skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks! Macroexpanded:

Polish Hackers that repaired DRM trains threatened by train company - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38628635 - Dec 2023 (137 comments)

Polish train maker denies claims its software bricked competitor rolling stock - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38570654 - Dec 2023 (2 comments)

Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38567687 - Dec 2023 (292 comments)

Polish trains lock up when serviced in third-party workshops - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38530885 - Dec 2023 (359 comments)
When I was working in a finance company that used cobol, sure I could read cobol. I could probably write some cobol. But the extra crap around cobol, how mainframes work, DB2, JCL, etc. is where this gets complicated.
I don’t think equating kids watching porn with gun violence makes sense. One has a much greater and more permanent effect so the reaction should be stronger. The other isn’t, in my opinion, a big deal and the way the government is trying to deal with it has much farther reaching effects than the issue warrants.
> now the West is distracted from Ukraine by Hamas-v-Israel

Media, perhaps. No one else is. Hamas is a tiny sideshow. The Kremlin wants people to think the West is distracted.

Note that TSMC has (or is building) fabs in USA and Germany. I think an invasion of Taiwan is far less likely now than it was 2+ years ago, but if it did happen it would reduce TSMC's production capacity, not eliminate it. They'd just have to prioritise the important stuff and put iPhone production on hold.
>That's a silly claim unless you tax them to such an extent that black marker drugs become more competitive.

Not at all. First off, all the money we spend on the dea and other drug enforcement could be instantly recouped. Billions for those d.a.r.e clowns ALONE. Plus, I'd wager to say cost of legal production would be a lot lower than illegal production + illicit shipment to end users. That leaves plenty of room to make a decent buck on taxes. But yeah a big portion of money would come from all the idiotic shit we no longer would have to do with drugs legal.
Yeah I think what they actually called it was "network database" which I thought maybe was like a graph.
Who in their right mind would trust a company that just had its CEO publicly ousted for allegedly lying to the board, only to have him put back in charge? And we have yet to see any kind of reasonable explanation or statement about what really happened.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Public trust in large tech companies is at an all-time low. Nobody thinks tech companies want to help anybody but the few rich people running them anymore.

I wouldn't trust a word OpenAI says, because even their name is a lie. The code isn't open, it's not auditable and you have dishonest people running the company.
Ted AI 2023
A TED event with a focus on the power and impact of AI.
I don't think five runs is sufficient to reach the conclusion you're reaching here, especially when we can see that one of the Codey runs is worse than all of the StarCoder runs. If Codey is so much more valuable, why is this happening?

It's certainly true that LLM's are more valuable than the alternative tested - which is a set of hand-crafted code mutation rules. But it's important to think about why an LLM is better. There are two big pitfalls for the hand-crafted rules. First, the hand-crafted rule has to make local changes - it's vanishingly improbable to be able to do something like "change < to <= in each of this series of if-statements" or "increase all constants by 1", whereas those are natural simple changes that an LLM might make. The second is that the random mutations have no concept of parsimonious code. There's nothing preventing it from generating code that does stuff like compute values and then neglect to return them, or multiply a previous computation by zero, or any number of other obviously useless variations.

What the LLM brings to the table here is the ability to avoid pitfalls like the above. It writes code that is shaped sensibly - it can make a more natural set of edits than "just randomly delete an operator". But that's all it's doing. That's not, like the tweet quoted above called it, "generating genuinely new knowledge".

Put it this way - assuming for a moment that Codey ending up with a higher score than StarCoder is not random chance, do you think it's because Codey has some greater understanding of the admissible-set problem, or because Codey generates a different set of minor code edits?
Looks like they did the intelligent thing of releasing the complete 1.0 version.

As opposed to the usual dumbass thing of working for months/years and getting almost done when the C&D from nintendo finally and predictably hits.
You have to win every time, they only need to win once.
The Fed's mandate goes both directions, without any external pressure. They have an optimal target rate for inflation and unemployment -- neither of which are "zero". When they get too far away from their target number, in either direction, they act.

In this case, inflation is under 2% (or will be soon), and unemployment is already under 4%. There's no cause to panic, but they will act sooner rather than later so that it doesn't become time to panic.

Sure, politicians and business types are always happy to have lower rates. It's free money.

But the Fed is pretty insulated from them, by design. They're economists with a model of how the economy acts, and their behavior is in line with that model. They want to keep the economy on a moderate stable level of growth (~3-4% yearly GDP increase, not more and certainly not less).

