skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Surfacing this reply to a dead post, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38646354

> Don't post this kind of scaremongering when you don't have the facts. The water being released from Fukushima is being monitored more than probably any other nuclear facility on the planet right now. You could drink it. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/08/1140037
Regulations are the basis for legal liability. You cannot put someone in prison or fine them without a law that says what they did was wrong.
the engineering team are usually great at writing tests that test their code, a good QA can test alongside them to find cases they've missed and issues that automated code tests can't find. The QA person doesn't have to spend time checking that the app basically works, they can be confident in that and spend their time testing for other 'qualities'
But yes, I've known QA teams that will only find bugs that no one cares about or are never likely to happen - often because they are not trained on the product to be able to dig deep
Safety-driver miles are more useful for training. Driverless miles are more useful for proving. Like I said, different paths: remove the human then expand scope vs expand scope and then remove the human. Waymo is undeniably further along path 1, Tesla is undeniably further along path 2. Which path is shorter? I'm pretty sure it's path 2, but time will tell.

> All that data collection and they can't handle the easiest of situations in San Francisco

Unlike Waymo, they haven't limited to and exclusively trained on the easiest situations in SF for the last decade. Just like Tesla hasn't even attempted true driverless miles, Waymo hasn't even attempted unmapped back-alley navigation, let alone unmapped back-alleys in the middle of nowhere. You need scope and reliability to win this race, and it seems to me that the Tesla formula for improving reliability scales better than the Waymo formula for expanding scope. Time will tell.
> Moreover, it is untenable to maintain a small island of "secure software" for "important things" in a vast ocean of careless and vulnerable code. Inevitably, the island gets infected, and not even air-gaps can save it, as stuxnet showed.

Why is it inevitable? As long as it doesn't connect to other software (via internet or other means), isn't it possible to formally verify one critical software component, e.g. in pacemakers?

I'm not saying that C would necessarily be the best choice for formally verifying it, though.
It's Intel. I take whatever Intel says with a grant of salt.

Intel pushed 14nm to 14nm+++ and used backhand tactics to push OEMs not to use AMD. how long did Intel stay on some trend until it fizzled for Intel?

while Nvidia has been working on CUDA forever?
The TLDR is "local models are great to have but hopefully we don't lose out on large hosted models due to distrust about data going straight to OA or some other big companies."

The arguments made in favour of bigco trustability are not great though, esp the parallel between AI data ingestion and Instagram's rumored use of mics to capture voice data for ad targeting:

> Facebook say they aren’t doing this. The risk to their reputation if they are caught in a lie is astronomical.

FB has already paid the biggest fine in FTC history for privacy breaches. It has no goodwill, it's running on user inertia and indifference.
From what I've seen, the value in QA is product familiarity. Good QA'ers know more about how the product actually works than anybody else. More than PM's, more than sales, and more than most dev teams. They have a holistic knowledge of the entire user-facing system and can tell you exactly what to expect when any button gets pushed. Bad QA'ers are indeed a source of noise. But so are bad devs, sysadmins, T1/2 support, etc.
Translation for corporate speak: Tesla's hiring a lobbyist/legal team to try to change EU laws in their favor.
Yep, this is it. It's why it's such a shame about the Cruise incident in SF - people act like it's shocking that an autonomous vehicle didn't do the correct thing when a human driven vehicle launched a person into their windshield. Of course it's terrible that the car drove over the person (and unacceptable that Cruise tried to conceal that fact), but in terms of thinking about the safety of the vehicle you really have to ask yourself whether humans would be able to handle that situation well.

Would I definitely react in the optimal way if a person hit my windshield? I wouldn't bet on it, and I would say there is a nontrivial likelihood that I would accidentally step on the gas and run over the person. That's just the nature of dealing with a truly one in a million situation that I'm totally unprepared for (just as the autonomous car was totally unprepared for it).
What would you have a bought instead? In my experience there isn’t anything comparable in the consumer space. I’d love to be shown I’m wrong. I use both their network gear and security setup (door bells, cameras).

