skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Everybody should read his speech, "The Psychology of Human Misjudgment": https://fs.blog/great-talks/psychology-human-misjudgment/

It's a fantastic read that can really help you understand why supposedly rational masses of people can end up being so wrong. In the tech world, it ends up being more relevant than one would like it to be.
There have been numerous investigations into SEO over the years. Good luck finding them, though. I'd link them if I could remember any details or find them on search engines.
I’m not gonna argue with that. But I’m not going to use the software unless it hosts something I’m interested in.
The US legal system really doesn't care how much my religion says that usury is wrong; I still don't get to rob banks. That is, there are plenty of things that are illegal, and they're still illegal if I do them for religious reasons.

Also, classism isn't a religion, even if it maybe is a feature of some. "I'm a classist" is not a legally-recognized reason to discriminate against anyone.

Disclaimer: IANAL.
I like the article but I also disagree with one important assumption that author makes implicitly. It assumes that LLM is all you need so in order to differentiate you need something that others don't have, like health care data. The reality is that for many problems you still need a lot of work to build a quality solution around LLM. Not something that you can build in a weekend.
I think a matte black version would work with the vibe they are going for, and it would solve a ton of the problems discussed here.
> There's an odd one out on your list of progressive causes: agreeing to the demands of the last group on your list actually undoes the progress made for women and lesbians.

Not every progressive woman or lesbian agrees with your statement (though some do), so you cannot state this so categorically.

In general, giving more rights to downtrodden and mistreated minorities seems right to me. Exceptions to this rule require special justification.
I was with you 100% until this point:

> it's a full on ecosystem that experiences impacts from laying large farms on top of it.

You think that the Saudi government, with the extremist clerics holding a knife to their throats, their citizenry on life-long unemployment welfare, with their drive to continue to make climate change worse, who spill oil on the sand and billow smoke into their skies, give one tiny iota of a shit about a delicate desert ecosystem?
Do you put water sensors anywhere besides the obvious places, like under the sink and water heater?
RIP Charlie
If we replace all instances of AI with SaaS, his point still stands.

However, many VCs aren't looking for a moat when they invest in Saas, they're looking for a good product with good founders and a good team.

IF you're only looking for moats, you're going to be a bad VC.
Berkshire Hathaway's Charlie Munger dies aged 99
I don't have any Aqara motion sensors. I do have two Ikea ones though and they work fine.

One is in my home office to turn the lights on and off, it works fine and I've never had problems with it not detecting me. It's not instant, but always responds within a second or two.

The other one is sitting by the cat litter boxes and is used to trigger an automation involving an air cleaner. It senses the cats at a range of about 1.5m just fine.

The next thing I'm interested in is the crop of mmWave presence sensors. There are a lot out there and I'm not sure if there's a clear winner in this space yet.
Genuinely sad to hear. His wit and sage advice will be missed. For anyone who has the means to visit a Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting, it's worth it at least once.
Pretty Sharp til the end. The fact that people were still listening to what he has to say about investing in Alibaba as recently as this month is actually pretty nuts (in an impressive way).
I'll miss his wisdom:
https://youtu.be/tGmhFx_7w4I
In my opinion calling something similar to religious thinking is not an actual argument against it at all, as many smart people in the past who developed important concepts have been religious. See plant genetics, the "big bang" theory, and outcome matrices. It's kind of the other way around of the "Jesus said this (in some out of context statement) therefor you should take in all the refugees, no I don't believe in any of that stuff" meme. If you're asking an atheist "since this sounds like something a (intelligent) Christian said in the past you should disagree with it" you should check if the original argument made sense with the assumed priors (i.e. "God exists") before throwing it away in general for any assumed priors. On the other hand, merging with AIs is not a good idea and sounds like a very good idea to bring yourself and the species to ruin, especially if ASI are involved, even if not doing the merging themselves.
i did this when i was young and still kinda new to programming and hardware. it was fun :)

https://alexyancey.com/coffeemaker
This sounds like volatile in Java, and while sometimes useful it is still a minor part of writing concurrent code.

In particular, once you read the value is potentially stale. If you write to something based upon it you now have a race condition.
Note that in C++, all side-effect-free loops can be assumed to terminate, and thus eliminated.
https://mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/110890462230/the-wor... to see how various countries come out
Analysing Hacker News Comments with Chat Bot
> I’ve only started hearing people talk about moats recently, at least by that word.

Then you're one of today's Lucky 10,000! The idea of an "economic moat" was popularized by Warren Buffet, starting in 1986. https://xkcd.com/1053/
To me it's coming off like The Guardian is editorializing a terrible tragedy. Child labor violations have gone up, but it looks like labor participation has gone down or flatlined over time (with a Covid blip). What "rise of child labor"?
Yes, but you still compete against global.
My wife adopted a border collie a few years before we met. It was bred to be a working dog, but it lived a happy 14 years.