So it doesn't look like panic to me. It looks like the ordinary active management of an economy coming out of a recession. The key rate is at 5%, which is a huge amount of maneuvering room for them.
I mean a single checkout from multiple shopify stores isn't really possible (at least by 3rd parties)

My hypothesis is that, if you could drive traffic to your site and offer a fast checkout experience, there's probably multiple ways to monetize that. Driving the traffic is the hard part.
Not exactly. 'Cash in' books like this don't just teach you how to use a menu once, they teach 100 times to pad the size of the book. I am absolutely in favor of screenshots, but if they become massively dumplicative then the reader never gets past entry level.

A lot of publishers choose quantity over quality. One publisher that aims at developers uses a large font so the books look thick but the subject matter is not that details and you just end up endlessly flipping pages because the word count per page is so low.
By "Copaganda", I was referring to shows like COPS that only shows the dramatic moments, the YT channels that glorify police work, not the boring traffic stops, or the paperwork officers have to deal with. My dislike of this coverage is that it reinforces the self-image of cops as the only thing standing between the good guys and the bad guys, and that violence is accepted and encouraged as a standard useful tool. To me, violence (non-lethal or lethal) should be the last resort.

I did a ride along in the 80s and was paired with a deputy who worked a tough area. They wanted to show me the worst of the worst, so that in case I decided to pursue a career in LEO I would know what it could entail. My deputy only responded to what he felt were serious, exciting calls. Scared the crap out of me. But he was honest enough to say that most of his days weren't like the stuff I saw in my week. This wasn't a one day thing, but kind of a pre-screening thing for a LEO career. I'm not sure that an "ordinary citizen" can do this just to see what it's like anymore due to liability on the part of most police departments.

I too saw my deputy use force that I felt was uncalled for. And demeaning behavior towards people who were just hoping someone could help. He also did crap like speed whenever he felt like it, broke a million traffic laws when it wasn't necessary, and behaved like a stereotypical bad cop. Imagine how Hank Shrader acted in Breaking Bad. Everyone was assumed to be a scumbag and guilty of something.

I have family and friend in LE, and my neighbor has been a captain in our city since I moved here. And I have a coworker who used to be a CO at the state pen. Dealing with the inmates, etc can be corrosive. You see people at their worst.

But that's what they're paid to do. The system needs to address this as best as possible so that LEO (and COs) can cope with the stress and don't develop an "us vs them" attitude. My CO coworker talked about how a lot of the COs just loved to mix it up with inmates. And my LEO friends talk about how these jobs naturally attract people with either too much adrenaline/testosterone or an inability to control themselves under stress. But if you're LEO, you sure can't easily get psychotherapy.

I appreciate you telling your story, and reading my with a charitable mindset.
> They won't always know what code a dev touched underneath the hood and what they might need to recheck (short of a full regression test every single time) to verify everything is still working.

This is a good point, but there are some QA that do review code (source: me - started career in QA and transitioned to dev). When making a test plan, an important factor is risk assessment. If QA has a hunch, or better when the dev lead flags complex changes, the test plan should be created and then the code diffs should be reviewed to assess whether or not the plan needed revising. For example, maybe the QA env doesn’t have a full replica of prod but a query is introduced that could be impacted if one of the joining tables is huge (like in prod). So maybe we’d adjust the plan to run some benchmarks on a similar scale environment.

I’m definitely biased since I started in QA and loved it. To me, good QA is a cross section of many of the things people have mentioned - technical, product, ops, security - with a healthy dash of liking to break things. However, reality is that the trend has been to split that responsibility among people in each of those roles and get rid of QA. Works great if people in each of those job functions has the bandwidth to take on that QA work (they’ll all have a much deeper knowledge of their respective domains). But you’ll lose coverage if any one of those people don’t have time to dedicate to proper QA.

(I’ll also completely acknowledge that it’s rare to have a few, let alone a full team, of QA people who can do that.)
I'm pretty sure lowercase letters originated with the creation of the Carolingian miniscule script[1].

I had heard/read that it was created as a unification of handwriting under the Carolingian empire, but that may be untrue[2]:

“The use of the new script makes an experimental impression,” says the Latin scholar. “They were trying it out. In the Middle Ages a script like this was not just invented, as is the case today. It was developed as part of the living tradition of a scriptorium. In the 8th century Corbie was something akin to a laboratory for new scripts.” This is another point that militates against the idea propounded by many popular history books that in the framework of his cultural and educational policies Charlemagne more or less commissioned the devising of the minuscule with a view to creating a uniform, readily legible script.

Prior to that, people wrote in uncial and half-uncial. The distinction between majuscule and miniscule letters wasn't there yet, but already then, they were enlarging and decorating letters at the beginning of the sentence back then. See this image on Wikipedia for an example[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_script#/media/File%3AKe...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_minuscule

[2]: https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/news2013/pm20130109_min...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_script#/media/File%3AKe...
What not just have site that are serve explicit things advertise that. Have a large scale Blocklist, and if you serve explicit content, then you need to be on there.

