skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We've had massive realignments of the labor force before. At one point agriculture was the industry that all of society was built around. Nowadays, it is a small part of tge economy, with most people having little more than a surface understanding of how it works.

These realignments are generally not pretty, but hardly civilization ending.

At worst, this realignment will see humans go the way of horses after the automobile instead of farmers after the industrial revolution. That is to say, at some point, there may be not be new jobs for humans to pivot into. However even that is not an existential threat to civilization. It is a threat to democratic capitalism; but civilization existed before democratic capitalism, and will continue to exist after it.

Having said that, the claim that this latest technological innovation will finally push humans out of the labor force has been made before; and I don't see any reason yet to think that this time will be different.
Very cool -- it's always interesting meeting other (what I like to call) "normie" home-school parents. I would say the story of "2 hours of lessons, max" is probably the most consistent thing I hear from other home schooled (the kids will tell you way before the adults will -- when my kids found out other kids went to school for 7 hours, they were shocked)[0] :).

I had two families who led me to the decision, myself. If people really knew what a typical "I don't have an axe to grind, I just want to direct my child's education" home-schooled parenting life was like, everyone would choose it if their life situation allowed. I understand that I was blessed to have circumstances that allowed us to do this for our children[1].

[0] Many in the homeschooling community find themselves having to explain their choices, often, to outsiders so they tend to over-compensate with their kids out of a desire to not have others' think of their children as "weird". I tell my kids to be as weird as they want.

[1] Well ... my circumstances were anything but ideal despite how it sounds. We just made it work.
This has been litigated over and over again, and there have been plenty of good points made and concerns raised over it by those who it actually affects. It seems a little bit disingenuous (especially in this forum) to say that that conclusion is the "only explanation" you can come up with. And just to avoid prompting you too much: trust me, we all know or can guess why you think AI art is a good thing regardless of any concerns one might bring up.
That's wrong, see See Gödel, Escher, Bach [1979, pp. 452–456] If you get rid of the infinities and approximate (including cutting recursions short), you can (approximately) compute a whole lot. Not everything, but everything your brain can, and more.
Can somebody explain why they’re attributing ZSH to macOS? It’s clearly cross platform
Good material.

Joins can be also categorized by the used join algorithm.

The simplest join is a nested loop join. In this case a larger dataset is iterated and another small dataset is combined using a simple key lookup.

Then there is a merge join. In this case two larger datasets are first sorted using merge sort and then aligned linearly.

Then there is a hash join. For the hash join a hash table is generated first based on the smaller dataset and the larger dataset is iterated and the join is made by making a hash lookup to the generated hash table.

The difference between nested loop join and hash join might be confusing.

In case of a nested loop join the second table is not loaded from the storage medium first, instead an index is used to lookup the location of the records. This has O(log n) complexity for each lookup. For hash join the table is loaded and hash table is generated. In this case each lookup has O(1) complexity but creation of hash table is expensive (it has O(n) complexity) and is only worth the cost when the dataset is relatively large.
No, we should continue to use the term "buy", and clarify in the law that copyright shenanigans don't trump purchase rights and consumer protection obligations. In the meantime, since the law is wrong and makes a mockery of its legitimacy, people should treat it as optional and follow it to the extent they personally feel fair and appropriate.

Everyone knows it would be absurd if you bought a chair, and then you opened the box and there was a piece of paper inside that said actually you're just renting it indefinitely and the manufacturer has the right to take it back at any time. Likewise if the outside of box said you get an indefinite "license"; the expectation would be that the seller is acting in good faith and that that's the same thing as perpetual. Taking the chair back would be called a scam. Any government that goes along with the scam is a clown show and deserves the contempt of its citizenry.
You do so much assumptions yet they don't match reality _at all_.

>A 1 GW solar power plant in Germany could produce approximately 32.4 million kWh (or 32.4 GWh) of energy during a typical 30-day winter month, considering the factors and assumptions outlined earlier.

Okay, so this means on average 1GW of solar power should output ~1GWh of energy daily, right? So Germany's roughly 80GW of power would produce on average 80GWh of electricity? Well, let's look at _real_ data: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

In the last 30 days there was exactly one day with over 80GWh of solar power produced: 9th January. And it was just 81GWh. Yet there was multiple days where actual electricity produced barely went over 10GWh... or not even 10GWh, like 21 December with 7GWh produced. Three days ago, it was 14,5GWh.

Overall solar power production in Germany in December was 795GWh, below 1/3 of your estimate.
> the entire point is that these are virtually undetectable from typical training set examples

I'll repeat this point for clarity. After going over the paper again, denoising shouldn't affect this attack, it's the ability of plausible images to not be detected by human or AI discriminators (yet)
The practical value here isn't in banknotes, it's in shredded classified documents. That's the elephant in the room. And it's good for advancing pure research.
Many terms of art from economics are probably not widely-known here.

