skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Big fan of WH40k as the exemplar of massive scale. This article[0] defines a super volcano as

>The size of volcanic eruptions can be expressed by the volume or mass of magma released (table 1), with super-eruptions yielding in excess of 450 km3, or more than 1×10^15 kg, of magma (Sparks et al. 2005).

Wikipedia says the Empire State Building has a volume of 1e6 m3 or 0.001 km3. So the eruption would be equivalent to at least 450,000 Empire State Buildings worth of magma.
Mt Everest is some 90km3, so only 5 Mt Everest equivalents.

These amounts are too big for me to comprehend, but yeah. Going to need a bigger boat.

[0] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.200...
Well, to some degree yes. Because in reality they already do have a say -- if your plumber is getting shafted in CoL and moves out of your area, you might need to find a new plumber. If most of the plumbers do that, the remaining ones will be able to charge higher prices to you. So eventually, you're either going to be paying your plumber a lot more, or not able to even hire one.

It might not directly affect the zoning of your neighborhood, but it's going to affect the makeup and composition of it. And eventually, that will also affect the zoning.
> The Internet of today is little more than a (distorted) mirror of people's offline lives.

Our offline lives are a distorted mirror of the Internet of today.
The problem is that society has been exceptionally divided, again owing to fear politics. And so even if an election was rigged, the people that benefited from it would basically demand a level of evidence that would never exist, even in cases of rigging. And by contrast, those that suffered from it would take the slightest irregularity as undeniable evidence of their rightness. And so it's quite unlikely that either side could ever reach a burden of proof that the other side would be happy with.

I think an important point in general is that democracy is what people think it is. If people think elections are fair or a viable means to change their political fate, then they're going to act accordingly, and vice versa if they don't. So personally I think having as absurdly transparent and open a system is critical. Irregularities and oddities should be publicly emphasized across the aisle so (1) everybody can discuss things and be on the same page, and (2) they can be remedied and not repeated.
Here is the headline Business Today published just in case you wonder why businesses do this

"Google Gemini Outperforms Most Human Experts & GPT-4 I Artificial intelligence I Google’s DeepMind".

It's all marketing. Same reason why satya publically postes sama + others are joining a new team at MSFT to continue should the openai thing not work out.
The selling of exceptions to the GPL is also considered ethical:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html

It's something that enables projects to become free software.
"...reuse of public domain is material is not."

Uh? No doubt you're correct but from what I have experienced I'm still not clear about the details.

It's years since I've posted anything on YouTube but there was one instance where I received a copyright infringement notice from YouTube. The 'infringing' material involved was a 78 audio recording over 80 years old that was in the public domain which I'd downloaded from the Internet Archive then posted to YouTube. The only reason I did this was because there were many of the artist's recordings already on YouTube and I posted it to help complete the artist's collection.

Much later YouTube sent me a somewhat ambiguous note to the effect that there had been a copyright complaint but it was not taking any action however I could lodge an objection in case the matter escalated (it may not have used those exact words but that was my understanding of the matter). I chose to ignore it.

In my post I made it clear† where the recording had originated from and whilst YouTube would not allow me to post its download URL as plaintext I embedded it into the accompaning image where it was fully legible.

That was some years back and the recording is still there. Thus YouTube was well aware it was a public domain recording but did nothing about it. Those who posted the other recordings must have had a similar experience.

Also, there are hundreds of old documentaries, newsreel footage etc. on YouTube that are in the public domain that havn't been taken down. If this is a violation then why hasn't YouTube taken action to remove them?

† Edit: here's the link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yWoEanmuolQ
How to Manage Feature Flags
I can't really imagine living anywhere else other than the Mountain or Pacific time zones in the USA. From those, New Mexico is the cheapest by far, for remote work. But I have a kid so education is going to keep in an expensive city for the next decade or so.
That seems circular. Also, I don’t think your premise is correct. For example, the kind of “diversity” that exists in San Francisco (where there is a sharp class divide between whites and Asians on one hand and blacks and Hispanics on the other) probably breeds racism, even if it’s a subtle kind: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liberals-presen...

Also, your premise doesn’t match my experience, at least as a south Asian. I’ve never felt any racism or stereotyping in rural America. But I have in Toronto, where there’s a large underclass of south Asians. I’ve also experienced racism from other minorities in urban parts of the US. I think it’s quite possible that the conflict that inevitably arises when groups live alongside each other in the real world causes racism. I suspect the only exception to that is ethnically diverse places that are culturally and economically homogenous across ethnic lines. There’s virtually no places like that, pretty much anywhere.
Right, the chain rule is foundational. If you don't understand the chain rule, then related rates and lots of your real-world engineering applications of calculus would seem to require memorizing a crazy number of specific solution templates.

