skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> the ICO are currently operating with a fraction of the resources

But the amount of resources shouldn't dictate the penalty amount once resources have already been expended on the investigation?

My problem with the ICO as it stands is that the bar for a complaint is very high, giving the company many chances to selectively rectify the situation but only for the complainant - imagine if the penalty for theft was just to give back the stolen property and only if you got caught.

The very high bar with regards to complaints should mean that for a complaint to be considered valid the company must've ignored the multiple attempts they get to rectify the situation, so the fine should be substantial.

As it stands, not only does the complaints process effectively set the example that it's OK to breach the GDPR as long as you can selectively apply it to the very small minority that complains, but even that when a complaint does make it through it turns out the consequences are not a problem.
Could you say more? Are you thinking longer term we won't have individual cars, but the vehicles that we do have will be powered by electricity?
> taking an existing good-enough chip

As Nintendo did with the Switch, which has been an overwhelming success. The Steam Deck is the Switch for Valve, both technologically and as a business/marketing point of view.
since 1990? wow
> Realistic view: Unemployment is actually at an all time low despite centuries of industrialization, automation, etc.

As a whole, yes... the problem is something else: quality of employment. Good paying, unionized jobs - the backbone of all Western economies in the "boom age" between WW2 and the fall of the USSR - in farming, mining, manufacturing and industry that employed lots of people in the past have either been lost to technological progress (farming) or gone off to China, India, Taiwan, Vietnam and Thailand - mostly because of massively lower wages, but also (especially in silicon industry) due to massively more permissive environmental protection laws.

What's left for people to make a living is mostly either low-skill and extremely low-pay stuff that reasonably can't be automated (cleaning!), a bit of medium-skill stuff like tradespeople, and high-skill intellectual jobs (STEM). Now that a lot of the high-end jobs is being threatened by AI as well, high-skilled people from there will also be pushed down, intensifying the competition for lower rungs of society even more.

And let's face it: this will be dangerous, particularly as ever more and more of the share of global wealth concentrates in the hands of very few people. Simply from a wealth relation, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are each richer than actual medieval emperors related to what the common people had. This is not sustainable, and eventually (re)distribution fights will break out.

ETA: Just came in - in the last three years, despite a global pandemic wrecking entire economies, followed by the first land-grab war by an imperialist power ever since WW2 and the resulting economic consequences, the top 5 of the uber rich actually more than doubled their wealth [1], at the expense of everyone else. Clearly, this cannot go on for much longer.

> AI will cause more of that to happen everywhere. But we'll find ways to keep ourselves busy. And more free time means that we can do things that are valuable to us.

As if. Any free time we got gets immediately usurped by the need to take up a second job just to make rent, not to mention that there hasn't been a significant reduction in hours-worked for decades (to the contrary, "expected" aka unpaid overtime has become the norm). Women didn't enter the workforce because of feminism, women entered the workforce because capitalism needed more workers to exploit - with the nasty side effect now becoming evident that young people don't become parents at all or significantly late in their careers, worsening the demographic collapse.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/14/economy/oxfam-report-weal...
It's like vape pens vs cigarettes, or Bitcoin vs block lattice. There's people who will lose money to a markedly better alternative, so they smear the opposition.

There's a whole playbook of strategies for this, developed by tobacco and oil companies.
Any car can have a governor installed and some parents do it. I believe many modern cars have this integrated and can do things like notify the owner even if a limit is exceeded.
US air pollution rates on the decline, but pockets of inequities remain: Study
AI runs on electricity, which we can produce a joule directly of for much cheaper than we can produce a joule of food to feed a human on. This is a fundamental consequence of thermodynamics. It will eventually require us to ask ourselves whether we are willing to arbitrarily prioritize our own species over the cheaper to run alternative.

We human beings, however, have both the first mover advantage and a natural instinct to preserve both ourselves and our ingroup. So I don't ultimately see this law as being hard to pass. Enforcing it is another issue, but mostly also
solvable issue via financial bounty systems.
I don't believe it's very useful to categorize people or things as evil if they don't themselves think this is their motive.

The "evil" category often makes people think that the "evil" entities have some motives and logic of operation that "good" people just can't understand or relate to at all.

There was a sort of internally coherent logic and motivation for Nazi death camps (and to many similar horrors). I don't agree with it at all and I find the results of it extremely harmful and such logic must be vigorously resisted. And to vigorously resist it, it has to be understood.

However, I'm not at all sure that I would have resisted the death camps if I were to formulate my views in the same situation as Nazi germans were. I could well be a Putinist in current Russia. And I probably wouldn't think I was evil.
So that's roughly the power of a 1995 supercomputer or a medium supercomputer (500th place) in 2007, in the palm of your hand... it's bonkers
Related: AI to hit 40% of jobs and worsen inequality, IMF says. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38997636 (96 comments)
They are no more just functions than require() was a function.

