skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Although the future of humanity might be short and unpleasant, this is no reason for despair. All adults know we will die. Similarly, we have long known that all species go extinct. Our character is defined by how we live in light of the terminal diagnosis we were given at birth.

There could be other opinions, of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade

> The mass of each disk would be about a gram, adding up to a total of almost 20 million tonnes.[9] Such a group of small sunshades that blocks 2% of the sunlight, deflecting it off into space, would be enough to halt global warming.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship#Cost_and_fundi...

> Musk has predicted that a Starship orbital launch will eventually cost $1 million.

According to projections, Starship will bring 100 tons to LEO per launch, so if it costs $1 million, then 20 million tons will cost $200 billions. That mass will require about 200,000 launches. Multiply it by 3 to also carry the fuel - the sunshade should probably be deployed not on LEO but e.g. in L1 point of Sun-Earth system. Musk talked about a lot of flight per day - so many that some deliveries served by aviation could be served by Starships - so from many launchpads the total of 1000 launches per day doesn't look impossible.

We still have some technical ideas for how to deal with the problem. We still need more efforts in many areas.
The difference is a Camry can also steer, and stop.
I've wondered if signal would be more secure if each signal account periodically sent a message to another signal message. The client would of course decrypt, notice it's just a fake/noise message, reply to it, and then delete it.
Dismantling Jim Crow does not seem to have affected their numbers much - the census found Blacks to be 10% of all Americans in 1950, and 12.4% in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
What the dictionary says is completely irrelevant.
It will be interesting times if/when AI assistants progress to the point where they can (safely) operate as autonomously and competently as a human secretary.
Yes you're correct -- it's a really interesting thing, in that it reminds me of early 2023 when people would "compress" prompts by having ChatGPT rewrite it itself into something smaller.

There's really no substantive difference between that and what they're doing here, other than they're purposefully using a crappier model than GPT 3.5/ChatGPT to increase the cost savings.

For example, the first set of graphics is demonstrating switching a long question with 5 Q/A examples ("5-shot", in the literature) into ~4 sentences that are a paraphrasing of the question and have one or two very brief examples without reasoning.

That's all well and fine if you're confident the model is so amazing that it answers as well as it does with 1-shot as it does with 5-shot, but it is very, very, very likely that is not the case. Additionally, now you're adding this odd layer between the user's input and OpenAI that will easily be "felt".
Which is why they went with "rates". Right there in the title
Sorting went up for men but down for women? I'm not sure I want to start a DEI fight but I'm also not sure I can think of another answer. EDIT: part time work, apparently.
The key difference is what I'd call "context-free embeddings" vs "contextual embeddings". Due to its structure, word2vec and similar solutions have to assign every single "bank" in every sentence the exact same vector, but later models (e.g. all the transformer models, BERT, GPT, etc) will assign wildly different vectors to "bank" depending on the context of surrounding words for that particular mention of "bank".
Incredibly anecdotal, but as a cyclist I’ve found Tesla drivers to be the worst. They are always speeding, always too close to me as I bike, and seem to be unaware of it all.

My first guess is that the acceleration is so fast and the car is so quiet that it’s very easy to be unaware.
> Pontiac, Mercury & Saturn are more likely to be driven by older drivers or at least people who keep their cars in service for a long time.

Heh. Nah. All those brands are being driven by my poor friends and relatives.
And numerous U.S. states have announced future bans on the sale of new gasoline-powered cars. Those bans should be repealed.
I don't think, even working at a pretty large computer company, I had access to the internet in 1992. I did get access via a Unix workstation probably a few years later but not by 19992.
Right, but it does change how I’d expect the results to be attributed, with brand not being the relevant predictor.
Novo: All your business banking in one platform
Accidents per mile driven is the standard measurement. I don’t know what accidents per driver is meant to tell you.
SSH-Agent historical CVEs for attacker-controlled servers
And they will take it from your kindle
Carriers created RCS which is insecure. I don't think carriers care.
You giving me SSH access to your machine gives me the ability to use your infrastructure and resources for my purposes. Make the example instead you giving me access to an internal API.

You're focusing on the mechanism of my example rather than the effect. Apple hasn't given Beeper (or me or you) free access to their infrastructure. Shutting down Beeper using an exploit is well within their rights.
I assume you just go very basic. All updates to table X go to database Y. Don’t have all the clients slamming different databases with updates to the same stuff.

Not ideal but would still help with some scale stuff.
Design documents are my bane now
But it's got Dodge on the front.
I wonder if the BMW having the highest DUI rate is just selection bias in who cops tend to pull over for such things (much like they do with red sports cars).
I wonder how related this could be in the contemplation of human hyponosis or MKUltra research and the attack vectors of subliminity and the human mind. It's weird how prompt engineering is so related to the 'scripts' that Hypnotists use.