Though, if typical calculus courses don't spend the time to ensure a good understanding of the chain rule, that would explain why so many students seem to think calculus is a gigantic sea of random rules.
>It’s just distributed ADHD at this point

I just want a FOSS 'ADHD' model that I can ask questions to and it gives me mostly accurate answers as well as help me debug shit lol.
> But Martin said that non-STEM students didn’t really need to learn trigonometric functions, which are used in satellite navigation or mechanical engineering.

For me, trig has been the least useful math. I never once used it in college (2 years as a CS major, then an Econ major) or in the working world (tax lawyer, startup founder). I'm sure there are some jobs where it is irreplaceable, but this might be a minority of STEM jobs. Do biologists need to know trig?
Some people delibrately purchase large lots with a view to connecting isolated patches of undeveloped forrest areas with native corridors across the acquired land.
Even at runtime I don't trust the results worth much. A large part of the act of programming is identifying and handling corner-cases. You never manage to handle EVERY corner case, and the missed ones result in frustrating debugging sessions. But a competent programmer can cover enough cases up front that the time spent debugging is manageable.

But when I see people say things like "Look! I used GPT to write a functioning webapp!" - I worry that people get a false sense of "It works!" from pasting GPTs code into their compiler and seeing roughly the results they expect. That's great, but GPT in its current form spends exactly zero time "thinking" about corner cases - It's just a black box that repeatedly spits out "most likely next token". So maybe that app works 90% of the time. Or 95%. Or 99%. But you don't have much of a way to tell the difference without rigorous testing that includes thorough and well-articulated test cases. But in order to do that, you need to understand the problem you're solving in a very detailed way, and how your code reacts to it. And in order to do that, you need to... know how to write the program.

I think this latest wave of LLMs and generative AI is really awesome tech, and I play with it every day, because it's just so cool. But seeing people trust programs written with them worries me. Some day someone is gonna copy/pasta some LLM generated code into mission critical software, trusting it implicitly, and cause a tragedy.
It's not a skin color question, it's a question of other cultural elements. For example: My Indian & Chinese friends & family enjoy having a deep community of friends, restaurants, heritage events, bilingual schools, etc. The school matter is particularly acute; virtually every community on the SF peninsula has Mandarin immersion programs. In San Jose, Asians are 38.1% of the population versus 8.4% in Austin.

These considerations are amplified for smaller cultural niches - e.g. Afghani, Vietnamese, Korean, French, etc. I'm sure Austin ranks high in (tech-weighted) diversity compared to other cities in Texas, but it probably doesn't hold a candle to SFBA & NYC.

(Note: Plenty to love about Austin. There are no silver bullets.)
Have you tried KDEnlive? I believe it is the best open source video editor on Linux, it is now combined with AI to auto generate subtitles!
Folks can keep going after Tesla (whatever you say, we know it’s just because of Musks politics) all they want, they’ll still sell like hotcakes because they’re vastly superior to the other EVs out there at the same price point.
I don't. The reason is that even though we are probably capable of doing so we lack the responsibility required to do this without the chance of massive negative side effects. Every time we've upped the scale in our abilities it has only resulted in more damage, not quite balanced out by more progress. This is a real problem: we can get ourselves into the kind of trouble that we don't seem to be able to get ourselves out of. We never stop and say 'this is enough', we always take the next step, create a new level of problems that then requires yet another level of innovation to control it and so on.

It's the sorcerers apprentice, but a weird variation on it. Just supposed that what the GP says is possible and doable: what guarantees do we have that we fully understand the system we are messing with? How much risk are we willing to take? Who are the stakeholders in these risks?

Without answers to all of these questions we run the real risk of biting off more than we can collectively chew and if and when we do there won't be an 'undo' button to press. Well, technically will have pressed it, but quite possible on a time-scale that we didn't quite envision.

I've seen the most stupid proposals of the kind that you are suggesting: PNE's ('Peaceful Nuclear Explosions') on a scale never dreamed of before to remake the face of the Earth, create new watersheds and so on. And to incidentally put an amount of radiation into the atmosphere that would be absolutely unparalleled. The fact that we can do these things doesn't mean that we automatically have to do these things.

I keep thinking about the discovery of nuclear power: what if we hadn't? Would that be such a huge problem or would we simply have found other, better ways of providing ourselves with power? And if we did, what would be the short term, mid term and long term consequences of doing so? Because the energy stored in the core of the Earth is the ultimate form of fossil energy: between gravity and plate tectonics life had a way of escaping the oceans and without that we'd be fish, mammals in the ocean at best. Good luck with that electronics project you were working on in that environment.