We didn't work it very hard, other than (almost) daily walks and occasional play. Mostly the dog just liked to be held and was very affectionate.

> I'd probably never get a big dog again unless I have a job for them to do.

My sister has a giant Bernese mountain dog, and it was bred to be a giant couch potato.
Nobody ever made a billion dollars being generous
> See Munger's dorm buildings that he pushed upon universities that make prisons look like hotels.

I've seen them, and they look preferable to the dorms I actually lived in. Getting a room to myself instead of 2-4 people sharing a (what felt like) 100sqft space.
That's like every university dorm building built before 2010.
Yeah, I think that's all there is here.
I mean I'm with you on the side of "ML needs more math" because we're about as sciencey as psychology, but I'm not quite on the "aww poor babies" side (yet). It's just the nature of how sciences evolve. The truth is that with deep rigorous theory, things like physics are easier. I'd say the same for psych too. It's a crazy amount of stats you need to do to account for all the unknowns and uncertainties but I'm not sure why these sciences push the theory people away when they can't even be bothered to add an epsilon to their models (which are always linear), but I digress. The thing that concerns me more though is the push against math. We see it a lot in ML but weirdly enough reviews will reject you if you don't have equations so you get tons of papers just copy pasting math that adds nothing to the paper. It's really weird and a clear indication of the laziness of reviews and area chairs.

What I tell my students is "you don't need math to make good models but you need math to know why your models are wrong." This seems to be becoming more important than ever. Hell, how many people know about the Whitney embedding theorem? That itself helps answer half my undergrad questions and I think it's relatively unknown.

But you need both. The thinkers and tinkerers. Referring to my longer rant, industry has captured the research field. I'm really happy they're involved but we're responding in insane ways. Let academia be the thinkers and let them make small models and don't expect a $100M budget for every paper. It's the railroading that annoys me and I think it's anti science. But no one wants to even acknowledge it's existence. I'll go ahead and say there's not much use to GPT papers unless you work for OpenAI (not to be confused with LLM papers). Let people explore new architectures and don't make them compete with sota models that have billions of dollars and man hours put into them. Hype is killing our field and it's hard to see because we're a high functioning addict.
Oh was that the guy who designed the windowless dorms?
A quick enjoyable read, so I searched for posts/articles by the rather prolific "Lance B. Eliot" and found:

"Our Neanderthal DNA Might Get Triggered By AI, Initially Set Off By Self-Driving Cars"
https://web.archive.org/web/20200726010726/https://www.forbe...

and even wilder:

"Flatten the Curve. #51. Who is Lance B Eliot? He Wrote Neanderthals & AI Forbes, A Quickly Retracted Article. Why is this a conspiracy? It's because Lance B Eliot can be linked to the NSA. And Lance isn't what he seems to be. Start paying attention. The control is getting worse."

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/if6p5r/flatten_...

WTF???
> You don't get (or stay) rich by being all that concerned about your fate in the hereafter.

The Egyptian pharaohs might disagree. They seemed very interested in taking it with them, so to speak.
They applied for them as part of ICANN's New gTLD program in 2012. Due to overwhelming demand (and bureaucratic slowness), it's been a very slow process getting those applications approved and implemented.

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/program
Really nice read.
Not quite. A moat is a reason that you can't/won't leave the company/product. An unapproachable feature set might be a moat, but generally a moat is something other than product, that prevents your competitors from succeeding by creating a clone of your product.
> only started hearing people talk about moats recently

It’s a decade-old term [1] describing an older concept [2].

> What happened to building good products?

This is necessary, but insufficient on its own. Big “M” marketing is important. (Betamax vs VHS is the canonical example.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter%27s_five_forces_analy...
Explains why they stuck around for 2 years lmao
Chihuahuas are old breeds, they are healthy, cross-bred Chihuahua even more so. Low feed costs, tired easily and if under 20lbs they can ride in cabin on plane trips.
Because that description is disingenuous partisanspeak that fails to mention any of the other things the bill authorizes.
How the 'right to science' can help us overcome the many crises we face today
I try my best to do this. When I find myself blaming person X for thing Y, it's pretty easy to come up with a way to blame myself instead (e.g. I shouldn't have involved person X in thing Y to begin with).

It oddly makes me feel better and move on with a solution instead of stewing over person X's blunders.
A new wave of Chinese elites is flocking to Japan
No, it's showing that the risk of errors exists even without AI.

AI doesn't necessarily make that risk higher or lower a priori.

