skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
With smallish databases, just pipe the .dump command to gzip. No need to snapshot an entire filesystem just to back up a few hundred megabytes (what I would consider "smallish"). Backup and restore speeds aren't a significant concern at those sizes, anyway, and you get human-readable backups that can be inspected with standard Unix tools.
Yeah, the big headline claim of Forbes' billionaires list from 2023 at https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ is that half the billionaires on the list lost wealth over the previous year and that in total they were worth less than a year ago. I don't think that's adjusted for inflation either, unlike claims about workers' pay getting worse. There was also a drop off in billionaires' wealth in 2020, which coincidentally is where a lot of claims about the rich getting richer from organisations like Oxfam and publications like the Guardian start measuring from.
Supporting 20V@5A doesn't mean they'll successfully negotiate for 5V@5A. That's the whole point of the post you're replying to.
'Wealth' is too nebulous a term to discuss anything socioeconomic related. When 'wealth' is measured in material- land, housing, money... these are all finite. You seem to be creatively measuring 'wealth' as immaterial things like ideas and actions. Be precise.
I grew up behind the iron curtain and power outages were a given, twice a day. Freezing temperatures in the apartments as well. But that was the Romanian communism and 50 years ago, not the USA today. Today I'm in rural Switzerland and never experienced outages, so I wouldn't accept arguments like "oh but everybody has outages on the countryside".
Who's going to actually raise the taxes? Perhaps Bernie Sanders, with 3 houses and a multi-million dollar portfolio?
I'd pay for YouTube Premium if it was bundled with the old Google Play Music. I can't stand the new YouTube Music so there's no chance of me migrating from Spotify, and I'll stick to adblockers + YouTube Revanced.
I wonder if they think antagonizing people that are already fed up enough with ad crap that they install adblock is a good idea.

What do they think is going to happen? We'll just be like 'oh well, sorry, we are going to remove adblock'?

LOL, I'd rather write a bypass myself then do this and give it to all my friends who can't code while I'm at it.
Is it me or is Microsoft degrading user experience on Windows 10 with constant system breaking updates? It feels that most of them do nothing but slow the system down or change things for the sake of change (some project managers want to show they do something?).

It feels like Microsoft is trying to "convince" users to switch to Windows 11 by making Windows 10 bad.

At the same time Win 10 computers without this UEFI cannot be migrated to Win 11...
OpenChat: Advancing Open-Source Language Models with Mixed-Quality Data
Agreed.

Agent reasoning systems should learn based on past and future use, and both end users and maintainers should have power in how they work. So projects naturally progress on adding guard rails, heuristics, policies, customization, etc. Likewise, they first do it with simple hardcoding and then swapping in learning.

As we have built out Louie.ai with these kinds of things, I've appreciated ChatGPT as its own innovation separate from the underlying LLM. There is a lot going on behind the scenes. They do it in a very consumer/prosumer setting where they hide almost everything. Technical and business users need more in our experience, and even that is a coarse brush...
Still nothing here. I had the nag-screen when it originally appeared, did the setup for uBo as explained in the reddit thread (without deleting anything, so actually just adding one list), and it’s been no issues whatsoever since.
For those just reacting to the headline, this article is about leveraging AI in current roles and its effects on employment equality, not job losses due to AI.
> Just imagine what £22bn a year invested in public services and infrastructure could pay for

the problem is most public services are hilariously inept. the bill and melinda gates foundation did more for eradicating malaria than USAID did since it's inception...

anduril has done more for military defense per $ than northrop, lockheed, and raytheon...

private insurance is infinitely more effective and cheaper than obamacare...

its silly to say "oh they should be taxed more", because then the $$ is in the most inept institutions.

a better solution would be to enforce some kind of philanthropic organization. say elon musk needs to donate 10% of his capital gains to whichever 501c3 he wants, and it can be his own... that is affter all what vanderbilt, rockafeler and carnegie did.
For me, the problem is power.

If somebody else has power over me-- whether it's because I'm dependent on some resource he owns or because he has political influence, it means I don't have power over myself, so his power must be destroyed.

The only problem is how to do it cleanly and in a way that doesn't unnecessarily disturb the economy.

The path I'm most interested in is by instituting mandatory savings in order to reduce competition among workers for goods.
Things getting more expensive over time is inflation, things getting bigger over time is the market responding to consumer desires...someone making so much money the interest eats the entire monitary supply is consumed is an extinction event.

The mind isn't great at groking just how much money we're talking about here. The people making the money are a combination of things: Not doing it for the money, doing it to rack up a high score, doing other things while the money does it's thing.

