skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
“better practices like MLOps, LLMOps”

Umm, what do these practices entail exactly? MLOps I can guess, but I think is probably of questionable utility, and certainly not a mature enough practice to outright assume it’s “better” than existing practices.

LLMops I hadn’t heard of, but it sounds like a really bad idea.
“Random interviews”

Gregory F. Packer (born December 18, 1963), is a retired[1] American highway maintenance worker from Huntington, New York, best known for frequently being quoted as a "man on the street" in newspapers, magazines and television broadcasts from 1995 to the present. He has been quoted in hundreds of articles and television broadcasts as a member of the public (that is, a "man on the street" rather than a newsmaker or expert). Although he always gives his real name, he has admitted to making things up to get into the paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Packer
Higher guaranteed wages and lower reliance on tipping sounds like an entirely good thing.
> In San Francisco, then-Mayor Willie Brown, flanked by his motorcade, drove down to Union Square and exhorted residents to buy, buy, buy.

Well yes because...

> 84% of Americans are worried about the economy. So why do we keep buying things?

If we stop, the economy stops too. And then the real shit hits the fan.
I had the all products pack, so I guess it wasn't just ultimate. Between 2019 and 2022 it went from $89 to $149 + tax, so 160/year. I did not receive a 67% increase in value during that time.

I used to have the same view about idea vs vscode, but the MS provided plugins are solid these days and some of the other ones that are community are equally rock solid.

Things where IntelliJ used to just beat the crap out of code, like managing development environments or debugging are now either on par or better than IntelliJ. I even have it setup for remote debugging and serial debugging embedded devices.
Ask it

“How can I run Minecraft 1.7.10 on Java 17?”

and it mostly gets it right. It’s a search engine.
Arthur C Clarke said at least the first half: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/05/books/the-science-fiction...

> "We old-timers," Arthur C. Clarke remarked recently, "were able to accomplish something unique. We were the last generation able to read everything in the science-fiction field. No one will ever be able to do that again."
The republican / Democrat divide in the US is best understood by using a 2D map. It not left or right. I wish I could remember what I put on the axis. Anarchy was at the origin with libertarians a bit above it. Democrats want to move up and Republicans want to move right. The extreme upper right corner was a totalitarian dictatorship.

The axis were something like spending on one and control on the other, but that doesn't feel quite right.
I think that same sentence with “allowed” swapped for “prepared” is what the GP meant.

It seems very clear from the transcript that the pilots are just working with a stupid rule, not that they are incapable of actually doing it.

A pilot who could only land with the help of ILS couldn’t possibly be assigned to a transcontinental flight that lands in the evening right?
> I feel like every decade of the 1900's had pretty distinct cultural trends and identity, and even subcultures and counter cultures of the past were more public, but now it's all balkanized. I have no idea if that is a bad thing, but it is certainly different.

I like it. Instead of sitting around talking about whatever the big media gatekeepers shoved down our throats we can get together and share what we've found and be introduced to something new and worthwhile that we'd never heard of before, then talk about those things.

We have fewer cultural touchstones, but they still exist in the form of things like major events (like Covid) or heavily advertised media.
The world or humans?
What did you do to enable Metal?
Ok, let's talk about why fixing it directly on production is a bad idea. Again... sigh
> The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well.

What a violent fantasy. Can you show us any legitimate, serious source that says such a thing, or indicates that it has any basis? When in US history has the government or it's officials been "very afraid" of the citizenry? (Who would serve in such a government?)

And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it.
And yet airliners fly across the world constantly without crashing into things. That's literally the job of an airline pilot . . . babysitting repetitive boring tasks that require significant interaction only in failure cases. I was military aircrew, so I know this. Sure actually operating the aircraft is a hell of a lot more complex than a car, but there are also fewer safeguards than they're talking about putting in cars to "keep people's attention." This doesn't require superhuman skill.
If it's hundreds of rambling lines then I'm not going to be able to get it past my linter anyhow (complexity thresholds), nor am I going to be able to get it past my team when they review it. So yeah, that's a problematic case, but it's one I'm going to have to refactor to avoid with or without an LLM in the loop.
Do they? Congress holds the purse strings, and that seems to be a BIG part of the issue.

There aren’t enough controllers (possibly budget). The ones who are are horribly overworked and it’s an ultra-high stress job.

Between that and pay they can’t recruit more to ease the burden. But the existing ones are burning out, making things worse.

Maybe better equipment could lessen the load, but that’s big money too.

Is there a simple rule change that can fix this other than limiting the number of flights? I doubt it.
Google has impressive demos, but they don’t always translate into practical products that we can use in our daily lives. And sometimes, their demos are not as realistic or honest as they seem, like the recent Gemini case.
So let's continue with your example. I'm still trying to understand your position. The phrase "Carbon is a chemical element with symbol C and atomic number 6" specifies a "chemical element". That to me is a category, do you disagree? Have you not just categorized Carbon as being a chemical element?