It's tricky: we have one Earth. Any decision that irrevocably removes something from that Earth carries a price tag the value of which may not be visible for a long time to come, so caution would seem to be the best way forward, even if that isn't our nature. Our nature is just to act and then to pass the buck to the next generation.
None of this is about production. I'm not building anything with LLMs. (well, apart from a couple of IRC bots).

Most of the reason I'm asking is to use them for personal usage. Not a huge fan of closed models in general.
That's the only valid question for proposals at this scale.
Doesn't Libreoffice have an implementation of VBA?
Short term changes definitely affect medium to long terms' price. Because at one level stock price is more like casino and isn't actually related to the company's performance. e.g. See the 5 year history of gamestop. Its price once increased due to random activity from redditors and its stock price is still increased due to that.
Transmission is crazy expensive and hard to permit for. Something like this could easily be in the billions depending on how much would need to be built and the associated upgrades.
I think the idea is rather that you would set it up on your own host. What you're mentioning could likely be alleviated by a properly configured caching reverse proxy.
It is a user interface that is usable and discoverable to a reasonable extent. But beautiful? come on.
I just checked and Austin is over 90F for a full third of the year. Hard pass.

https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/austin/yearly-day...
I find myself thinking this as well. I love the idea of this for a few reasons, but there appear to be some hang ups that would cause me to go back to typescript, jsx, and a node process serving it.

The developer experience is ridiculously nice in that ecosystem if you’re accustomed to it. So many QOL things have been dealt with and polished.

But I do love the idea of something like that dev experience with Go instead of JavaScript powering it.

Maybe this would be totally sufficient if you don’t want any SPA/interactivity features?

Some sort of live pipe to component state like LiveView or similar could make it so a lot of JS would work implicitly, which might give a lot of the dev experience and user experience ease that people want. I’m not sure. But I do think something would often be missing with this library.

Regardless, I love the idea and I’d be stoked to see it grow and improve the developer experience.
I am saying:

why in a very strong labor market would the threat of being laid off be compelling greater productivity improvements than before?
No, but probably there is a business opportunity there.
> Overscheduling and underscheduling happen all the time. Things catch on fire. You have to work accordingly.

You need more predictability than that in most things. Even start ups. The picture you are painting is of a badly organized company that needs to slow down a bit and ... think.

I have worked for that kind of company and the more boring sort. The more boring sort tends to make more profit.

Startups might be different, but it must be intentful chaos - not getting caught up in pointless busywork.

> Some days you can stop early.

Rarely. The only companies that allow that are probably the ones that made you do a 24h stint the day before.
Nice! I like how it can double as a static site generator, so you can replace Hugo/Jekyll with this. That might need some glue code/extensions to the language though.
Pay up
To be clear there are numerous explanations for why light slows down in a medium and they are almost all incorrect in one way or another.

This video uses the explanation that light interacts with electrons in a medium which causes the electrons to produce an electromagnetic wave whose interference pattern changes the phase of the light wave, kicking it back.

The problem is that an interference pattern can never change the speed of a wave, it can change the phase of the wave and adjust it, but that won't explain how light passing through a medium takes longer to traverse that medium than light travelling in a vacuum.

I don't know of a visualization or explanation that captures why light slows down in a medium, and the video linked is still a good way to get a sense of what's happening, but it's worth knowing that there is still a great deal being left out of that explanation.

It is nevertheless better than explanations involving the absorption an reemission of photons or that light bounces around within the internal structure of a medium. Both of those explanations manage to explain how light takes longer to pass through a medium but fails to explain how light keeps a consistent direction as opposed to scattering randomly.

The explanation in the video manages to explain how light maintains a consistent direction but fails to explain how light will actually take longer to pass through a medium compared to a vacuum.
> That is also ahistorical.

I don't see how. The downstream evolution may have been the growth of bureaucracy, but was the impulse for the revolution caused by a desire to grow bureaucracy? I'm sure it has something to do with the over-production of elites who wanted a piece of the pie...but many of the "common folk" also went along. I doubt their intention was to have more bureaucrats. The sentiment was expressed as liberté, égalité, fraternité,. So, I think my point still stands. Also, the OP broadens the scope of bureaucracy, so I think he would also include the aristocrats & clergy in the ranks of the bureaucracy...in addition to the civil employees.

> which seized the property of the Church and sold it or taxed it, thus generating revenue that the King could never have dreamed of

I think this supports my point. When there is an influx of wealth, through honest or ill-gotten means (such as looting the Church...another bureaucracy), there is little scrutiny for having a large bureaucracy. When the ruling order is facing stress, then a bureaucracy is held under more scrutiny. The Chinese have a term, "the mandate of heaven", which is used to judge the ruling order. The moral is if the peoples' quality of life diminishes, the ruling order will lose it's legs to stand on.