They use subset of function syntax to provide unique functionality. That's all.

JS was full of such things already. Functions that are hooks (in traditional sense of the word) into some platform provided functionality. setTimeout(), fetch api, promise chains, jquery. You could say that all of those are just functions but you still need to learn what each does separately to get behavior you want. JS is not Lisp where a function means just one thing used always the same way with same restrictions. JS uses functions to construct idioms that introduce functionalities foreign to the core language. React hooks are just one such idiom. You may still argue that introducing yet another idiom is unnecessary burden. I personally like them very much. Component classes were imho very bad conceptual fit for react with a lot of intricate lifecycle methods and special fields. Hooks allow to simplify the core of it to just render that just runs every time it's necessary into which you are bringing in additional functionalities as needed.
In that case you buy a desktop.
As with everything else demand that can bring money.
I just got Thinkpad T14s Gen4 with AMD chipset and it's brilliant! The chipset works out of the box with great performance and battery (Tested on Arch and Nixos) and the 16:10 OLED semi-matte screen is a must upgrade (better than any other laptop screen on the market imo). My only gripe is the fingerprint magnet body material which is annoying to care for.

I'm running nixos and plasma wayland without any issues. Even the fractional scaling works out of the box.
It's basically installing some packages.
Infosys co-founder doubles down on call for 70-hour work weeks
Digital 2024 – What to pay attention to
"Hype," to me, has always and only had a negative connotation that roughly described it as an empty promise, and nothing more. Be it words on a page or some frontman on uppers jumping around in front of an audience, hype is always absent of any concrete proof that what is claimed is also true.

The Mechanical Turk (not the Amazon one) turned out to be a guy in a box. Yet, the mythos that presumably surrounded it was only possible because it was also designed to fool casual examiners. So, even if we argue that the tech demonstration at Conference X shows the product living up to the hype, there is a solid chance it is still an illusion designed to get us to buy in. So, from where I stand, hype is an empty promise intended to deceive.

In the spirit of the original question, I find myself much more curious about how other people define hype.
They underestimate the difficulty of the technology, which does not mean they overestimate the impact that technology can have.
i am in the middle of switching between job functions, and my free time is currently split between applying for jobs and doing things other than tech that i am more passionate about.

i am learning new things at work and while it would be a good idea to demonstrate it through some smaller projects using them. but i share the sentiment with op and the others in terms of personal drive to do such stuff.

i do find the "show HN" posts demotivating like some people would find other people posting about their great lives on social media.
I'm not so interested in approaches that require a lot of initiative from the consumer. That's all well and good, but it is only ever going to appeal to the very few.

I'd like to see a car that has a very minimalist architecture and that will meet regulatory requirements. A car that initially may have only a handful of manufacturers producing the key components that need to be done right to fulfil the regulatory requirements. The main structural elements, the drivetrain and control system, suspension, brakes, crumple structures, airbags etc.

The first milestone is a complete car that regulatory bodies can approve. Then it gets interesting.

When a complete system exists I'd wish the designs to be open so that you can do two things. First, the major parts can be made by multiple manufacturers, possibly local, bringing competition to the table. This is mostly about being able to prove that the parts you manufacture are up to spec. The second thing this would enable is evolution. Evolving parts would be more expensive since you have to go through testing and certification processes. But if you can afford that, you can get a competitive edge. Some people may pay more for a chassis that is stronger and lighter, for instance.

This would also open up for individual brands to develop on top of this. Most cars today are already "platform cars". Meaning that the same basic car is give various "personalities" and marketed under different brands. By having an open car, you might even get interesting companies such as the coachbuilders of 100 or so years ago (see wikipedia for "Coachbuilder"). Or more streamlined operations focusing on low cost for consumers and production for inventory

With a completely open car, where all parts can easily be sourced from multiple sources, repair becomes easy again. You buy parts and do it yourself, or you can choose to have a workshop do it for you.

I'm interested in what we can do for the masses. Not the few.

Now imagine what the increased availability and cost reduction of additive and subtractive manufacturing enables.
Application Frameworks tend to become quite heavy (think Electron on X11, event QT) where most activity on the processor is rendering and business logic wise in some UI flows while once in a while, local data is collected (like temperature, humidity or your custom sensors).

Think a terminal in a Museum with lights, think a local hotspots with sensor and connected (normal tablets), think a ECG machine, ... . Use Cases there are enough, whether other criteria (like quality/reliability) are sufficent, is another story).
The 'noble' ones aren't always garbage - they have their place, but are mostly replaced by 'user stories' and 'rich picture' concepts.
You don't need a 2000 kg car-shaped monster just to get one person to his office job. That's a historical artifact because ICE engines can't fit onto man-sized vehicles.