> In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers, or if consumption by one party reduces the ability of another party to consume it. - Wikipedia: Rivalry (economics)

Also: we should recognize that stating something as rivalrous or not is descriptive (what exists) not normative (what should be).
For most, none.

For power users, you can force specific fare classes/connections/combinations etc. regular sites won't. You can create some zany things for example, getting United to sell you an American connection. Ticketing it may require an actual travel agent though.
So a remote work backdoor had a vulnerability and now 1700 orgs (including federal agencies) were hacked since December? Is it too soon to compare this to solarwinds? After all they were both in December

> The program used by the agencies is called Ivanti Connect Secure, which allows employees to remotely connect to work.

> As news of the vulnerability has become widespread, at least 1,700 known organizations around the world have been hacked with it, Volexity has found.
It makes me wonder if some of the bank notes were NOT shredded and they added the foreign material to make it weigh properly…
This rings true. All the best C programmers I've known have had this mindset. "If you want convenient interfaces and relaxing programming experiences, here's a Python wrapper to my C API." But don't ask for the kitchen to become the dining room.
Is there any indication why Linux can't read these efivars? That seems like a short fix away from the research already done, and would take care of everything. (Once you have the C skills already demonstrated in the post, kernel code is not especially difficult to debug.)
Publicly available doesn't mean you have a license to do whatever you like with the image. If I download an image and re-upload it to my own art station or sell prints of it, that is something I can physically do because the image is public, but I'm absolutely violating copyright.
I guess the idea is that the model trainers are ignorant of this and wouldn't know to preprocess/wouldn't bother?

That's actually quite plausible.
100% this. Labor and all these other concepts are outdated ways to interpret reality

Humans are themselves mechanical so at the end of the day none of these issues actually matter
But stochastically, it’s possible you’re given a legal value that violates mutual exclusion, no?

I’m very fuzzy as to how the busy wait loop that checks all sibling threads for their lock counter number can distinguish this scenario. Cause you could be TID 1, and obtain ticket X even though TID 2 got there first and entered mutual exclusion because at the time when it checked you weren’t even assigned a ticket and entered mutual exclusion… I’m missing something subtle about the algorithm.
50% of marriages end in divorce. I think of that statistic as a probability of failure for a life long monogamous relationship. I don't think there's any argument that can convince me that increasing the number of partners reduces or does not increase the probability at which a relationship between 2 people will end up in heart break and hurt feelings.
I wouldn't care less if it worked in a performant way - in the end Flutter apps are using their own design (Material 2 / 3) - so rendering them in a Canvas is OK-ish.

The problem is that, on the web, the performance is extremely poor, so Flutter is still not worth being used there (IMHO).
Gratis vs libre.

You openly acknowledged that Obsidian isn't open source. There's lots of open source software for Windows and macOS, yet neither Windows nor macOS are open source. Strange counter-argument in which you proved my point.

Name these FOSS apps that use custom formats. There's so many Obsidian-likes that are not only FOSS, but also use non-proprietary flat markdown files. It sounds like you're drinking too much of the Obsidian community Kool-Aid and trying to convince yourself of these things that simply aren't true.
Not so much a successor but an alternate path. I didn't want to get into pricing because a Pi (regardless of number) doesn't ship with a PSU, an NVMe slot, or even two 2.5GbE interfaces. It's not something I want to directly compare with price-wise, really (although I suspect adding up all the bits might be comparable...)
The "science" behind much criminal forensics is often laughably absurd. Even where there is valid theoretical foundation, in many cases the practice voids validity of much of the results.

And that's before we consider the psychology of witnesses, criminals, juries, judges, law enforcement, etc.
No one could be that dastardly.
Is Safari still sending nasty popups if you tap too much on Websites in Full Screen in the line of "WebApps aren't permitted in Full Screen Mode" ?
Why animals shrink explained with new evolution theory
First, a quick note: good God the number of typos in my messages is becoming unacceptable lol.

Anyway, to your point: that's a fair enough interpretation of what he might be saying. So that's a fair point and maybe I shouldn't have bailed on the article so early.