I’m not sure there is another company offering the same solution with ease of setup and low overhead to manage. Is there?
Hierarchical, not relational, not what I’d call a graph database. Pre-SQL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Information_Management_Sys...
Code is available! They have a few different discovered solutions.

https://github.com/google-deepmind/funsearch
> The subset relation is defined as "X is a subset of Y if for all x in X, x is in Y".

This might be a bit nit picky, but shouldn't that be "if and only if" or "iff" instead of just "if"?

> The negation of this is "X is not a subset of Y if there exists some x in X, such that x is not in Y". We can see from this that the empty set is NOT NOT a subset of every set.

In what follows I'm replacing lower case x with lower case e.

I'm kind of simple minded, so find that a bit confusing because of using the negated definition and a double not, and also "for all e in X" when X is the empty set because it makes you have to keep for the rest of the definition that e might be nonexistent.

This is clearer to me:

1. Rewrite the definition so it is in terms of all e, not all e in X: "X is a subset of Y if and only if for all e, e is in X implies e is in Y". This form of the definition only talks about elements that exist.

2. "e is in X implies e is in Y" is equivalent to "e is not in Y implies e is not in X", which gives us this equivalent definition: "X is a subset of Y if and only if for all e, e is not in Y implies e is not in X".

3. When X is the empty set it is always the case that e is not in X, and so "e is not in Y implies e is not in X" is always true (because both false implies true and true implies true are true), and so X is a subset of Y by the definition of subset.
Asus Zenbook 14 OLED UX3405MA review (2024 model, Intel Core Ultra 7 155H)
> Evidence doesn't always mean much when the police can investigate themselves and find they did nothing wrong

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're mixing up two mechanisms of law here:

In criminal law, the police investigates and the public prosecutor brings the case to court. The police often has a discretion to not bring a case if they don't want to, or to indeed frame a case in their favor if they aren't granted that liberty by the lawmaker

In civil law, you can sue for damages (such as lost time off work) or for other things that are made illegal (such as an organisation not following warranty legislation). The police is not involved here and bringing such a case is at your discretion

The latter system is what I had in mind when I said you could bring the evidence to court. Though it might also apply in the former case, in a situation where evidence is inadmissible if obtained illegally (this is not always the case)
steppe people's fortress located in the snow forest?
The President's Initiative on Junk Fees and Related Pricing Practices
Chunking is one of those things that needs to be custom to the document being processed.
As a general rule, try recursive chunking for most questions. Consider using multiple strategies in tandem. It has the nice advantage of incorporating both broad and specific context.
However, even the document itself is not enough to design a chunking strategy. Consider an HTML document and the questions:

1. How does that webpage code work?

2. Summarize this website.

As you can see, you might benefit from pre-processing info different based on the intended result. One cares strongly about the tags, styling etc. while one only cares about the text and you could maybe just scrub the tags.

Also, consider chunks overlap and max chunk size and tune them based on different trials.

Check your chunk scores (cos similarity) against sample queries and make sure chunks texts are meaningful. "Is this how I would store info in my head?" might be a good way to start, if your chunks are garbage you will get garbage.

Consider visualizing your chunks in clusters to validate topic relevance.

Last thing a RAG is a multi-step arch., only one step being bad will turn the whole thing to garbage, put lots of debugging, eval steps in yours. Make sure its not the prompt step thats ruining it. Identify the weak points and triage accordingly.
People argue for ROCm to support older cards because that is all they have accessible to them. AMD has lagged on getting expensive cards into the hands of end users because they've focused only on building super computers.