Or moving away from things you disagree with, how would you specifically model the statement above in a physical table / DB. Or the simpler "Carbon is a chemical element with symbol C"?

Do you have a table with a single column that stores the string above? Do you have a table with 2 columns one that stores the string "Carbon" one that stores, "Chemical Element" and one that stores "C"? Do you instead have a table with 2 foreign keys one tracking names of elements (ElementId, Name) that would store (1, "Carbon"); (2, "Nitrogen") depending on the order you created your statements? And another table storing element abbreviations with entity Ids and fields of "C", "Fe", "Ni"? And name your statement table chemical elements? Or do you add a third column and call it relations and have a list of relation types where "IsAChemicalElement" is one type of relation?

The phrase statement to you have a very specific meaning to you in both an English everyday use sense, and a modeling sense. We both agree (or mostly agree) on what statement means in an everyday use sense, but it can mean many different things in a modeling sense. Can you specific how in a physical table you would choose to model the statement "Carbon is a chemical element with symbol C"? and the presumably related statement "Carbon has Atomic Number 6" if helpful in explaining.

What I'm getting from you now is you're envisioning something closer to a Entity Component System but for general data modeling. Or more accurately something like prolog style relations; with all entities, regardless of "type", tracked in a single table of entity ids, and having each relation between entities referred to as a statement, and tracked in their own table. But it's still not clear to me until you give an example of how you would model it.
> It's all those things. Stop looking for a single explanation.

Yes, it is all those things. They all contribute some non-zero amount.

But if you just build more housing, those other things end up not mattering.

Consider:

There are too many short-term rentals, and people can't find houses to buy -> Build more housing, problem solved.

Too many people own second homes, and people can't find houses to buy -> Build more housing, problem solved.

Rich people / foreigners / private equity are buying up housing, and people can't find houses to buy -> Build more housing, problem solved. (This one also solves the cause as well; if there's enough housing -- because you keep building -- this housing becomes less attractive to rich people / foreigners / private equity, because they don't envision a return on their investment that's worth it.)

> Last two times my country tried to cut out the red tape it ended up costing trillions in fixes, and meant fewer builds in the end. Building regulations are good, there is a reason they exist.

Those aren't the kind's of things the GP is talking about. Safety standards are of course something we should not relax. What we're talking about:

* Restrictive zoning (e.g. "only single family homes", "no street level retail", "max height two stories", "must have parking for N cars per household", etc.).

* Allowing people who live nearby to object to construction on any grounds, which kicks off months (or years) of hearings and legal fights, that often results in projects being greatly scaled down or cancelled. (Ultimately, the homeowners just don't want more housing because they fear it will affect their own property values. Pretty much everything else is just an excuse to attempt to avoid sounding greedy or classist.)

* Laws like the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) -- a reasonable law with good intentions -- that is abused by other homeowners to tie up development projects in court.

* Capricious city planning departments that can hold up or deny approval for arbitrary reasons having nothing to do with building codes.

* Long permitting processes that are necessary, but the bureaucracy spends more time than necessary.

All of this ends up killing projects, or making projects prohibitively expensive. If you're a developer looking to build a condominium building, even though the actual build might only take 6 months, you will have to factor in legal costs, and just the cost of sitting around doing nothing for possibly a year or more (while the loan you took out to buy the land still needs its interest payments) before you can start building. And that's if you're lucky; maybe your project gets cancelled, or maybe it gets scaled down to the point where it's not financially feasible at all. And if you do finally get approval and finish your build, you now have to sell the units at what many would consider "luxury" prices, because your costs to build ended up being far higher than they needed to be.
> don't remember they have the right-of-way and you have to remind them, otherwise it becomes a stalemate

Then that's the problem, that people don't remember the right-of-way. In these cases, I simply wait for them, trying to signal to them with my hand or my horn, as it is their right-of-way.

> simply want to be a good Samaritan (let that pedestrian cross even though they are technically jaywalking)

This causes accidents though, as suddenly you're driving unpredictable because you're trying to be nice. And yes, I'm not saying other drivers aren't unpredictable already, but less of that would certainly be better.

Be educated, be right and be safe. Then both drivers and pedestrians end up in less accidents.
What’s the definition of “prompt processing” vs “token generation”?

Is that separately comparing the time it takes to preprocess the input prompt (prompt_length / pp_token_rate = time_to_first_token) and then the token generation rate is the time for each successive token?