In the future most vehicles will be man-sized and powered by electrical motors. "Cars" will exist only for hauling freight, and probably only ever occasionally rented, not owned.
I remember seeing hovercrafts arrive at a terminal in Normandy back in the eighties as a child. We just went there to watch them come and go. I never traveled on one. Apparently not the most comfortable ride in rough weather. But impressive machines and very cool to see these huge machines slide from the sea onto the land.

These days we have other options for traveling fast across water. There are some interesting companies that build electrical boats with foils for example. But, I could see hovercraft making a comeback.

Electric hovercraft should be a lot less noisy and a lot cleaner to operate. They are in any case optimal for short distances. So, they wouldn't need an insane amount of battery even. The main challenges relate to charging them up quickly and cheaply with minimal hassle. Any inefficiencies could be offset by the power being relatively cheap.
Would you mind sharing your script? I'm quite interested to be honest, I've stopped YouTube completely some weeks ago but this kind of interaction is what was good about it retrospectively :)
Depends.

There have been rumours that the current ChatGPT loses money even at $20/month, and that to economise on running costs they've changed to a less capable model.

And if the modern LLMs have already mined everything there is to get out of pirated ebooks and the common crawl dataset - who knows how long it'll take for them to make the next big step forward?
I'm really confused by this post as AMD chipset is the de facto recommendation in any laptop discussion forum on Linux. AMD graphics cards are also much better on linux too so it almost seems like you got things in reverse?
Also synthetic opal and zirconia etc
So I decided to update my decades old outdated knowledge about GNU Smalltalk.

Last update in documentation, 2017.

The JIT compiler seems to still be experimental, and no new releases in 8 years.

It seems that in both cases, for a Lisp like experience, we are better off using SBCL or similar.
Maybe you can find 5V5A adaptor easier than charger. You may need to buy the compatible cable from adaptor to rpi5.
Bought one beefy Asus ROG model (m16-2021) and it was so poor quality!

Windows had BSOD daily (reddit suggested to replace wifi card - it helped). Sometimes audio output became muffled.

After few months body coating started to peel off in some places.

I wish I bought something else!
This made me realize: What if you listening to his talks/podcasts/videos is the thing he's selling you?

What if his product/remedie is just the "content" he produces. Not much different to a quack then.
Having a railroad without a highway (and a highway won't come along and serve itself) will mean that you won't get to any city on your own. Wait for the train, maybe the railroad authorities will deign to launch a passenger train once a week, of such quality that you won't want to ride it. Like in some places in the Russian Federation. Or buy an off-road vehicle and go camping instead of traveling.
That is already an issue with technological progress. Peoples protesting because machines are more efficient and removing jobs. The issue being the profit of increased tech not being shared correctly among humanity.

This issue has not been solved. I am glad there are other peoples becoming aware of it with the rise of IA.
Or perhaps "intuitive" and "pythonic" was never Python's biggest selling point.
I personally find AMD GPU support under Linux to be absolutely excellent. Only thing I don't like is the "secure processor" which requires signed and sometimes encrypted firmware to run. The older cards don't have this.
Your argument for why librarians (sic) aren't equipped to understand and provide instruction on the theory of content tracking is a well-known example of subpar documentation written by a programmer?
I don't agree. Rust very much wants to be a C++ alternative in all (I mean all) respects.
Shameless plug - https://github.com/BenderV/ada

It's an open source BI tool that does just that.
I'm surprised there's enough energy in the EMI to be audible unamplified! That would make it audible even if you just had the cable run and speaker with no hifi.

Shielding is definitely important on the "line" side and somewhat on the PSU side.
If what I do as a seasoned software engineer becomes redundant because of "artificial intelligence", so be it. Then I'll need to learn more, which I am! I'm not in the business of stiffening technology like an oil baron.

I do understand that IP, for example using an actor's likeness via CGI+AI, is a very real issue that needs to be addressed.
Not really, I think it would be better to implement a series of smaller functions and utilize the stack [1]. That way you avoid lda and sta'ing tonnes.

I much preferred the 8086/8088 instructions though [2], pop and push are nice to have.

[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/6502_Assembly#Stack

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_instruction_listings#Origi...
Seems to be yet another variant of packaging Web stuff alongside the application.
> Operating systems need to be written with security stuff in mind, and security software needs to focus on a good user experience rather collecting than shiny buzzwords to sell to management.

They won't because by the time the users get fed the "food" the contract is long since signed and valid for a few years, and the competition isn't better so even if management could be arsed to vote with their wallet, they couldn't.