I predict that access to the newer cards is a more likely scenario. Right now, you can't rent a MI250 or even MI300x, but that is going to change quickly. Azure is going to have them, as well as others (I know this, cause that's what I'm building now).
BUT THEN IF ALL-UPPERCASE WERE THE HISTORICAL DEFAULT, WHY DID MOST OF THE WESTERN WORLD SWITCH TO USING NEARLY ALL LOWERCASE? AND WHY DOES IT FEEL SO JARRING - EVEN RUDE - TO USE ALL CAPS?
exactly what was already said, systemic change. don’t go where you don’t support, rather than half-ass it.

hopefully you can understand how, based upon having already explained that, it would be possible to make an assumption in good faith. since you didn’t seem to notice the first time, it would appear to be a passive rejection.

shall we continue? assuming you also wanted to discuss in good faith. who wanted to argue?
And who are also accepting new patients.
Gotta say, I fucking love Firefox. Be proud of your work.
Why Is a Tsunami in the Northwest Missing from FEMA's Risk Analysis?
"Hey, car 1812 needs a new restroom toilet and a couple of new seats."

"Lead time on the toilet is 21 days from the manufacturer."

"Uff, 21 days? That's more than 10! We will have to junk the whole car."
It's not dead. It's sleeping.
Are you saying that because something is digital and exists as data on a computer, that it is not valid? As opposed to something on paper? How is that different in any real way? Paper is transitory -- anyone can forge a signature or reprint a contract and photocopy your name on it and shred the original and put the modified one in the file cabinet. Just because the materials used are different doesn't make the law any less applicable.
Or they're UX designers without actual UX design skills?
>They took gritty and energizing chip tune music and replaced it with breathy, gentle wind instruments. It fits the aesthetics of the game but it's so boring.

I felt the same but I didn't really know what was wrong with it until I read your comment. It is beautiful, but it's just... lacking something for me.

I'd previously described it as a "soul-less remake" but I think perhaps it's just taken in a direction that didn't sit true to the original. Whereas, if you look at the recent Super Mario RPG remake, it's got the same vibe and soul as the original game.
You didn't watch the announcement on the MI300x. You don't have to change that line to use AMD.
ClimSim: A large multi-scale dataset for hybrid physics-ML climate emulation
https://leap-stc.github.io/ClimSim/README.html
I completely agree with the sentiment of this article: It is a big problem that being a "software tester" is not at all as prestigious as being a software engineer. Having someone who really understands how the users interact with the software and systematically covers all behavior in test cases is very valuable.

I experienced both worlds: I worked in an organization where 4 QA engineers tested each release that was built by 6 software engineers. Now I'm in a situation where 0 QA engineers test the work of 8 software engineers. In the second case the software engineers actually do all the testing, but not that systematically because it's not their job to optimize the testing process.

Having someone with the capabilities of a software engineer who's daily work is uncovering defects and verifying functionality is important. Paying someone who owns the testing process is more than justified commercially. The problem is: You don't find those people. For various reasons. Therefor you are stuck with making the software engineers do the testing.

But there is hope. There is a new standard released for my industry that requires organizations to have a QA department that is independent of the software engineering department. If they don't have that, they are not allowed to role out there software product complaint to the standard. Maybe this will help to reintroduce the QA Engineer as an important and prestigious role.
This is an interesting article! I think more of this kind of bug-type/origin-breakdown is a good thing to have.

This and the Curl article make me wonder what factors impact the proportion of security bugs which are memory safety bugs. The most obvious variable is codebase size - Microsoft/Chromium both are huge codebases, with multiple millions (billions?) of lines of code each. Curl appears to clock in closer to 100k, and Daniel states "51% (22 of 43) of the issues rated high or critical was due to C mistakes." bc appears to have ~20k lines of code, and this article gives C bug rate closer to 10%. Feature set/attack surface area feels like another important variable, though I'm sure there are arguments for others as well.

I'd be nice if we had more directly comparable numbers as well. The denominator for Microsoft's 70% number is "number of CVEs". The denominator for Chromium's number is "high severity security bugs". Curl's 51% number uses a similar metric, and I think the denominator for bc's ~10% number is just "bugs" (though to be fair, OP does discuss this in the post).

