people". IF a superintelligent AGI is created that is as disruptive as you imagine, it also means we find cures for diseases and solve many other potentially world ending problems (such as climate change).

So since you brought up the hypothetical disruption of a technology that doesn't exist, can I now lay at your feet the blame for the millions of lives that are lost due to disease and climate change since we didn't move fast enough on AGI and advancing technology?

This is why these absurd hysterical fear mongering arguments are worthless.
The Canadian government is picking a fight with Google, Meta, and others right now so that's likely why Google is withholding something like this to help create some pressure.
> When I make changes to a codebase that very few people are experts in and is generally perceived to be difficult to understand,

Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious, is this a situation you find yourself in very often? Are you describing something while working at a company or in an open-source project?
I said he was "sympathetic to NRx views" and linked emails from him stating certain views widely held by Moldbug et. al. that he is sympathetic to. Do you disagree that "HBD" is an NRx view, or that the leaked emails express sympathy for it?
I always thought the structure was there to pull the wool over the eyes of the world's smartest researchers, to get them to agree to help them build a doomsday sort of technology. I never expected the board would be drinking their own kool aid.
> Just look at the Reddit reverse takeover as an example

I'm not familiar with this, what happened? Googling "Sam Altman reddit reverse takeover" is just flooded with OpenAI results.
You have to have a paid account to read the 1766 version of it, but here you go:

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/regulated_adj?tab=meaning_and...

But that is besides the point.

Do me a favor and read the definition of Militia as writ in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Then give the Second Amendment another read, since that is what it is referring to with the usage of the word "Militia". Then go read the Militia acts of 1792/1795/1862 and finally 1903. It's all really straightforward, and each thing logically follows the next. Miller follows along in that vein. There's nothing revisionist about it; it's all really straightforward.

Where things get crooked in the reasoning is literally the Heller decision. Somehow it refers to the first Militia act with the decision referring to "able bodied men", while then concluding that "Militia" in the 2A does not actually mean "Militia". It's pretty bonkers.

You seem to be as willing to cherry pick as the conservative SCOTUS majority was in 2008. It's kind of nuts, because what I cited above, actually does already provide for private firearm ownership (with some boundaries around it). It's quite obvious that the reason for the much more convoluted reasoning in Heller is because the conservative majority wanted to greatly expand gun rights, and had to work backward from that goal to something that gave them enough of a fig leaf to ignore the (massive, self-evident) history of Militias and their regulation.
Before I get really angry.

>The compute tile will purportedly be produced on TSMC's 3nm-class N3B process technology. Meanwhile, Intel itself indicated that its Lunar Lake CPUs will use its own 18A (1.8nm-class) fabrication process.

>Intel's Lunar Lake MX platform will retain Intel's multi-chiplet Foveros3D-interconnected design approach. Still, to reduce its physical footprint, Intel plans to pack the CPU, GPU, and memory controller into the same tile while putting everything else into the SoC tile, according to the slides.

Basically, the whole article had some terminology explanation to do because what they are writing does not make any sense.
In no particular order:
Borderlands;
Destiny;
Tom Clancy’s(R) The Division; Fallout 3, New Vegas, 4;
The Outer Worlds;
Skyrim if you’re inclusive with the definition of shooting;
Pokemon Snap 2 if you’re extra inclusive with the definition of looting.
Well its possible:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/11/new-g...

All LLMs are deterministic systems with a random seed. Get rid of the noise that is injected in the system and the outcomes become repetitive. That means that the output is a pattern, one that may be "detectable".
$10k is nothing for rich people. Just putting them in debt for it doesn't mean nothing of value was provided.

The reverse would be true where poor people could be ruined, unless the value provided is worth significantly more than the debt created, which seems doubtful.
Not bad. It’s limited in what it can do but I would probably check Bard if ChatGPT went down.

I have the “AI search” extension enabled in Google search as well and it’s pretty unreliable. Seems like half of my coding questions it hallucinated some function that doesn’t exist.

But if Google release Bard in its current state a year ago most people probably would be using it now, even if it’s inferior.
This is total opposite of accelerate.
For chess engines such as Stockfish to beat weaker opponents, you would want to turn up the contempt parameter.[1]

To be able to do this, you would want to use a UCI-compliant chess GUI such as Cute Chess.[2] It lets you change the command line arguments you use for your engine, and you can play Human-vs-Human, Engine-vs-Engine, Engine-vs-Human, etc.