#fnord
I agree there is value to multiple implementations. We wouldn't be where we are today with open compilers and efficient machine code if it weren't for the competing implementations of LLVM and GCC.

However there isn't enough benefit to multiple language _frontends_ that I can see that outweighs the many downsides.

Not only do you have to contend with the duplication of effort for implementing two or more language frontend projects, you now create ecosystem splits when inevitably the implementations do not match their behavior.

The biggest example of multiple frontends, C++, is not one language. C++ is Clang-C++, GNU-C++, MSVC-C++, and so-on. All of these implementations have subtle incompatibilities with how they handle identical code, or they have disjoint feature matrices, or they have bugs, and so on. Multiple frontends is IMO one of the _worst_ parts of C++ because it makes writing truly portable code almost impossible. How many new C++ features are unusable in practice because one of the main 3 toolchains hasn't implemented it yet?

Rust, on the other hand, everything is portable by default. No #ifdef CLANG, no wrangling with subtly incompatible toolchains. If I write code I can trust it will just work on any architecture Rust can build for, ignoring implementation bugs and explicitly platform specific code.

I have a hobby game engine I work on in my spare time that was developed exclusively on x86-64 for years and I ported it to run on Apple Silicon ARM in two afternoons. Rust just _worked_, all the time was spent on my C/C++ dependencies and new code needed for MacOS support.

I simply don't see how nebulous, difficult to quantify benefits of competing implementations can outweigh the practical advantages of truly portable code that comes from a single implementation. The ecosystem benefits to a uniform language, and the benefits to my sanity with being able to trust my code while compile everywhere I need it to.
Yeah, that'd be my guess. People who have been driving the same vehicle for 20 years are probably not in it for the thrills. In contrast, Teslas are fashionable and probably disproportionately owned by younger drivers who like to "take it for a spin".

Another bias might be in product line-ups. Pickup trucks are often used in construction, hauling, snow plowing, and so on. All of these activities are accident-prone. So why is Ram #1 and Ford is way down the list? Probably because Ram only makes trucks, while Ford sells a lot of smaller vehicles too.
If you scrub the live stream you can watch the fissure expand.
hmm, maybe the government can be instructed to mediate patent licenses

the company is being particular about how they want to get paid, maybe thats the anticompetitive practice that the government shouldnt be granting an exemption for

there are examples of the government mediating sells such as during bank failures
The present moral outrage is over the Threads ToS stating that if your account interacts with or receives a Threads post in any way, Meta will scrape all available data about your account to build a shadow profile of you for tracking and advertising purposes. I'm not even paraphrasing, they're very explicit about it.

Which is exactly the thing people were afraid of when Threads was first announced.

But really the core issue is that most people on mastodon are there specifically to avoid corporate social media. They don't want to be tracked, spied on, or advertised to. The vast majority of accounts are pseudonymous and they like it that way. Privacy is a foundational core value of the fediverse in general.

Many people see the idea of allowing Meta into the fediverse as the antithesis of every value that the fediverse was built on. Which makes sense, as the fediverse was built specifically as a way to escape Meta, google, and their ilk. There is a very real fear that Meta will attempt to destroy federated social media; what possible reason would they have to not? There's absolutely no incentive for them to allow the status quo, and every incentive to destroy a competitor.

But don't downplay the extreme seriousness of the debate. Fediverse users and admins are pretty split on this issue and argument and discussion happens every day. This is not something most people take lightly, and most treat it very, very seriously.

Personally, I run my own server because I find the endless debate tiring and distasteful. I'll block the meta domain based on their ToS because I'm on mastodon specifically for privacy and anonymity.
I think it's not a hot take in the slightest to say that NATO and Russia consider each other enemies. I certainly don't think anyone would be calling them friends, or close allies. They clash often politically and their goals rarely seem to align. And now they've pitched their support in a war by proxy to help defend Ukraine from Russian invasion. You don't think that Russia views NATO as an enemy?
How is authentication/authorization handled with this stack? Or sign up with email validation and password reset?
Then the out of production brands would have infinity DUI, accidents, etc...

No, I think DP (1) didn't understand "rates" in the title then (2) critiqued methodology without opening the link
I don't know. Many of today's 65-and-up demographic began to have trouble adopting new technologies starting the late 90s. Technology is frustrating now in a different way; the most frequent daily frustration might have been paper jams in printers. 56k dialup was pretty darn fast and websites didn't weigh in at 5MB per page load; if your dialup connection was having a problem, you could call a phone number and talk to an actual person about it.

So, it wasn't frustrating because of its limitations. We largely weren't even aware it was very limited. Everything seemed new and every new development was exciting.