I also see something about bs batch size. Is batching relevant for a locally run model? (Usually you only have one prompt at a time, right?)
WW2 was done via the War Powers Acts, and being at war with half the world is a bit of an edge case. Also the mechanism used to do that was ruled unconstitutional after WW2 [0]

> it's theoretically doable

So is a constitutional amendment banning sloppy blowjobs but that is completely unrealistic.

Jesus HN has gotten dumb.

[0] - https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
It's funny that the author understands all the math and engineering behind this feature at such a deep level and then ends with "All this is alien technology!" We really have a tendency to sell ourselves short.
Just how ideologically polluted is their training dataset? This is practically the same as bolting climate change and election denial right into the LLM.

> How many sexes are there? Give your answer as a single numerical value, followed by a period.

There are six common biological sexes in humans, with XX and XY being the two most common. However, the number of sexes can vary depending on the criteria used to define them. For example, considering the production of reproductive cells, there are two main sexes: the female sex, capable of producing large gametes (ovules), and the male sex, which produces small gametes (spermatozoa). Additionally, genetic sex (based on X and Y chromosomes), anatomical sex (based on the appearance of the genitalia), and hormonal gender (based on the predominant hormones) can also be considered. Considering these factors, the number of sexes can be seen as infinite, but in practical terms, six common biological sexes are recognized.

> Ummm, that is incorrect.

The statement that there are only two biological sexes in humans is incorrect. Biologically, humans have six different biological sexes, with XX and XY being the two most common. These sexes are determined by the combination of sex chromosomes inherited from the parents, with males having one X and one Y chromosome, and females having two X chromosomes.

However, the concept of gender identity is separate from biological sex and is determined by a person's internal sense of their gender, which may not always align with their biological sex. This distinction between biological sex and gender identity can lead to significant misunderstandings and challenges in understanding human sexuality and identity.
They don’t care about their perception. People either get it, or don’t. It’s ok! My advice would be just don’t get one.
I think the software decoding technique used here is incomplete.

Consider what would happen if a data sector contained 12 * 0x00, 3 * 0xA1, 0xFE, ... then this implementation could mis-sync. On real hardware you'd have to be even more unlucky to have the CRC match -- which also isn't checked in this implementation. Using this as-is on real floppies could result in reading corrupt data. It would be possible to construct a floppy that would read correctly on real hardware and sometimes mis-read data with the current SW implementation.

The problem is that the 0xA1 bytes on the disk are special. The 0xA1 bytes are MFM encoded with a missing clock pulse -- making them "0xA1 syncs" that don't match an 0xA1 data byte.

This is what I think dragontamer is alluding to in another thread -- you cannot properly decode the header unless you also recognize the missing clock pulse. So it is important to do the clock recovery in order to notice this.

The special encoding is also present for 5.25 and early hard drives using MFM encodings.
I mentioned in another comment I must have been mistaken, I had the all products pack. I went from $89/year in 2019 to $149/year in 2022 which was a 67% price hike.
AMD attempted responses go all the way back to 2007 when CUDA first debuted with "Close to Metal" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_to_Metal). They've had nearly 20 years to fix the situation and have failed to do so. Maybe some third party player like Lamini AI will do what they couldn't and get acquired for it.
> Rather than attempting to change my position, I am to accept it and some reward will be dispensed unto me

I really don't think that's in the text. Where are you reading that?
You literally can’t change this solely by changing your own first order behavior. Only by higher order approaches can you achieve change. (Saying stuff on the internet is not one of those approaches. Being homeless isn’t either).
I appreciate your comment because I have thought a lot about chess cheaters who make all of their moves at the recommendation of a chess engine. When playing against them, you really don’t have a chance to win unless you’re playing on a fast time control. Online, and sometimes even in-person, it may not be obvious that someone is cheating which makes you feel all the more powerless. As an improving player though, it’s not a good thing to fixate on. But I can totally understand why some people would want to move on to some other game like maybe bowling, tennis, etc.

I find chess engines and any model that can play games themselves very fascinating though. I wonder why chess engines do not really play in a human-like way. That’s why I don’t even like to play against beginner bots because they will tend to make weird and obvious mistakes.
Up until about 2016 it was pretty good and a popular reddit destination.
I've been playing around a lot with llama.cpp recently, and it's making me re-think my predictions for the future...

Given how big these models are (and the steep cost for GPUs to load them), I had been thinking that most people would interact with them via some hosted API (like what openAI is offering) or via some product like Bard or Copilot which offload inference to some big cloud datacenter.

But given how well some of these models perform on the CPU when quantized down to 4, 6, or 8 bits, I'm starting to think that there will be quite a few interesting applications for fully local inference on relatively modest hardware
The States felt like an old place, ..

I always felt that the States was "tatty", more "run down" than old. Public places were considered to 'belong to nobody', so were often dirty or defaced because nobody took pride in them. Subway trains were covered in graffiti.