On a related note, I do fundamentally question the real helpfulness of using chat GPT to find and summarize knowledge for you, as opposed to the perceived helpfulness. Every time I've attempted to use it, or for instance someone has attempted to use it to summarize essays I've written, it has turned out data that is subtly wrong in a multitude of ways, often ones that are not individually super obvious, but which subtly pervert the meaning or import of whatever knowledge was being summarized and can very quickly add up to getting the wrong impression of something. So you might be receiving data that you think is helpful and useful, but is actually far less helpful than you think it is. And yes, you can double check things yourself, but that depends on knowing what to double check, which means that you either double check absolutely everything — and then it's equivalent to doing the research yourself! — or you only double check the things that jump out at you, in which case you're probably missing a whole lot. And that may have turned out fine so far, but that seems like a ticking time bomb to me. Even with asking for sources, that's a dangerous game to play, because it isn't actually giving you the actual sources of data used to generate the answers, because it has no memory or knowledge of that: links to the sources used were probably not embedded in the sources themselves, and so are probably not associated with them in the training data. So it's really just generating what it thinks a plausible answer to the question of sources might be, with no necessary relation to what it actually used.

I often compare talking to chat GPT to talking to some kind of slick narcissist, who has only a passing knowledge of a huge range of subjects, gained through osmosis and half remembered details, but who isn't even really committed to giving you accurate knowledge, and is more committed to just saying whatever sounds right and is likely to make you happy. Or in this case, is likely to make the reward function go up.

Not that I think there couldn't be a computer system that does what chat GPT does in theory, I just don't think this approach is correct for generating a reliable knowledge summarizing machine.
Upload? Everywhere in the US. 100Mb/s Down, 5Mb/s Up, but the up really gets 2-3.
I forgot which probe and celestial objects it was, but at one point NASA was investigating a moon around Jupiter or Saturn, thought about dumping it there for nice photos (it was out of fuel iirc) and then they realized that it might have life on it.

So they intentionally crashed it into the planet instead as to not potentially contaminate said moon - possibly our first implementation of the prime directive!
I do something like that but it's actually a Canary token. So I can know if someone is snooping.
It is really incredible that Pinochet escaped any punishment at all. I was just at the Chilean Museum of Human Rights in Santiago a couple of weeks ago and it was heartbreaking reading about all these crimes against people. Horrific, and particularly horrific knowing that US was either abettor or architect of the whole operation, down from the top to the Chicago Boys.

Still, Chile seems to be faring fairly well now, so good for them. I found Salvador Allende's final speech as the coup succeeded to be so inspiring for someone on the threshold of death as his democratic government was to be savaged by a military junta.

> Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Go forward knowing that, sooner rather than later, the great avenues will open again and free men will walk through them to construct a better society.

It was really something to see all this recent history of atrocity in a city and country that was otherwise fairly modern. What a tremendous use of this technology!
The notes were officially destroyed for a reason so putting them back together from scraps... Hmmmm
From the Mastodon thread:

> Turns out, they found out an even more innovative time sync mechanism. When you open the UI in the browser, they quickly redirect you to "/set-time/" + Date.now(). This sets a global variable in the Node.js app responsible for "now".

(https://mastodon.social/@laplab/111789584104871367)
Agreed. A CW random-chat client would also be amusing.
As an embedded programmer I get to just casually take interest in these discussions, but at the end of the day, almost everything I do can be done in C89.

Although there are a couple things I am interested in from C23. But I think it’ll be some time before I can have those still.
For some people, does the blob even need to be there for them to trip?
The premise of this discussion is that another HN user has observed that companies routinely rely on people forgetting to unsubscribe. Again, the idea is that this is part of the core business model.

As I've already mentioned, we agree that personal responsibility is important. I believe we can also agree that some people are unable to be fully responsible for reasons that escape them (depression, severe ADHD, other more pressing responsibilities like children who aren't doing well, etc.)

I think it takes a special kind of misanthropy to suggest that it's fine for companies to base their business model on the fact that such people will pay for a service they aren't using. I am not arguing for legislature or anything of the sort, but I still think it's unambiguously unethical.

It is, in the most literal sense, exploitative.
Intel (and AMD) reportedly have big M-Pro-like iGPUs in the pipe, and Intel has the Battlemage GPU line coming up, so we shall see.
As a man, there's enough poly people to notice, but not so much it becomes an inconvenience. Is it way worse for women on these apps? Not a woman so idk what the # of poly guys is on dating apps.
I ran into this with my first book on Amazon maybe a decade ago. I reused/refined a lot of my blog content as well as some material I published elsewhere. But I sent a bunch of links to show that it was my byline and didn't have any issue going forward.
The idea of future breakthroughs assumes that the problem is conveniently human-sized. That it's possible to build an organization that's not too large be dysfunctional and populate it with experts. And that the experts will find the solution before dying of old age or before the organization degenerates into something else.

It could be that the solution exists, but it's too large and too complex for humans and human organizations.

Technological singularity is a popular trope in speculative discussions about AI. But the reality could also be the opposite. It could be that productivity will increase asymptotically slower than the effort required to achieve further increases in productivity.
I feel like you read my comment and interpreted it in exactly the opposite way it was intended because I agree with you, and you're making the same point I was trying to make.
I work on VR, for training various types of mechanics and machine operators. I've tried every handtracking/glove/touch system under the sun, and tested integrating them with my product when possible. I've tried the HaptX gloves at various trade shows, and even had them to my office to demo their newest stuff personally.