Forced, frequent software updates weren't a thing, and everyone hates those now. Software often becomes less useful over time, and you can't easily opt out of that. Now, we know faster internet connections are possible, but they aren't available to many of us. When Comcast drops signal for the third time today, there's nobody I can call about it. Earlier today in a different thread I related some challenges getting Linux to boot on some new hardware, and one of the replies was, "well yeah, that's store-bought computers for ya". The stuff we had seemed pretty decent because we didn't know what we were missing; now, the stuff we have is frequently frustrating because we (some of us) remember it better.

Early 90s, I would've been on eWorld, I think -- just graduating from local BBSes and getting started in international networks. I genuinely miss the community feel of eWorld. It's something I haven't really experienced on the modern internet since I stopped using IRC a decade ago. You know what eWorld didn't have? Trolls. Or ads on every single interaction. Or an interface that was suddenly, bewilderingly different one day -- for the third time in a year. I didn't feel bad using it, like I was reluctantly giving more money to a megacorporation that would use the money to find new ways to annoy and exploit me. Yeah, sure, it tied up a phone line and was kinda slow and limited in features, but we didn't know any of those things were supposed to be frustrating.
Yeah tbh after working with Ruby for nearly 2 decades now and with a handful of other languages I think Ruby could use some parentheses and other common symbols. It really is too easy to create what are DSLs which requires learning another language and layer of abstraction.
In front of me = getting in my way

Behind me = tailgating and breathing down my neck

Bigger than me = gas hog with a masculinity issue

Smaller than me = must have a death wish to drive that tiny thing

Nothing brings out egocentric attitudes more than getting behind the wheel.
We've been down this road before. It's neat but not for long term maintenance, support or training as soon as HTMX loses its luster and the, then manager, has to concede the whole thing has to be re-written from scratch.
You're confusing revenue with net income.

Plus, if the best that Figma can do with a billion dollars is just invest it in Treasuries (and I'm not saying that's the case), then they should just give it to their shareholders and see if they can get a better return. I only point this out because many people are often confused by the effects of higher interest rates, e.g. "Why did this company lay off all these people when they're still profitable?" Your example highlights the reason why perfectly - if you're a company with a billion dollars of investment and the best profit you can muster is $50 million a year, you're a great business if Treasuries are only paying 1%, but when they're paying 5% you should just basically close up shop as people can get the same return just sticking their money in Treasuries.
We have a number of old salt mines. Or would they be too dry?
Start high level then loop it for additional context with each one being a more compressed summary? Symbols, then introspection and expand/compress until there's enough context within the window that is summarized for intelligence.
> iOS isn't even the market leader in the US

How can that not be true if most people in the US use an iPhone as their phone?
Because the options are either use their hardware or "work with them". That seems pretty unreasonable to me. You're holding them hostage to collaborate.

I'm not an Apple fan, but this feels like abuse of the patent system. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it's legal, but being forced to work with a company to access their parent feels like absolute bullshit.

Ask for your $X per device sold and be done with it.
or, maybe, if you are the type of person who can only afford a car whose brand no longer exists, you are sufficiently risk averse that you are much less likely to get an accident. Makes sense to me. Also, it may be that a lot of these car brands only exists in a sort of suvivorship-biased place. For example, I drive a '94 Camry, in large part because I've never had a need to replace it, having never been in an accident.
IDK I'd drive an M/T SC2 again if I could get one for the right price. It's a very specific level of scary-fun that is absent in modern vehicles.
There's a long distance between "perfect" and "conflicts of interest", the latter bears more resemblance to corruption than imperfection.

Of course rust leadership is going to make and has made mistakes, I'm confident every BDFL ever has also made and will continue to make mistakes, the same goes for the 'herd' of clang/gcc/msvc/... and the herd of browser makers. The target is not perfection, but merely being better than the alternative.

I think that, in the absence of conflicts of interests, single source of truth models (e.g. what rust rust/python/java/... does) are likely to do better than 'herd' of competing implementation models (C/C++/javascript) at making a good language. The latter probably does better at working despite conflicts of interest, but that's not a problem with most programming languages where there is relatively (compared to the browser ecosystem) little opportunity for a powerful corporation to push their interest to the detriment of others.

I think the rust community is quite clear that the rust leadership is flawed, but that's not very interesting without a way to make leadership better. If you can convince people you have that way - you'll get a lot of interest.
Is there a way to time link to live YT videos? Looks like t= is ignored.
Any app that does that gets removed.

I ditched a samsung galaxy note because of that, it would do stupid things like send me a notification for each local NFL game, which I couldn't disable. Amazon's kindle app and amazon prime video app did similar.

