skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I didn't say it was a good idea. It's more an observation about incentives which I did feel was relevant about gp's comment on philosophy.
Isn't that what HTTPS is for?
That's the problem. People want to use the TV's own OS. I never quite understood why.
Those are most likely due to the system prompt which tries to reduce bias (but ends introducing bias in the opposite direction for some prompts as you can see) so I wouldn't expect to see that happen with an open model where you can control the entire system prompt
https://github.com/Anttwo/SuGaR looks non-poor to me, but I've not had a chance to play with it properly yet.
It isn't, but many places in the US are not as bad as it seems if we count the USA as a whole. Mississippi (and Louisiana and most of the south up to and including Texas and Florida) is just really bad.
Diablo IV is selling portal reskins for almost half the price of the full game
Has anyone actually gotten a job specifically for the Generative AI skills mentioned in the article?
After pondering it for a while, the problem is that CAs are too chaotic to use, and there is simply no way to overcome this, nor is there even particularly a reason to try.

Anything that is Turing Complete is going to exhibit at least some degree of what I call "Turing Chaos", which is the sort of chaos you have in trying to understand what a given Turing Complete system is going to do in light of the fact that a Turing Complete system is going to include some equivalent of "if (something) { run this program } else { run that program }", which means that there is inevitably going to be uncertainty amplification in any attempt to understand a program. By "uncertainty amplification" I mean exactly what anyone who has every tried to understand a code base has been through; you can tell that your uncertainty about what the "something" value is gets amplified into the question of which entire program is being run, and that can iterate for quite a while. It's very chaotic.

However, for all that, and despite the famous way in which changing a single bit of a program may completely change how it operates, in practice with real human programs changing a single random bit is statistically most likely to have no user-visible impact. We spend a lot of time constraining our system's chaos. We have to. We can't work with systems in which literally every bit change completely changes the program.

However, CAs tend to work that way. A single bit flip will spread out at the relevant "speed of light" and change everything.

As a result, while they may be some of the simplest Turing Complete things, they are humanly useless. They are not useful for modeling processes; you have to be too precise with the initial states, and the thing you are modeling has to be too precise in its usage of the CA rules. They are not useful for engineering, which is precisely why we don't use them.

Or, to put it in a nutshell, while A New Kind Of Science is full of pretty pictures and legitimately interesting ideas... it's also in essence, comprehensively wrong. Not a "not even wrong"; it rises to the level of "real" wrongness. But it's comprehensively, from top to bottom, wrong about practical utility or any future practical utility.

(You can sit down and try to strip this characteristic from a sufficiently well-designed CA, but getting the precise balance of just the right amount of chaos is going to be difficult, and getting it to be also somehow useful afterwards raising the bar even higher. In the meantime, I've got von Neumann machines right here for people who want to do real work and the lambda calculus for people who want to work directly in mathematical abstractions without going insane, so... why?)
It does not appear to be the default.
> Current performance and test counts on a 40 core system are: $ time make -j $(nproc) check SUBDIRS=.
13s
$ # time make -j $(nproc) check RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes
1m22.244s for 9 extra expensive tests

That's pretty respectable, given that coreutils include 98 programs (some are simple like yes(1) and true(1), but most of them are used millions of times a day to do real work: ls(1), kill(1), cat(1), wc(1).

In fact, I used wc(1) to count the number of separate programs inside coreutils.
> Esbuild is carried by a single developer

The right answer is to support that developer and contribute to the project.

The VC answer is to build something entirely novel and then fail to deliver.
I'm glad you're starting to question things & definitely the wisdom of the "rule of law" is an interesting question to delve into for many reasons.

However, none of what you're exploring is remotely relevant in this particular instance, as the op isn't considering a yes/no comparison (to have a ban or not to have a ban), but is rather comparing & contrasting two alternate approaches to banning (cars vs flippers). Implicit in the discussion is an assumption that a ban is being advocated for in one direction or another.

> I really don't like the way this is going

The rule of law is many thousands of years old; it's not a recent phenomenon. There's an entire industry built around it - a very lucrative one - it's called the legal profession.
You forgot to add, your estimates need to use an artificial, non-agreedu-upon unit that differs per person and that varies (decreases) as you find new work that's simpler than the simplest work you have ever encountered.

And then, you will be held accountable for that number, even if (supposedly), doesn't represent time and even if the interpretation of your estimate must use the unit that the person holding you acciuntable.

Wow as I re-read this statement, it's completely insane
Here's one example why, an ugly incident involving Matthew Cook's work proving a theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Cook#Work_with_Stephen...
I mean, I use GPT-4 on the daily as part of my work and it reliably delivers useful information. It's actually the exception for me if it provides garbage or incorrect information about code.
Gpt4’s response to the question using the exact wording

“To find out who wins, we can calculate the time it takes for each car to complete the race.