Is there an actual term for "the entire industry is bullshit, but can get away with it because the cost to entry is so high that new, less bullshit competitors can't even enter the industry"?
He probably already is less wealthier than you. To save taxes the rich lend money, with shares as security. since they don't own the money, no taxes are paid for it. When it comes to paying back, they sell some shares and pay the interest with it and the cycle starts again.
> Unemployment is actually at an all time low despite centuries of industrialization, automation, etc.

You've got an interesting point there. But I'm wondering, isn't this mostly true for places like the US? Looking at it globally, it's a bit of a mixed bag: the global unemployment now is higher than 30 years ago, for example.

And about the industrialisation bit – I mostly agree with you, but let's not forget the hard fought battles for fair work conditions. We got to where we are because people stood up for their rights, not just because machines started doing the heavy lifting. The original post seems to nudge towards more rules or better safeguards with AI, kind of like what happened with the rise of factories. Are you not in favour of that?

Small sidenote: calling your own view 'realistic' might put some people off. It sort of implies other opinions are not, you know?
For hovercraft to really take off, they'd have to be a lot more efficient and quieter. I don't know if there's anything that can be optimised about the enormous amounts of air blowing throw that thing; lots of other things are rapidly becoming quieter and more efficient, including PC cooling fans, so maybe there's room for improvement. Maybe electrification will help. But I suspect hovercraft are doomed to remain a niche.
You need the car if you want to go reasonably fast (much more than 20-30 mph) and stay reasonably safe. You also need the car if you want to haul enough groceries to feed a family for more than one or two meals, or if you want to transport other people who may be too old or young to go cowboying around on an electric scooter. Electric scooters are pretty much only for young urban adults with no children.

Like it or not, cars aren't going anywhere. A scooter lifestyle might work for you but it doesn't work for a large enough portion of the population that your wishes for society will never come to pass.

Btw, electric scooters are possibly the most idiotic form of personal electric transport; electric bicycles are much safer. The geometry of a scooter, small wheels far below the center of mass of the rider, makes them fundamentally unstable at any speed. Considering bicycles exist, scooters are completely senseless and should probably be banned outright. You are far more likely to crash a scooter by yourself, simply by losing control of it, than to crash a bicycle. Scooters really are for young people who still think they're invincible; which explains why most riders don't even wear helmets.
Also there there's

Penrose graphical notation aka Tensor Diagrams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_graphical_notation :

> In mathematics and physics, Penrose graphical notation or tensor diagram notation is a (usually handwritten) visual depiction of multilinear functions or tensors proposed by Roger Penrose in 1971.[1] A diagram in the notation consists of several shapes linked together by lines.

Penrose graphical notation (tensor diagram notation) of a matrix product state of five particles

The notation widely appears in modern quantum theory, particularly in matrix product states and quantum circuits. In particular, Categorical quantum mechanics which includes ZX-calculus is a fully comprehensive reformulation of quantum theory in terms of Penrose diagrams, and is now widely used in quantum industry.

> The notation has been studied extensively by Predrag Cvitanović, who used it, along with Feynman's diagrams and other related notations in developing "birdtracks", a group-theoretical diagram to classify the classical Lie groups.[2] Penrose's notation has also been generalized using representation theory to spin networks in physics, and with the presence of matrix groups to trace diagrams in linear algebra.

(From a post about Tensor Networks this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38922467 )
I don’t think they need to do that. They are still selling every single board they can make and I think a diversity of boards and approaches is great.
Hijacking this comment to ask about Bryan Johnson. Anyone have any good criticism of his blueprint. The amount of supplements he takes seem really extreme.
Talking about this btw: https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/
Thank you.

I agree that the author acts recklessly and presents unwarranted conclusions. That said, in case of widespread genetic engineering, I would expect potential parents to make more specific choices that will result in some real tradeoffs.

For example, it seems that longevity and fertility are somewhat negatively correlated, though this is precisely a field of study that requires a lot more research, because longevity was, until recently, a very underfunded topic.

Most people, if they had a choice, would probably opt for longevity, given that you can now "outsource" reproduction to IVF and similar techniques. But over several generations, any small effects may be amplified.
My cousin used to commute on the IoW hovercraft - great way to start the day. It's one of the things I suggest to friends if they're in town.
What exactly do you think you can learn at that point, that'd give you market value?
That document is a gem worth it's own submission. I'm sure many of it's constituents have been on HN but I took a glance and don't think it's ever been on HN[1], though it appears a dead mirror was once posted with 0 interaction [2].

Feel free to submit it if you want, otherwise I'd like to.

[1a] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=www.cse.unr.edu

[1b] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=unr.edu

[1c] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Murphy%27s%20laws%20and%20coro...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2863516