All that being said, I still think the data point introduced by this article is better to have than not.
Bad title, this was a hybrid ML/human effort, not a ML only achievement.

From the article:

"What’s most exciting to me is modelling new modes of human–machine collaboration,” Ellenberg adds. “I don’t look to use these as a replacement for human mathematicians, but as a force multiplier.”
This whole thread is confusing. The blog in the OP, the comments section of which are you posting in right now, is literally about adding WebGPU support to a headless JavaScript interpreter Deno, that includes no HTML/CSS/DOM/Windowing engine. WebGPU is a standardized API built on platform specific graphics APIs, it is not a "renderer". The WebGPU support is based on wgpu, which isn't used in Chromium; it's actually the basis of Firefox's WebGPU implementation (and widely used by most Rust WebGPU projects, such as Bevy.) The person you are replying to simply wants native windowing APIs added to Deno as well, which has been done about 1,000,000 times in various other languages.

I'm very confused because every comment you have posted in this reply chain makes no sense in the context of the actual blog.
I imagine they're just trying not to tell the wrong story just because of a tangential change in how developers use these tools, so taking some time to look closely and account for things and provide the necessary context for the report is sensible. I guess it's just taking longer than they expected due to the unexpected GitHub changes.
Frameworks like playright can record as code user actions and you can replay them in a test.

So you can make your QA teams create plenty of tests if you give them the right tools.
Who's got a botnet and is willing to create some chaos?
> Few of them prevents me from switching to Firefox

(I assume you meant "a few"). Which ones, by curiosity?
>Indeed, we can look at the ablations and see that swapping out a weaker code LLM (540B Codey to 15B Starcoder) makes little difference

Really stretching the meaning of "little difference" here

"While ‘StarCoder’ is not able to find the full-sized admissible set in any of the five runs, it still finds large admissible sets that improve upon
the previous state of the art lower bound on the cap set capacity."

https://imgur.com/a/xerOOLn

Literally telling you how much more valuable the LLM (any coding LLM) is than alternatives, while demonstrating prediction competence still matters.
Yep I see this a lot where people want swappable engineers and no one is able to understand if you have an engineer working in the Frontend most of the time they will not be acquainted with backend work. Nor is there a need or logical way to keep everyone working across the stack to keep them in this swappable state. Each time you change a persons job they need retraining and orientation. Code is code but a drop down menu is not a database insert.
But you can't support Pytorch without a proper foundation in place. They don't need to support zillion _end_ libraries, sure, but they do need to have at least a very good set of standard libraries, equivalent of Cublas, Curand etc.

And they don't. My work recently had me working with rocRAND (Rocm's answer to Curand). It was frankly pretty bad- the design, performance (50% slower in places that don't make any sense because generating random numbers is not exact that complicated), and documentation (God it was awful).

Now, that's a small slice of the larger pie. But imagine if this trend continues for other libraries.
May I remind you that Firefox has over 300M users. If that's not worthy of admiration, scarcely anything is.
Agreed! I did have some good experiences at my last job with the QA team, but it was definitely a unique model. They were really a "Customer Success" team, it was a mix of QA, sales, and customer support.

These "Customer Support" reps, when functioning as QA, knew the product better than product or eng, exactly how you're describing. I did enjoy that model, but they also did not write tests for us. They primarily executed manual test plans, after deploys, in production. They did provide more value than creating noise, but the engineering team still was QA, at least from an automated test standpoint.
Why would you have the car drive home? That means you have to give it heads up and make a plan to leave so it can drive back to you. If it just circles the block for 8 hours while you work, it will be there within minutes to drive you home whenever you feel like it.
That's pretty much my role - I don't write test cases, I'll explore the system and try to find issues that the devs have missed. Then they learn from what they missed so I have to explore more to find other types of issues.
>anyone in QA wasn’t “good enough”

This is why. Engineers have some of the most inflated egos that they set an extremely high bar for being “part of the club”. Sometimes that’s corporate policy (hire better than you) and sometimes it’s just toxicity (I am better than you). Without realizing that the most valuable skills they could learn are soft skills. I’m open to finding anyone willing to code. Whether it’s from QA, sales, Gerry’s nephew, recent CS grad, Designer turned coder, or that business analyst that taught themselves Python/Pandas.