Plus if you knew how much of current medical practice exists without evidence you wouldn't be worrying about AI.
It does not seem “color” is referencing skin tone here.

>The word appears in the Rigveda, where it means "colour, outward appearance, exterior, form, figure or shape".[4] The word means "color, tint, dye or pigment" in the Mahabharata.[4] Varna contextually means "colour, race, tribe, species, kind, sort, nature, character, quality, property" of an object or people in some Vedic and medieval texts.[4] Varna refers to four social classes in the Manusmriti.[4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)

>The terms varna (theoretical classification based on occupation) and jāti (caste) are two distinct concepts. Jāti (community) refers to the thousands of endogamous groups prevalent across the subcontinent. A jati may be divided into exogamous groups based on the same gotras. The classical authors scarcely speak of anything other than the varnas; even Indologists sometimes confuse the two.[63]
Just give the 7 trillion directly to people. If they want to spend it on gasoline then fine, they come out even.
There's no yet involved - there's no room in the current understanding of science that would allow a completely unmeasurable mechanism to interact with the brain such that you could exhibit psychic powers. You'd need to completely discount everything known about how the universe works in order to allow for brains that can do magical things. What you're suggesting is comparable to "what if it's the unfavorable opinions of micro-organisms that cause illness." According to everything we know, you can't just toss out the germ theory of disease. Things are knowable. Sometimes things we know preclude the possibility of other things being true.

Because knowable things preclude the possibility of built-in psychic powers, you need a technological basis, therefore my statement about simulations, aliens, and government implant theories follow - the statement is in perfectly good faith. I genuinely believe science banishes magic and psychic powers to the realm of delusion and bad thinking.

The universe is a big place, and we don't know everything. Scientific thinking has allowed us to start peeling things back, and build on repeatable observations, and develop a framework and structure for understanding how the universe works. It means opinionated germs, psychic powers, the moon being made of cheese, and other things are excluded from things that can be rationally considered to be possible.

Part of scientific thinking is the willingness to entertain any outcome, no matter how impossible or fantastic it might seem, if the evidence supports it. Another part is the willingness to discard incorrect ways of thinking about things - we know what cells can do and how electromagnetism works. There's no unexplained energy consumption or transmissions involved in human biology that would even hint at the possibility these things could be real. There's no evidence to suggest any possible mechanism to achieve magical or psychic powers.

There is a lot of evidence that humans lie and cheat and defraud eachother - and themselves. The presence of evidence discounting the possibility of special powers, in the additional context that humans are really bad at perceiving baseline reality or communicating proper error bounds, means the only rational way to look at claims of psychic phenomena is to discount them and spend time on meaningful things.

Psychic phenomena aren't real; they're a dead end. That's about as close to "proving a negative" as you might be able to get. There is no magic.
I imagine that you are not allowed to allocate a constant array that would contain a mapping between ASCII values of integers and the actual ints :)? The're just 255 of them needed. Or woukd it be slower?
I came up with what I think is good explanation for what is happening.

1. People are paid to find topics to publish. Whether you are a media person that is forced to find something to write about to buy bread or you are a researcher that needs to show results. You are looking for anything with any value that can be put out there and create some traffic.

2. For any piece of research, you don't get from zero to hero immediately. You first find a correlation, then it takes time to gather some more facts and maybe, if you are lucky, find causation.

Nowadays, if you are waiting for the whole proof, you are already late. Somebody will publish it before you and by the time it really is ready to publish, it is old news.
That sentence isn't as impactful as it sounds. There aren't very many engineers out there whose reporting chain remains intact over the better part of a decade, disaster or no disaster.
https://archive.today/0DBSE
> Have you stopped to ask why elevating the voices of victims is a worthy thing to champion?

Yes, I have.

> How do you evaluate who is a victim?

I use my moral compass. YMMV

> Maybe the positive consequences are obvious, but what are the negative consequences of doing this?

I'm not sure, can you see some?
Yeah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munger_Hall
I've never really understood the sentences following this quote.

> '[…] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.' They were greatly astounded and said to one another, 'Then who can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.'

Why do the apostles seem to think that Jesus's words would make it difficult for anyone to be saved? Surely from what he's said it's obvious that poor people can be saved. And when Jesus says 'for God all things are possible', isn't he implying that some rich people might get into heaven? So why do people interpret the passage as Jesus saying this is impossible?
If someone actually does that, please link the video here, I would watch that so much…
Most other attempts at redesigning the truck bed have failed. The Chevy Avalanche and Cadillac Escalade EXT never sold well and were eventually cancelled. The Honda Ridgeline sold poorly and eventually was redesigned with a regular truck bed with straight walls. The problem with trucks with high bed walls is you can't throw gear, tools or materials over the side of the bed. You can't climb over the side of the bed to tie things down, and you can't (easily) put a custom cap or camper on it either. It's hard to see the Cybertruck selling real well once the initial rush wears off.
That's not the usual sense of "moat". A moat is usually a structural or regulatory protection that prevents a superior product from competing without first crossing that moat.