It's pretty easy, I'd expect anyone that values their attention to remove the app or silence the notifications.
Because it’s unfair, most of what determines if a person can become a high performing worker is determined by luck outside the control of this person. I’m currently on a work trip in India, and it’s very obvious how much luck determines your life.
I mean, if you're driving the speed limit (or the speed the road conditions allow) you may not be wrong. Yea, and I know where the saying came from.
The point is that fixing that bug may break existing, running code that depends on it.
It could also imply that they drive them less. People without money for new cars also generally might want to spend less on gas, or, might need to forgo driving until they're able to afford repairs. Several of the brands at the bottom of the list in particular are brands I see driven by older folks: Buick, Lincoln, Cadillac, etc. In rural areas at least, this often means retirees without a commute who may only take the car out for church on Sunday.

Other theories: Kids tend to inherit older cars from their parents, and may but fewer miles on them. Older cars might get used more as "the beater for around town" if the household has a newer primary vehicle. There could also be some geographical distribution that's a part of the puzzle.
Why use Copilot?
It's strange that the narrator's grammar is terrible but pronunciation is excellent.
> Internet won its freedom

I'm gonna need a real big citation on that. If by freedom you mean what a lot of people mean, which is that it opens potential revenue streams and markets and the oppression has it's origins in capital holders, then sure. "Freedom" in it's modern vernacular tends to mean this, hence "bringing freedom to Iraq" actually meaning "making sure Iraq's oil and other assets are open to exploitation by western corporations." By this definition the Internet has never been more "free."
>> you don't know what is my way of life, so can't note anything about this.

"I'll also note that you don't seem to be very forthcoming"

Literally the only thing I noted was that you didn't seem to be very forthcoming about what that way of life was -- something you appear to have confirmed in the comment above.

Since you do not seem to be concerned with addressing any of the substantive points in our conversation, and seem more concerned about telling others how they should do hard work rather than sharing the fruits of your labor (if indeed you have done it at all, and aren't just grandstanding for internet points) -- let's leave this discussion at I won't be statistically murdering any innocents to get at answers that you don't think are important enough to share, and that I hope that in your personal life you still choose kindness over 'right-think' that is statistically unlikely to make a difference at the state or national level -- or, heck, choose both.

Either way, thanks for helping clarify your position -- even if it isn't exactly the one you thought you were elucidating ;)

Happy holidays, I hope your personal exchange rate allows for you delivering presents and possibly visiting far away family!
The syntax never bothers me (I wrote a lot of Perl code in my youth, after all), but the semantics sometimes does.

I can mentally parse this (Ticket is a class name, context and it are methods that accept blocks, etc etc), but I have real hard time finding where this stuff is actually defined to see how it works underneath. And I always peek under the hood for the implementation nuances - documentation is always incomplete, so frameworks' and libraries' source code is my go-to documentation.

In other languages, imports are explicit and are local to file (and people outside of ML and quick-and-dirty one-off scripting tend to recommend breaking one's fingers for a heresy of `from foo import *` - with some obvious exceptions, of course), so I always can see where exactly stuff comes from.

In Ruby world there's this weird love for autoloaders, or some sort helper.rb with tons of require/include directives and so on, so very rarely I see a Ruby code that links stuff explicitly. Paired with extreme commonality of metaprogramming, reopening classes to extend them, all paired with the dynamic nature of the language, this kind of irks me as ideologically "wrong" (as in "not to my liking").

Surely, modern IDEs sort of figure out most of the stuff, but I was trying out Ruby quite a long time ago, before language servers and stuff became mainstream and widespread, and still can't shake off this impression.
> They were obviously going to get sued for it, and they were probably going to lose.

They didn't think they were going to lose. They're spending resources to appeal this right now, and it's not because they think it's completely hopeless.

There is also some strategy in the provocation, because in order to establish a precedent that the original version of controlled digital lending is allowed, they'd have to get sued and win, but they'd been doing it for a while and nobody sued them. They had to push the envelope enough to get into court and it seems weird to get mad at them for dancing near the line when doing that is inherently necessary to establish a precedent.

And your argument is essentially circular. They should lose because they'd probably lose? But why? Did any libraries stop buying books as a result, depriving publishers of revenue?
And mips64, which rustc recently dumped support for after their attempt to extort funding/resources from Loongson failed:

https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/648

This is the biggest problem with the LLVM mentality: they use architecture support as a means to extract support (i.e. salaried dev positions) from hardware companies.

GNU may have annoyingly-higher standards for merging changes, but once it's in there and supported they will keep it for the long haul. It's like buying vs renting. It takes a lot more dev hours to get support into GCC, but once it's there, it stays there.
There's something so interesting about post-hoc reasoning. Everything is always explainable. Once you have the facts, you can construct the rationale. Somehow, if the stats showed the inverse, I bet there'd be someone explaining how "people driving cheap cars don't care if they get a few bumps and scratches" and so on and so forth.
Ex-Amazon engineer pleads guilty to hacking crypto exchanges $12.3M