A good QA team is sorely missed. A bad QA team turns the whole notion of QA teams sour. Just the same for development teams :D

I think devs are first line of defense. Unit tests etc. QA is second line (should we release?), feature testing, regression, UX continuity, etc. There’s value in it if you can afford it.
Teletypes. Many early computer systems were connected to teletypes as terminals.

I cut my my teeth playing SUMER and programming Fortran on a VAX over an all caps teletype with an attached paper-tape punch/reader and on a good day I got to use one of the decwriters (a dot matrix printer-terminal.

The vector screens (Tektronic?) were always in use by the engineering students, and I was just an 8 year old logging in on my moms account lol.
Not sure why this was downvoted, that second paragraph is right on the money.
Saying "useless appendage" sounds to me like it's the QA team that's the problem, when what you're really saying is that it's the organization and process that pushed QA teams into irrelevance. I agree with your assessment overall, and those issues were one of the driving forces behind companies dispensing with QA and putting it all on the developers.
The jurisdiction is EU (GDPR is binding legislation for all member countries, not dissimilar to US federal law), and the enforcer is primarily the country where the company that owns the website has European incorporation.

In theory anybody can report to their country's data protection officer, although at least in Finland they don't care about individual citizen complaints.

The NGO noyb is sending out batches of these reports. They have some minor wins, but as you can probably tell from all these nags around, by and large there's not much effect.

All these questions are sorted, on paper.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/08/noyb-gdpr-cookie-consent-c...
CUDA is just way to good in terms of UX with nothing platform-independent coming close to it. I wish there was a competitor, but there simply isn't.

I wish AMD&Intel would extend compute shaders with pointers&pointer casting, arbitrary large buffers instead of just 4GB, device-wide sync, and function pointers. Those are kinda my must-have functionality. Even better, just use C++ for compute shaders.
well, partially because there's no license in your repo so unless you're selling it to someone ... what outcome are you expecting to happen?
The main problem with QA teams is the same problem with IT teams or even management. If they are doing their jobs well they appear to be doing nothing.

This often creates a situation where people need to "justify" their jobs. Usually this happens due to an over reliance upon metrics (see Goodhart's Law) rather than understanding what the metrics are proxying and what the actual purpose of the job is. A bad QA team is one who is overly nitpicky, looking to ensure they have something to say. A good QA team simultaneous checks for quality as well as trains employees to produce higher quality.

I do feel like there is a lack of training going on in the workforce. We had the "95%-ile isn't that good"[0] post on the front page not long ago and literally it is saying "It's easy to get to the top 5% of performers in any field because most performers don't actively train or have active feedback." It's like the difference between being on an amateur sports team vs a professional. Shouldn't businesses be operating like the latter? Constantly training? Should make hiring be viewed differently too, as in "can we turn this person into a top performer" rather than "are they already" because the latter isn't as meaningful as it appears when your environment is vastly different than the one where success was demonstrated.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38560345
Yes, but Zoom and Netflix will work great on 50% or 25% of 1gbps. Heck, they'll work great with 5% of 1gbps.

I am sure that AT&T's CPE equipment is lackluster, but that doesn't mean it won't work to do basic tasks to the satisfaction of a home user.
I feel like it's kind of case by case with the chocolate bars. Overall, quality has declined, but some more than others. I think Snickers are still ok, but for example KitKat is absolute trash, along with Milk Duds, Whoppers, Baby Ruth ...

Source: eating my kids' leftover Halloween candy
> but I've never encountered a QA team that actually writes the tests for engineering.

I have a few times. But the only common thing in the QA industry, is that every company does it differently and think they're doing it the "normal way".