For example, once upon a time building a superior web browser was hard, because the moat you had to cross was that Microsoft would always prefer their own browser, so Windows created a structural barrier to adoption of new browsers. So the amount by which you had to be better than Internet Explorer back in the day was critical, because if you were just a little better you would never get enough adoption. You had to be much better or convince Microsoft to lower the moat.

Bringing up a new stock exchange was another protected industry -- the incumbents had built a huge regulatory apparatus around themselves which meant that to compete with the incumbents, you first had to comply with a lot of regulations which were themselves molded after what the incumbents were doing. Exchanges like BATS took a long time to clear that hurdle, and many exchanges never made it there, even with superior execution technologies, and were consigned to be dark pools instead of lit markets.

Theoretically social networks have had the moat of the "network effect" of having a large user base -- Facebook is useless because all your friends are on MySpace so there's no reason to switch, and MySpace is useless because all your friends are on Friendster. The implications here are that incumbents protected by moats are fragile; once the moat is crossed they can no longer compete because they've languished, so get eaten alive (as the two examples here or say traditional taxi services).
I loved the Intel Cilk Plus project. I was sad to see it was abandoned. It always felt like a very natural syntax at least to me.
> thinking we can create "AGI" without first increasing our understanding of "wet" neural nets is the height of hubris

Already ~40 years ago I read in a popular science book that scientists had tried to apply genetic algorithms to finding a better nozzle for a given purpose (jet engine? I don't remember that). That was then done by prefabricating a number of ring-shaped metal parts the inside of which had different widths and different slopes; a stack of these could form a wide variety of shapes for the conduit. They started with an initial configuration, did a measurement, then threw the dice to determine what part should be changed; if the new measurement was better (according to their metric) than the preceding one, they kept it, otherwise reversed it. They did find a nozzle shape that was not only significantly better than any known configuration; it was also significantly weirder, seemingly completely ad-hoc.

There's no computers in this experiment, no intelligent design; people were only necessitated to procure the initial parts and setup, do the dice-throwing and so on; the design process proper was a very basic, randomized, mechanical procedure, no thinking required, no understanding necessary.
This is a pretty narrow look at his life, I'd encourage looking more deeply before pointing fingers. I am not defending his dorm buildings, but this feels misplaced. Especially today.
I am using a Radeon RX 6900 XT GPU since two years and never ever had any stability problem or crash running my PC ~10 hours/day, playing a some (various, demanding) games almost every day.
I believe that Mizuho had a similar check in place. This stock was an IPO so there was no last price to compare against.
Whatever you do, don't send a radio message there!
Charlie Munger is one of the closest things to a "hero" I've ever had. Others have named them, but Poor Charlie's Alamanack or his Psychology of Human Misjudgement are both incredible.

I've made a point of seeing him at Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting every last few years. He had many trials in his life but lived it well. His wit and wisdom will be missed.
I use it as my daily card. I like it a lot. Why?

- You can grind down the thickness on the corner of their metal card and use it as a box cutter. Probably don't risk taking it on airplanes, though.

- Cash back (that goes into their high-yield savings account)

- Get notifications and can view transactions easily on iPhone.

- It's pretty effortless.

- I'm not into becomimg a credit card offer expert and getting the most miles or cash back.
> "And then not only are EVs more expensive, but their own salespeople are untrained. They don't even know how to answer most of the questions they get. A lot of them have 100–200 percent turnover of their sales staff in a given year," Reigersman told me.

Dealers have artificially inserted themselves into a transaction, making it illegal to go around them. And now they're complaining?

Also, remember that in most places you sign a piece of paper stating you acknowledge that whatever the salesperson told you has no legal value (e.g. salesperson states that car has ventilated seats, but turns out to just have perforated leather).
Was he? I listened to an interview of his a year or two ago and he didn't seem to be all that sharp at point. Amazingly sharp for a guy who was almost a hundred, sure, but not relative to a typical 80-year-old. He must have been amazing when he was younger, though.
It's easy to make a pithy observation that he's a billionaire and then proceed to spew hate while thinking everything is a zero sum game. When Charlie was in his 30s, he was broke, his 9 year old son died, and he had a divorce. He was never a victim that blames others for their misfortunes though.
Official announcement: https://blog.google/products/registry/google-registry-meme-d...

I'm surprised to see that lol.meme is currently available.