But the big takeaway is that money is effectively removed from the economy. When you can afford 200 100M yachts...you're not GOING TO BUY 200 100M yachts, so the yacht builders aren't going to use that money to further stimulate the economy.

"Hey man, I made a company that pays me $200B"

No, you didn't, you got in front of a money hose that shunted a crazy amount of money into your coffers due to gaming a market. You got lucky, and you can't DO anything with 99% of those funds, you just can't use it fast enough.
Would you consider Canada, France or India to be Soviet realities?
Why do we ask those questions? Because we want to know the answer, that's why. The OP didn't say that they should do X, Y, Z, they asked why they didn't. The OP likely knew there was a good reason, and wanted to know what it was.
It does, because power is bought with money and if you buy a vote, the richest win.

Also, resources are not infinite. Eg: There is a limit to the number of the best doctors and their time. Fresh air is locally finite, and jets do pollute more per person.

So despite the fact that in theory we are not playing a zero sum game, practically at the scale of one life, many things can be approximated as such.
Something like "concentration of capital" that was extensively analyzed by a certain relatively influential German-born economist in the 19th century?

I too fail to understand why it's so polarizing for the 99.5% not benefitting from it.
>If one person's ideas and actions brings up the standard of living for everyone else, I'm fine with that person having more wealth.

how would that be proved - that is to say there is probably a reasonably causal line to say that their ideas and actions brought up the standard of living for themselves, but the causal line to determine ideas and actions bringing up standard of living for other people would probably be difficult to calculate.
RAG Using Unstructured Data and Role of Knowledge Graphs
This is a post that summarizes some reading that I had done in the space of LLMs + Knowledge Graphs with the goal of identifying technically deep and interesting directions. The post cover retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems that use unstructured data (RAG-U) and the role folks envision knowledge graphs to play in it. Briefly the design spectrum of RAG-U systems have two dimensions:
1) What additional data to put into LLM prompts: such as, documents, or triples extracted from documents.
2) How to store and fetch that data: such as a vector index, gdbms, or both.

The standard RAG-U uses vector embeddings of chunks, which are fetched from a vector index. An envisioned role of knowledge graphs is to improve standard RAG-U by explicitly linking the chunks through the entities they mention. This is a promising idea but one that need to be subjected to rigorous evaluation as done in prominent IR publications, e.g., SIGIR.

The post then discusses the scenario when an enterprise does not have a knowledge graph and discuss the ideal of automatically extracting knowledge graphs from unstructured pdfs and text documents. It covers the recent work that uses LLMs for this task (they're not yet competitive with specialized models) and highlights many interesting open questions.

Hope this is interesting to people who are interested in the area but intimidated because of the flood of activity (but don't be; I think the area is easier to digest than it may look.)
Easy - just compare the size of the list from 2020-21 to 2023.

> 2,640 billionaires with a total net wealth of $12.2 trillion in 2023

> 2,668 billionaires with a total net wealth of $12.7 trillion in 2022

> 2,755 billionaires with a total net wealth of $13.1 trillion in 2021

That makes it what atleast 115 billionaires who lost wealth from 2021-23. There would be more with newer entrants.

A word about how Forbes calculate billionaires[1]. If a person is a brand and makes $100M or so a year, they are counted as a billionaire too.[2][3](from the same article).

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-09/adam-n...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-30/two-si...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-10-26/musk-w...

If the stock goes up due to low interest rates, how does it makes it a wealth transfer? Snowflake was valued at 100x revenue at one point. Then market corrected and brought it down to say 10x. Whoever was holding it saw their wealth reduced by 10x. Do you think this wealth was transfered to someone else? To who?
I've not seen any evidence that multi-AZ is more resilient. There's no history of an entire AZ going down that doesn't affect the entire region, at least that I can find on the internet within 15 minutes of googling.
Film Companies and Reddit Clash Again in Court over Anonymous Piracy Comments
yep, and I'm aware of a data encryption product that was hacked by utilizing exactly the same technique. As dumb as it could be: they promised billions of years an attacker need to decipher data, but were using a dead simple LCG to make a key and a salt. And the salt was stored in a crypto container in open form (b/c it's a salt). :facepalm:
Don't implement data encryption on your own, kids...
tangential point: one thing that always bothered me about WAL is that it is supposed to exist to help maintain data integrity, recover from crash etc but that file itself is written (committed to disk reliably) in batches and not after every change to the database, apparently to gain performance. Doesn't that defeat the purpose? How haven't things broken down despite this? Not specific to sqlite but databases in general. Never found an answer to this.
> wealth will produces a typical “fictitious” gain of x% (I think 6%). So, they tax the fictitious gains at 30%. So, that leads to a 2% overall wealth tax.