For Car A:
- Speed = 10 mph
- Distance = 100 miles
- Time = Distance / Speed = 100 miles / 10 mph = 10 hours

For Car B:
- Speed = 5 mph
- Distance = 50 miles (because of the 50 mile headstart, it only needs to cover 50 miles)
- Time = Distance / Speed = 50 miles / 5 mph = 10 hours

Both cars would finish the race at the same time, so it's a tie.”
Obviously. Good luck with that.
Ukraine arrests father-son duo in Lockbit cybercrime bust
That anxiety sounds warranted, but why are attractive members of the opposite sex saber-toothed tigers?
If you have the RFSoC the VNA is the low hanging fruit.

If you're doing modern wireless systems measurement and testing (4G/5G) most likely you will need spectrum analyzer (SA), vector signal analyzer (VSA) and vector signal generator (VSG).

The cost of all the disparate systems namely VNA + SA + VSA + VSG will easily cost north of USD100K for the used ones and multiple times more for the new ones. With the low cost RFSoC platform together with the standard RF test kit (attenuater, pre-amp, multiplexer, switch, etc) you are pretty good to go.

It's really perplexing that no one including the Chinese are trying to disrupt this industry, Keysight and R&S are currently charging arms and legs for their equipments even the basic one like VNA.
computing always was
OR they could just honor what the chatbot said and forget the legal battle.

The chatbot's error cost them what, $200? And it probably replaced at $100000/year employee?
I think it’s a shared trait among the ultra successful (think: bezos, jobs, musk, wolfram), that they unrelentingly pursue good ideas. In that relentless pursuit, people will inevitably have their (bad) ideas shot down.

Wolfram becomes audibly irritated at bad ideas, but mostly only when they should have been better, more complete, better explained (in their interest of time, for example) etc.

I think most of those who work with him know that he pursues truth, not what will make people feel good in that moment/meeting.

I’ve worked around people who are the opposite and try to morph reality so that whatever flimsy idea is suggested is somehow considered ‘correct’, and it results in long term frustration and inefficacy.
I read that 1993 Dave Barry article when it came out, as a teen, and it made me fall in lifelong love with Dave Barry's work. It's such a blast from the past to see the references to it here.
> There's no such thing as a secure system

I mean, in modern vehicles you can pretty much get there, but you might have to give up some features. For example, walk up unlock. You need to push a button somewhere to make unlock secure.

The way you get there is through FIDO. Have the engine controller ask the hardware key to confirm who it is through a handshake. Don't start/enable the engine if that handshake fails.

With that in place, the route to theft involves removing/replacing the engine controller which can be a major pain to do fast.

Cars with bad security systems generally involve pulling the steering column off and touching the right two wires together to start then engine.

That said, preventing theft of the contents of a car is impossible. Windows break easy and it's stupid easy to push the unlock button. That can't change.
out of curiosity, why is this a "terms" and not a license? I'm used to reading and understanding the software as coming with a license to use it. Do the terms give us license to use this explicitly?
I think what may be missing from the discussion at this point are
distinctions between law and equity and different kinds of judgement
in statutory versus common law.

The ideal in jurisprudence is that we _always_ have equity - the
ability to interpret the law and apply it in each specific cases.

The "opposite" is statutory law. Like you get a speeding ticket
regardless of any mitigating situation.

So you were rushing to the hospital in time for your pregnant wife to
give birth before your dying father breathes his last.... Cry me a
river. $200 fine! Next case.

Mechanical justice is cheap and rough. Statutory law fits perfectly
with our capitalist society, efficient, inflexible, uniform, quick and
cheap. Judges and juries are expensive.

Others mentioned the Chinese concept of Li (loi?) and the "spirit of
the law", which are casualties in a technocratic society.
Welding stuff at this scale/depth takes time. It isn't just inspections either. There is lots of prep work. Sometimes the material itself has to be pre-heated/cooled in order to prevent warps/cracks in huge blocks of metal. But, for the same reasons, that preheating itself cannot be done too quickly. Multiply this by hundreds or thousands of weld lines and 12 months doesn't sound so long.
I would feel deceived if I were a customer of any company or office that uses this. If I take the trouble to call by phone, it's because I want to speak with a person. If I wanted to talk to a machine, I would send an email, talk to a chatbot, or even try to communicate with the company through social media. Calling by phone implies that I am investing time and effort, and I expect the same from the other side.
No one. It is pure urban legend. If it were true, it would not merely be a thing said in forums, it would be national news.
Ideally they would be logging the prompts and the random seeds for each request. They probably also have some entropy calculation on the response. Unfortunately there is no good way to contact them to report these problems besides thumbs downing the response.
A thin diffuser layer would make the LED image clearer. I tried it with the Arduino Uno R4 LEDs, covering them with the diffuser layer (the thin flexi plastic, slightly foggy) from old phone screen backlight.
Western society in general is a bunch of future cancer and heart disease victims all freaking out that they're going to die in a nuclear meltdown, or by the hand of a terrorist, or by a lone gunman "mass shooter," or in a plane crash, or any number of other threats that are scary but statistically highly unlikely.