Then have a option when people sign up for internet to block all the IPs associated with explicit stuff.

Adults and parents can choose "yes or no" when they pay for internet and then be done with it.

If children are still getting access, then their either technically savvy, which nothing will stop. Or an adult in their life is allowing unblocked internet.

Just make ip filtering easy and default so that parents can set it up without having to understand anything. It should be a required thing when you request internet access "do you want to filter out explicit content"

Some sites that have dual content may have to have separate IP addresses for non-explicit and explicit/non explicit. But that is relatively easy. And if they do not care, then they will by default end up on explicit list.
It's been 30 years. Shouldn't PDF become open source given its popularity?
It's pretty much based on the same underlying featureset. Which is why trying to target Vulkan Compute from it is messy enough, whereas OpenCL is a natural target.
it makes me think of the flashes in the game of life! who knows how this released energy is going to affect the celestial objects nearby and these in turn affect other bodies and so on...
Em.... ASML, a Dutch company, produces the tech behind these nodes.

It's a question of supply chains - not tech.
In fairness, uBo has been supported even when most extensions were being artificially left out.
There's still quite a few of those old school pages out there.

https://wiby.me/surprise/

I've found a few that are interesting
I've seen good QA teams who own and develop common infrastructure, and can pursue testing initiatives that just don't fit with engineering teams. When developing a new feature, the team developing it will write new tests to cover the functionality of the feature, and will own any failures in those tests moving forward. But while they're doing that, the QA team is operating a database of test failures, performance metrics, etc. that can provide insight into trends, hot spots needing more attention, etc. They're improving the test harnesses and test frameworks so it's easier for the engineering teams to develop new tests quickly and robustly. While the engineering team probably owns all of the unit tests and some integration tests - a dedicated QA team focuses on end-to-end tests, and tests that more accurately recreate real world scenarios. Sometimes there are features that are hard to test well because of non-deterministic behavior, lots of externalities, etc., and I think QA should be seen as an engineering specialty - sometimes they should collaborate with the feature teams to help them do that part of their job better and teach them new testing techniques that may be appropriate that perhaps aren't obvious or common.

I would also second another comment that pointed out that good QA folks often know the real surface area of the product better than anyone. And good QA folks also need to be seen as good QA folks. If you have a corporate culture that treats QA folks like secondary or lesser engineers, that will quickly be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The good ones will leave all the ones who fit your stereotype behind by transitioning into dev roles or finding a new team.
Since going in the direction of keto, most sweets to me now taste like sugary cardboard.
At our small tech company, QA is elevated to a whole different level. The QA lead(s) are involved in all product planning meetings and develop the requirements with the product team. Our QA lead has a phd and two have masters degrees! They know how the application is supposed to work better than most of the developers and play a big role throughout development. In my opinion (as the person that leads the developers), this is how it should work. They aren't some separate team we chunk over stuff to at the end of the day.
What Tao does when proposing an idea most likely encapsulates much more than what a current LLM does. I’m no Terence Tao but I sometimes come up with useful ideas. In a more complex case, I revise those ideas in my head and sometimes on paper several times before they become useful (analogous to using evolutionary algorithms).

However, it is impractical to think consciously of all possible variations. So the brain only surfaces ones likely to be useful. This is the role an LLM plays here.

An expert or an LLM with more relevant experiences would be better at suggesting these variations to try. Chess grandmasters often don’t consciously simulate more possibilities than novices.
This was a clincher for me that made me switch from Chrome/Chromium on my Pixel. Previously, I was using Kiwi Browser because it supported Chrome extensions however while it works it has a lot of annoying quirks. I just couldn't stomach the experience of browsing the web without an ad blocker though. Now Firefox and UBlock work on Android, Firefox has quickly become my preferred browser. Still using Chrome on desktop though for now.. maybe that'll change too!
So is Tesla the last OG company still claiming that Level 5 cars are around the corner?
Wow it is absolutely fascinating and awe-inspiring. Anybody know what the blob (looks like wavy gold foil) in the bottom right of the picture is?
It's almost like saying human+calculator beats human.

Haven't mathematicians been using complex computer modeling to help solve unsolved math problems since computers have existed? And havent those computers basically always beat out a human alone?

So isn't this news just that the mathematicians now have a newer and better computer model to help them solve their problems?

Seems like evolution, not revolution.
Elon Musk will be looked back on by history as one of our great heroes like Thomas Edison for his work bringing electric cars into the mainstream, improving electronic payments, bringing back free speech, building a global inexpensive Internet network, and rekindling man's interest in space.
Strongly disagree with the literal premise of this post. The idea of having a separate team with the mandate to “ensure quality” was always ridiculous. Occasionally it was helpful by accident but it was always ridiculous. “Quality” isn’t something you can bake in afterwards by testing a bunch.