I simply don't believe rich Dutch are paying this tax on their price bloated real estate in Netherlands, Spain, Dubai, Caribbean Islands and wherever. This would be enourmous fortunes in annual wealth tax.
The Guardian is pretty left wing so they're not going to look too closely at the numbers if they say what they want them to say. These kind of articles always imply that it's some kind of zero sum game which irks me because that's so clearly not true.
> Perceived weakness entices aggressors of course

It's true of course. We don't even need to look at the world to know that it's true. There's a word for that, tautology.

It's just not an effective description of the real world. It's a very useful idea for selling guns though.
The OP didn't break that rule. They asked a question, they didn't make a statement.
Surely the goal of society would be egalitarianism? In which the entire concept of money- a vehicle of inequality- would be no longer needed. The concept of capital as you described it would not need to exist at all.
> you had high hopes for community engagement

If you have high hopes for engagement instead of offering a product people want to buy, you deserve your fate :)
While true to some degree that people don't prepare sufficiently, many simply cannot prepare. Taking aside the U.S. which bankrupts hundreds of thousands a year through an insane health care system (providing both highest cost and one of the lowest outcome on the quality side across the developed world), most people in most xountries have not much svsing possibilities to begin with. The best use of money is most often to invest in your housing, or your kids' education, not to mention food, regular healthcare, and basic amenities (1/10 of the world population can barely afford shoes or a toothbrush...).

Where more wisdom could come in is for much of the lower and the increasingly nonexistant upper middle class. But this is a fraction of the population.

If you want to tell a family with two adults working in lower wage jobs and two kids, and renting an apartment, to "save" there is usually not much margin, and their saving amounts to building up a small emergeny reserve which is eaten up by any family emergency or damage to car or housing. Little chance to save for old age ..
> Wealth is not a limited pie where everyone only gets one piece of it.

This is where you're mistaken, because wealth is not simply a collection of material goods. Wealth is power, and power is a zero sum game. You don't have power over someone else unless they have less power than you.

The ultra-wealthy already have all of their material needs and desires met. They run out of things to buy with their money. You don't actually need a billion to buy all of the houses, cars, boats, and other stuff that you want. Beyond a certain point, the only thing left to buy is people. And that's what the ultra-wealthy do. They exercise power over other people. That's precisely why they're never satisfied with their level of wealth, and continue to accumulate it despite not needing to buy any more material things. The more wealth you have, and the less other people have, the more power you have over others.

Wealth buys politicians. It buys laws. It can buy entire countries.
Yep, or even apply inline as {+⌿⍤2(∘.≤)⍤1⍨⍵}cardMatrix
It's intriguing how many people frame this as "stealing." How do you think many people become billionaires? It isn't through fair competition and treating workers well.
> WinRE asks for a local administrator password before doing any recovery operations, no?

Not for the "Shift+F10" command prompt option....
Articles like these always follow a predictable script:

> Compiled using data from the research company Wealth X and Forbes, it says the combined wealth of the top five richest people in the world have increased by $464bn, or 114%. Over the same period, the total wealth of the poorest 4.77 billion people – making up 60% of the world population – has declined by 0.2% in real terms.

The keyword here is "in real terms" which is doing most of the lifting here. I know not using this term would not realistically make much of a difference, but it changes the hyperbole used in the article.

Then there is this:

> global income inequality was now comparable with that of South Africa, the country with the highest inequality in the world.

South Africa has a GINI index of 63%. It's hard to define range of comparable when Brazil had a GINI index of 53%.

Outlets like The Guardian do more harm to these causes because of such uncritical and clickbait reporting.
"But if you have enough money, current rates mean that taxes & inflation will erode your capital slower than the interest you'll earn from that capital alone, and so money is inevitably growing on itself."

If it were based on interest, this is unlikely to be a problem unless interests rated exceeded tax rates.

The real issue is that most of the net worth is equity. These unrealized gains are not taxed. In some cases, a lot of the value is driven by speculation and not actually tied to the current profits of the company. This is why wealth taxes are brought up, or at least changes to capital gains taxes.

"As a society, we should prevent "escape capital" to be a thing."

This assumes that the ultrawealthy do not serve a purpose. Yeah, taxes should be increased on the top end, but probably not to the point of completwly eliminating the ultrawealthy. These people tend to use thier capital to fund other ventures. This can be important to startups and other organizations. Oftentimes they donate large amounts of money to charities or start charities in areas the government has neglected. There are alternatives to these, but I'm not convinced they are actually better. I think we just need to tweak capital gains tax on the ultrawealthy.
According to Gall's law, breaking things down to simple elements is not only the best way, but the only way.