Let's be honest here, the bureaucracy enforces the rules of the ruling order/ruler. The bureaucracy can take a life of it's own & can even become the ruling order. This happen with the court eunics in the late Han dynasty. Either way, the bureaucracy is a representation of the ruling order. When the ruling order loses the mandate of heaven, then the representations of the ruling order will face more scorn.

Btw, the eunics were scorned long before the dynasty collapsed...they just had enough power to punish the critics. Granted, there are many more complexities than having a monolithic bureaucratic bloc. There are different actors with different motivations. The eunics where a subset of the court bureaucracy who gained power through internal conflict. My criticism of the OP is that the author treats the bureaucracy as a single entity. It may be in effect to outsiders, but inside, many actors & factions compete for control...and I think bureaucratic innovation occurs.
I wish there was more details.

tl;dr:

- Astronaut grew tomatoes, picked the first one, then lost it

- Spent a bunch of time looking for it, never found it

- Returned to Earth, blamed for eating it

- Other astronauts found it, but failed to provide photos or further details

- Original astronaut exonerated

- The end
Fediverse refers to a collection of decentralized applications that use some kind of common protocol. Like instead of centralized Twitter, you could choose Mastodon and so on. My understanding is very basic though.

Long story short, I'd love to see you advertise some more. I'm not sure how you'd reach your typical audience though.
> No we're not. This is a discussion about the EU rolling out the first regulatory proposals for AI. You don't get to change to subject to whatever is convenient for your argument at a given moment.

Your argument is the one that has been put forth against every form of automation since the industrial revolution. It's not changing the subject to recognize the parallel.

> I really can't be bothered engaging with the rest of your post, as you simply ignore facts that don't suit your argument and keep reiterating what you want to happen in the ideal economic world you prefer to inhabit. This is just ideology divorced from reality.

I'm not sure which facts you think I'm ignoring.

Suppose that AI automates 20% of jobs, causing everyone's costs to go down by an average of 20%. Meanwhile the people who lost those jobs have to find different ones, which e.g. may not pay as well (after all, there is a reason they didn't take those jobs before).

Your argument is apparently that this is bad for them and a problem -- they might have to take a job at $45,000 when they currently make $50,000. But if the same forces also cause their annual expenses[0] to go from $50,000 to $40,000, this is neither bad nor a problem. And for some other person making $50,000 doing something else who didn't lose their job, their expenses went down from $50,000 to $40,000 too, which is even better.

[0] In real dollars; in practice the Fed might respond to this by increasing the money supply to prevent nominal consumer prices and wages from going down.

Which part of this are you even disputing?
What is it about JNA that makes it slow? What is it about Panama that makes it fast?

Soon I'll start working on similar features for my own language. This could give me a massive head start.
I happen to be in the middle of writing a simple tar implementation, and had in fact just started playing with the idea of just using it as an on-disk filesystem format. The caveats I can see are that 1. it's approximately append-only[0], and 2. you have to replay the whole thing in order to make sure you have the latest version of a file (I'm leaning towards doing so on mount because then I can also build an in-memory filename-to-block-address cache). Have you hit any issues, or is this as surprisingly reasonable as it sounds?

[0] I mean, if the new version of a file fits in the same number of 512-byte blocks as the old version you could update in place, but that's an unreliable condition at best and also guarantees data corruption if you lose power halfway; really going append-only makes the implementation simple and also makes it easy to be really resilient.
> calculus are not useful outside of STEM degrees or in “real life” is indeed what makes them useful since it allows them to remain essentially the only abstract thinking course high school students will be exposed to.

Nah, I would rather argue that discrete math is more valuable to students in both abstract thinking and in real life. In basic calculus, mostly you are just remembering formulas and equations like d/dx(e^x)=e^x. Not even touching the edge of abstract thinking.
Wow, thanks for pointing that out, that made me never want to join omg.lol
Not exactly. While they can be used in tandem, I'm not necessarily suggesting that they should be; rather, the two serve different purposes and solve different problems.

A framework component is effectively a reusable block of code. It's an organizational principle more than anything; modular and reusable, but not meaningful to the browser in its own right once rendered. A web component, on the other hand, is very literally a new HTML element, and is treated by the browser as such. Once defined, the browser itself sees that component as a meaningful entity in its own right.

While the difference between those two ideas is fairly subtle on the surface, there's a whole nest of smaller differences that result from it. For just one example, web components are perfectly AJAX-compatible with no extra strings attached - you simply add the HTML tag representing a component to the DOM, and it works out of the box, no matter when or from where you got it. Achieving that with a framework component requires some additional work at best, which may or may not have been done for you by the framework authors.

That's not to say one is necessarily better than the other either, to be clear - they're just different, and treating them as if they were the same does both a disservice.