Getting rid of everyone with testing expertise, and treating testing expertise as inherently less valuable that implementation expertise? Sure, you could convince me that was a bad idea.
I’m 100% in agreement, the state of IT makes me mad.

We had something close to good for a brief window before marketing and greed took over the internet.

I think if someone bully a synology nas-like product with apps designed to benefit the end user and people (“your IT person”) to support you which wasn’t aimed at fleecing all personal data and dollars out of customers it may very well work and would be utopia for the end user but the economics probably makes it a low margin business with lots of risks (e.g. liability over losing peoples files)
Here I was thinking "zombie star" was another term for ANY stellar remnant like a white dwarf or neutron star.
This movie introduced me to the Wipeout racing game on Playstation.

Scene from the movie:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ATlszssL-eI

More info:
https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/19751/whats-the-a...
The last two organizations I worked for had full QA teams with people who wrote the tests, not just test plans. The devs sometimes provided features to facilitate it, but the QA teams were the ones that constructed the tests, ran them, and decided if the software was ready to be released. Some things had manual tests, but a large percentage was fully automated.
I think you're on to something! If you want to each the young folks how banks are going to screw them long into the future, you could instead encourage them to get into crypto today so they can get screwed immediately.
> Our pets do this all the time. We're smarter than them (to a degree) yet they trust us absolutely, with their lives.

With two caveats. Our pets overall don't steer us. They may nudge us to do certain actions, but in the end, we're the ones determining the parameters of the relationship not them. Humans abuse or give pets up for adoption way more often then pets do those to humans.

The second thing is close pets dogs particularly (and likely cats) were forced to evolve over many generations to take that role in the relationship. Those dogs that maintained any independence or whose goal wasn't to please their human owners were effectively bred out of existence.
Power users matter a lot for web browsers, because web developers are power users of web browsers.

Firefox's loss of market share in general is a direct consequence of its loss in market share among web developers, because web developers stopped testing their websites in Firefox.

Any time Firefox does something good for power users, it's a good thing for the whole web ecosystem.
Well, authorities have also said the area around Palestine, Ohio, is safe after the massive toxic chemical spill, and I don't really believe that. I'm not arguing the water from Fukushima is not safe, but I will absolutely argue that one should be skeptical of authorities saying "do not worry everything is fine"
Is there evidence of this happening yet?

It makes sense in theory, but this is the type of thing I want to see data on before I consider it a possible problem, even.

No sense in worrying about things that you can't control, can't prepare for and have not occurred yet, after all. :)
That also means they test from a different perspective than the dev does. If I get a requirement my build is based on my understanding of the requirement, and so is my testing.

A separate QA person coming at it from the customer's perspective will do a test that's much more likely to reflect reality.
USA and Canadian pricing is clearly different, fascinating! We just got a Kia Rio 5 for $20K CAD (starting price is $17K CAD). Which is less than 25% the price of Tesla Y starting at $68-70k (see my sibling comment a bit up for breakdown details). Absolutely different cars in size, features, capabilities, etc, yes! But for me, in Canada, Tesla Y is very much in the luxury category :-/
It's OEM-integrated hardware and (partially) proprietary software.

Not something I particularly care about (at least, given their reputation), hence why I spent money on it and trust it with my data. But others might prefer to stay out of Synology's (or whoever's) garden altogether.
No game is perfectly balanced & no players are perfectly balanced either. I don't know about mortal kombat, but home versions of games had handicap features built in for situations like this. You can also do some out of game handicaps like "I get one free move" or "you can't use this special move".

If nothing else, the variety keeps things interesting.
I actually find that a really interesting question with a really interesting answer - the scaling properties of large groups of people are unintuitive. In this case, my guess would be high market complexity, and the entire userbase to ignore that complexity in favour of 1-2 vendors with simple and cheap options. So the market overall will just settle on de-facto standards.

Of course, based on what we see right now that standard would be Nvidia's CUDA; but while CUDA is impressive I don't think running neural nets requires that level of complexity. We're not talking about GUIs which are one of the stickiest and most complicated blocks of software we know about, or complex platform-specific operations. I'd expect that the need for specialist libraries to do inference to go away in time and CUDA to be mainly useful for researching GPU applications to new problems. Training will likely just come down to raw ops/second in hardware rather than software.

It isn't like this stuff can't already run on other cards. AMD cards can run stable diffusion or LLMs. The issue is just that AMD drivers tend to crash. That is simultaneously a huge and a tiny problem - if they focus on it it won't be around for long. CUDA is an advantage, but not a moat.