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system."
Money isn't finite or material and it's worthless in itself unlike e.g. land and housing.
Interesting, can you elaborate on that? The behaviour I observed is that going into S3 behaves exactly the same as if you try to unload and reload the amdgpu driver.
While living in the Netherlands I never considered the wealth tax fair.

The government is making an assumption that I am going to invest my money and that I invest it well enough to get an average return. Not everyone will went to invest their wealth in risky assets though, and not everyone who does invest it will do well.

Their justification for the tax rate is only that, a justification. In reality the wealth tax isn't directly tied to investment returns and serves only to disincentivize saving your wealth. It pushes people to invest their wealth in risky assets, meaning they effectively want all individuals to hold a pile of IOUs rather than actual wealth accrued over their lifetime.

The same can be said for a target inflation rate of 2-3%. Adding a wealth tax on top just turns the screws a bit more, more strongly pushing individuals to put most wealth they accrue right back into the slot machine.
Will low-carb diets allow type 1 patients to use less insulin? Probably. At least, that is my conclusion of all the papers I've read on the subject. I would even go so far as to say "almost certainly".

You have a problem with a daughter who doesn't reason well. That is too bad but it should not be other people's problem. It is also not a problem with the Guardian article or with Taube's writing.

It also not "conflating" in any meaningful sense of the word.
This comment reads as either trolling or a very naive take but I'll bite.

Why obscene wealth is a problem? Even my 10yo knows that. Extreme asymmetry and inequality. From different treatment by the government, to the justice system, to access to health care, education to getting in a position where being rich means you can exploit poor people to get richer with zero consequences.

How this has to be explained to someone on this forum is beyond me, but here we are.
We alreasy have this. It's called a positive feedback loop. Wealth creates wealth and debt creates debt.
I am fine with slower load if I dont have to see ads. Can't skip them on TV (yet) and its driving me insane, any short thing I want to show to kids has 20 seconds of detergents or similar stupidities. As a long term PC user with ublock origin getting smart tv with youtube has been a curse.
To me it sounds as if ai workers are trying to oversimply how humans and brains generally speaking work to fit their narrative.

A bit among the lines of "if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bicycle". Emulating neurons doesn't make intelligence.
List of things named after Roger Penrose:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Rog...
Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with YouTube Music?
You claim they have meaning but you made no attempt to define either.
At some level Japan knew it would lose to the US in WW2, but the alternative of effectively surrender was too unpalatable to consider. Here's the analysis by a US Army historian:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170830024001/http://ssi.armywa...
I’m in! Thanks.
Almost spit out my coffee at that, thanks
Not quite my original point - to test that, you could do your comparision but comparing the number and total value of billionaires in 2020/2021, compared to 2019.
If we actually read the maths presented by the article, it looks like many people did get poorer. You could argue there's no causation between them, but if correlation gives us civil unrest, we go fixing correlation (unless we prefer street wars).
If we just asked GPT4 this, and it said, "Oh, how many jobs will be affected? About 40% is my estimate" - would we have any more reason to be confident in that than in IMF's estimate?
Notice they said "a tax on net wealth".
That's just plain evil.
You can't tax paper gains!
Almost all of these billionaires have their holdings in stock. It's theoretical money, not cash.
If you own a house, and the "value" of your house goes up 5%, should you be taxed on that gain?
Clearly not. It's not money you actually have. How are you going to raise that money every year? Borrow? You're already in debt. And these fools already want to tax you on your "income" from borrowing as well.
There's a reason all moral societies only tax realized gains.
Also all these haters of wealth and capitalism are sorely lacking in math. Not even math, just arithmetic!
If you forcibly took ALL the billionaires money ( which is what these haters REALLY want), about $12.2Trillion and gave it to the poor half (4.4 Billion people) everyone gets about $2,700. That's it. And one time only!!
Woo hoo! Congrats! World poverty and lifestyle solved! NOT!
Meanwhile, for the sake of your idiot ideological revenge, all the companies and employees and economic drive and sub industries and localities driven by the Billionaire's success amd enterprises are now ruined. Millions of people have now lost their jobs. Also no one will attempt it again. Great solution. #mathlessfools!
In Britain, this fictional 22B per year over 65 Million people is a nice whopping 338 pounds per person. Again: problems solved. Not!
And the rich, who drive economies and employ millions will definitely flee somewhere that doesn't perpetrate these stupid hateful laws. This is all about people thinking it's moral and virtuous to say "Sorry, you have too much! We've got to limit your success and take from you" #handicappergeneral #Marxism #famine
It comes down to this: #killthegoose
There are opportunities, but you have to spend the whole day looking; a good start is the monthly hacker news who's hiring thread.
Unless you define strength as the cumulative effect of all factors preventing a country from finding itself in a war, you are wrong.