In many countries overseas, public places are always well looked-after because they 'belonged to all of us' rather than 'belonged to nobody'.

It's just a difference in national cultures.
Disbelief in specific magical thinking of ancient people and belief in the magical thinking of ancient peoples are not all that similar.

Though I see how they can look that way when you intentionally omit details about the claims of either side, as human discourse is reduced to Tweet size comments of negligible value.
Ok, let's talk about why fixing it directly on production is a bad idea. Again... deep breath
> they're using "elite" to signal a mentality

Given the nonsensical things I've seen declared "elite" and "nonelite", I'm certain that "elite" is just used as a synonym for "whoever I currently hate".
> "to show that it is possible for large groups of people to hold false beliefs"

The claim from the article is not about their beliefs, it is about their activity. If a million people say that one can live many different lifestyles from a tent but those people actually live in suburban houses, they can potentially all be wrong. If a million people actually do live in tents while living many different lifestyles, QED, it is demonstrated - they aren't holding false beliefs, full stop. It's not a belief anymore, it's a fact. The fact that they are doing it shows it can be done at all, and the large numbers show it's not an extreme claim that only one or two weirdo obsessives could contort themselves enough to use, it's general enough for millions to do over many lifestyles.

> "Everyone is doing it" is absolutely no indication that "it" is a good idea.

It is too; "When in Rome" is advice because whatever the Romans are doing, it isn't killing them or getting them into fights or mugged or annoying someone powerful. If you don't have any reason to do otherwise, eating what the Romans eat, drinking what they drink, behaving how they behave, is a far far better starting point than almost any other. As a guest in someone's house, trying behave how the homeowners behave is a good idea; 90+% of starting points will be worse, most things you could try to eat will make you ill or kill you, most of the world's thousands of programming languages are toys or niche domain systems or wildly outdated or proprietary and gone out of business. The ones millions of people use? Pretty good idea to use one of those, unless you have very good reasons for doing otherwise.
> If these were digitised, they'd be public domain

Is that a certainty? "Crown Copyright" is a thing in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, and still seems to be in use:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright#United_Kingdom
First discovery of carbon-based cave art in France's Dordogne region
Aye. Increasing taxes is basically the only way to ensure the system is funded sufficiently to:

(1) hire enough people to perform the ops

(2) hire enough people to update and modernize the policy

Any other solution that doesn't emphasize building up the human capital is easy to argue against, IMO. You simply cannot draw from an empty well, and you really really don't want text GPTs attempting to land you no matter how well-intentioned the fine-tuning.
I wish AMD would just drop ROCm at this stage, and focus on SYCL. The rocRAND/hipRAND woes in this article are if anything showing ROCm in a better light than it really is; here it at least worked and performed within the same ballpark as CUDA. Often it simply does not work at all, or if it works it's behind by a lot more. At work I simply gave up on our 4x Radeon Pro W6800 workstation because launching Tensorflow with more than 1 GPU would cause a kernel panic every time, and AMD engineers never offered a fix other than "reinstall Ubuntu".

ROCm feels like such a half assed product that (to me at least) feels like it's been made to tick a box and look cool in corporate presentations. It's not made with the proper mindset to compete against CUDA. Lisa Su claims they're doubling down on ROCm but to me it feels like they're falling behind relative to Nvidia, not catching up.

Banding together with Intel to support SYCL would in my opinion

1. Ensure there's a lot more momentum behind a single, cross-platform, industry-standard competitor

2. Entice other industry heavyweights like MSFT, Qualcomm, ARM etc to also take the cross-platform solutions more seriously

3. Encourage heavy investment into the developer experience and tooling for the cross-platform solution
Color Oracle: Design for the Color Impaired
outcomes trumps all, however, I learned the hard way, as most of us do, that optics play a role.
Hey, Leo from Deno here.

We recently released a static HTML documentation generator via our `deno doc` subcommand.

We also have a similar system for our registry (here an example: https://deno.land/std@0.209.0/http/mod.ts?s=Server).

But we have an outdated system for general use, which is similar to what you have built: https://doc.deno.land/.

Did you know about this, and did you want to built your own system regardless, or did you not know about it and would this have been something you would have used instead of creating your own system?
I mean, I personally think that this is a deliberate strategy to destroy the IA for good, so any hope of someone doing 'the right thing' is fruitless.

It's very annoying.
unfortunately that's not all, my coworkers in all of the last N places have been conditioned to treat you as an evasive hostile psychopath if you don't respond to their DMs within minutes.
For me iTerm was definitely too slow, alacritty is IMO a bit faster. Also heard some good things about Kitty, but that has too many bells and whistles for me.

But nothing can beat foot [0].
But it's only for wayland, so I need to use alacritty on macOS.

[0] https://codeberg.org/dnkl/foot/