There is no use case for HaptX. They're not a substitute for anything. They're not magically precise. They're nothing.
Same. weird, I was curious so I switched to LTE, disabled all content blockers in my Safari on iOS, no luck. dunno what they don't like.
I wonder how many people will be injured or killed because of errors in these systems.
I remember Summer Games looking quite good. It was a big jump in graphics.
> Pretty much nothing about the website and repo indicated that this is an open source project. Why would anyone just assume that it is?

There is a prominent GitHub link to the codebase.

I think the GitHub terms of service demand that public repo owners grant public downloaders minimal rights to view and use (but not necessarily redistribute) the code.

But the LICENSE file disallows use of the code to some. If the GitHub ToS does what I recall, it seems possible that the copyright license and the repo's presence on GitHub are actually in conflict with each other. (I'm not at all expert here, though.)
Gotcha.

I wasn't talking about someone creating and selling copies of someone else's work, fortunately.

So my point stands and your completely is in agreement with me that people are allowed to learn from other people's works. If someone wants to learn from someone else's work, that is completely legal no matter the licensing terms.

Instead, it is only distributing copies that is not allowed.
Not if it is AI generated. So far only humans can be original enough to warrant copyrights, at least in the US .

BTW, the right to prepare derivative works belongs to the copyright holder of the reference work.

I doubt that many AI works are in fact derivative works. Sure, some bear enough similarity, but a gross majority likely doesn't.
You have a mandatory deduction on your salary (2.2%, a bit less effectively if you make over 150k). You need to have contributed for at least a year in the past 2 years before you're eligible.

You get 70% of your salary (or 80% if you have children under 25) for two years, capped at 70% (or 80%) of 150k.

There are a lot more exceptions, special cases and so on, but that's the gist of it.
A single 4090 FE retails for $1,599. Getting two of these in a capable enough workstation is going to cost a fair amount more than $3K.
A Bad Estimator (With Donald Knuth) Podcast [video]
They check the serial number, and will notice that the note was destroyed.
People in state of shock have reduced cognitive abilities. Makes sense to ask a series of simple yes/no questions to determine what happened. "Are you ok" is too generic.
The main trouble in my city is certain snarley interchanges in which you’ll never make it to the lane you need for your exit if you aren’t, much of the time, way too close to the car in front of you.
The "recommended songs" playlists seem to have more diversity, but also seem to be fairly short (they'll repeat in a couple hours it feels like; I rarely listen to them when I'm working because they'll start repeating, and I don't usually listen to music for a large fraction of the day, so I'm guessing 1-2 hours).

My best guess is that they are assuming no playlist is more than 50-100 songs, and are limiting the shuffle to that number, so that a shuffle doesn't consume too many resources (memory, database hits, CPU cycles). Maybe someone, possibly in the distant past had a large playlist that caused service problems. And because of that they clamped WAY down to prevent it.
C11 has a lot to offer over C89 in embedded work. alignas alone is a godsend for buffers that need coarse alignment.
I did the same thing. Love my Epson ECO Tank.
One of the few times a 'blink comparator' feature in image viewers would be useful!
Sounds promising -

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/19/bipartisan-tax-bill-clears-k...

The strong bipartisan showing in the House Ways and Means Committee adds more momentum to the proposed changes, which include allowing the immediate expensing of research and development costs.
I wonder how many will be saved.
Sufficiently transformational only applies to copyrightability, but AI works are not copyrightable under current US law, so it's a non-issue.
Can't you only deduct the mortgage interest? Or are you referring to something else? The mortgage interest deduction turns out to not be very much in practice, in my experience, anyway.
We did that with Cassini on Saturn, and we intend to do that with Juno on Jupiter.

But, on the other hand, while measures are taken to ensure that spacecraft headed to other bodies are not contaminated, we've also found that life still often manages to find a way. So I thibk the various landings on Mars, and the lander on Titan (plus the quadcopter heading there later this decade) are somewhat likely to have brought along some extremely resilient (but dormant) life anyway.
> There's no such thing as fair use until you get to court (as a legal defense)

Well the point is that it wouldn't go to court, as it would be completely legal.

So yes, if nobody sues you, then you are completely in the clear and aren't in trouble.

Thats what people mean by fair use. They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the other person would lose the lawsuit, therefore your actions are safe and legal.

> you are literally asking for someone to challenge you and prove it is not fair use.

No, instead of that, the most likely circumstance is that nobody sues you, and you aren't in trouble at all, and therefore you did nothing wrong and are safe.