[1] https://www.chessprogramming.org/Contempt_Factor

[2] https://cutechess.com/
It harms small enterprises greatly.
What is the advantage of breaking up a large change into multiple small PRs, compared to multiple small independently-reviewable commits as part of a single PR?

If a PR introduces a new function that will be used in the next commit, I would much rather see that next commit using git, than hunt for it in the PR queue.
It's very hard to parent around this alone though. As you say, if you take away devices, the kids don't switch to using the treehouse/sports/hiking... Online is where their friends are, not the treehouse.
Another possibility is that people who build products don’t actually care about leadership drama as much as Twitter or HN
>English as a second language, perhaps?

Funny. If you're going to accuse me of being a paid agent of some government you don't like, do it openly. This way just makes you look racist, which I don't even think you were intending.
Aligning non-profit and for profit within the same business is an open challenge too.
While this would be perfectly reasonable if OpenAI was for profit, it’s ostensibly a non profit. The entire reason they wanted her on the board in the first place was for her expert academic opinion on AI safety. If they see that as a liability, why did they pretend to care about those concerns in the first place?

That said, if she objects to open AI’s practices, the common sense thing to do is to resign from the board out of protest, not take actions that lead to the whole operation being burned to the ground.
I'm running a greenfield project at bigcorp, and I can tell you hands down "yes it makes a difference". Sure, you have to write it in the company language, do accessibility etc., but it's far better than being tied down to the last guy's hacks and assumptions, or cross team dependencies that can't be untangled.
Look at the date of that article, those ideas look good on paper but then reality kicks in and you have to spend lot of money on computing, who funds that, its the "Big tech companies".
Apparently an indirect association. From [0]:

Fall 2021

Holden Karnofsky resigns from the Board, citing a potential conflict because his wife, Daniela Amodei, is helping start Anthropic, a major OpenAI competitor, with her brother Dario Amodei. (They all live(d) together.) The exact date of Holden’s resignation is unknown; there was no contemporaneous press release.

Between October and November 2021, Holden was quietly removed from the list of Board Directors on the OpenAI website, and Helen was added (Discussion Source [1]).

0. https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board

1. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fmDFytmxwX9qBgcaX/...
I don't care much about PR size if it consists of atomic commits. This way I can focus on reviewing each commit separately, and can see the global picture from the overall diff.

Of course, past a certain size reviewing a large change becomes tiring (~500 LOCs IME), so in these cases I ask authors to create separate PRs where each one is focused on a single thing (refactor, fix, feature, etc.). This way review duty could be split across the team as well.

And then there are cases where large PRs are unavoidable, so we deal with it. But atomic commits are a must in all cases.

Also, please don't automatically squash-merge PRs! If the history is messy, clean it up, but leave atomic commits behind, and do a merge commit, or rebase, if applicable. I've found this to be a controversial topic, for some reason.
Worst offender is when a dev decides to reformat code and you can't even differentiate at a glance what is real code change and what is reformatting.

Fortunately modern tooling formats code automatically so there's less bikeshedding.
More like Elixir/Phoenix's Live View I would think.
Maybe I’m just hopelessly cynical, but I suspect that this is representative of the average developer’s experience.
From the MVMe 1.3 spec:

6.8 Flush command

The Flush command shall commit data and metadata associated with the specified namespace(s) to non-volatile media. The flush applies to all commands completed prior to the submission of the Flush command.
Like computer programs, card stunt programs can be hacked. Probably the most famous example is [1].

[1] https://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/rose_bowl_hoax
The OpenAI board just made it too easy for them. Any competent investor would have done the same. It was a gimme.
I'm not sure I agree? If your code isn't trivial to compartmentalize changes then that might be a code smell.

I'd agree keeping the unified context is preferable but it's probably easier to do that by having developers rebase their changes into discrete commits that can be reviewed one by one.
Co-chairs? As in chairs on a board rather than founders? Like what my Wikipedia quote says?
Bazar was my first DVCS, used after SVN, and it became clear very quickly why Git used SHA revision IDs.
The FTC responds to complaints from affected parties, then investigates the complaints, then if necessary works with the Dept of Justice to charge a violator or fine them.
Do this frequently enough and they'll start inviting you back with free travel + accommodation.
I think "regrets putting it in there" is a bit strong - I'd be interested in a quote.

That said, the documentation does lean heavily away from @apply:

https://tailwindcss.com/docs/reusing-styles#extracting-class...

> If you’re going to use @apply, use it for very small, highly reusable things like buttons and form controls — and even then only if you’re not using a framework like React where a component would be a better choice.

Personally I think @apply is a useful tool - and I'm not sold on it being always evil.