Human beings are just utter crap at intuitively estimating risk.
"Boy have we got a vacation for you where nothing possibly could go worng!"
Merges are bad only when all parties involved edited the same code. There's no programmatic way to solve this problem. It's an administrative problem: someone has to decide whose code is the right one to use.

If changes coming from both sources are independent, then rebase in Git is trivial as well, and there's nothing to be afraid of.
One of the benefits often cited (and it is again in this article) is that SMRs allow for electrical generation to be located extremely close to where it will be consumed, avoiding line losses on the transmission grid. How significant are the line losses for a plant that is 100 miles from where the electricity is being consumed?
> We know that our language can express that somehow

Do we?

I don't think that's true. I think we rely on an innate, or learned trust heuristic placed upon the author and context. Any claim needs to be sourced, or derived from "common knowledge", but how meticulously we enforce these requirements depends on context derived trust in a common understanding, implied processes, and overall the importance a bit of information promises by a predictive energy expenditure:reward function. I think that's true for any communication between humans, and also the reason we fall for some fallacies, like appeal to authority. Marks of trustworthiness may be communicated through language, but it's not encoded in the language itself. The information of trustworthiness itself is subject to evaluation. Ultimately, "truth" can't be measured, but only agreed upon, by agents abstractly rating it's usefulness, or consequence for their "survival", as a predictive model.

I am not sure any system could respectively rate an uncertain statement without having agency (as all life does, maybe), or an ultimate incentive/reference in living experience. For starters, a computer doesn't relate to the implied biological energy expenditure of a "adversary's" communication, their expectation of reward for lying or telling "the truth". It's not just pattern matching, but understanding incentives.

For example, the context of a piece of documentation isn't just a few surrounding paragraphs, but the implication of an author's lifetime and effort sunk into it, their presumed aspiration to do good. In a man-page, I wouldn't expect an author's indifference or maliciousness about it's content, at all, so I place high trust in the information's usefulness. For the same reason I will never put any trust in "AI" content - there is no cost in its production.

In the context of LLMs, I don't even know what information means in absence of the intent to inform...

Some "AI" people wish all that context was somehow encoded in language, so, magically, these "AI" machines one day just get it. But I presume, the disappointing insight will finally come down to this: The effectiveness of mimicry is independent of any functional understanding - A stick insect doesn't know what it's like to be a tree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry
The link is broken. On HN (or any forum really) it is expected for a brief description of the content to be provided when posting a link. Links die all the time, but forum posts don’t have to die with them.
A Final Kubernetes Census
Japan Defense Ministry to make blood products fit for all types
Using Linux iMessages doesn't even have a client...
Not only that, but the intonation also changes people’s personalities. Notice how there are round calming words and sharper ones, like the ohm in mantras give an o sound and a word like stab has a sharper intonation.

If sapolsky believes the Sapir whorf hypothesis I do too.
Obesity is certainly a factor holding back certain communities here in the USA. But I agree it's a tangential issue.
On the issue of whether or not "the middle class is collapsing," I hear lots of arguments (as usual very polarized) on both sides of that debate. Does anybody have strong empirical studies to share (ideally non-partisan!) on how this statement holds up? I have googled and probably found the obvious stuff but I would love to read up more on this.
I don't know. Many of these kids...they are from war torn communities (legal immigrants, refugees). They might be working through huge trauma, and they don't seem very organized at all (steal a car to...steal another car and/or knock over a gas station...then abandon the car on the street somewhere). There really isn't a market to target, the cars are almost always found after a few days, just trashed and damaged. They are just used for other crimes mostly.

The drug addicts are much more organized in comparison (steal legos at Target, fence at some place for fentanyl).
Tesla has a nice one that seems to make this easier [0]

[0] https://teslamotors.github.io/informed/api-reference/useFiel...
There's apparently some still in use - the oldest still in use is in Kent train station in Cork, which has a 160yo postbox.

They're increasingly rare - which makes sense, given they have to be 100+ years old by definition. But they're out there.
I think given the OP is a regular poster and they often post content from the same domains multiple times (each with a different article, with decent amounts of time between posts, i.e. ~1/wk), they probably just follow the content on these sites and "cross post" it to HN whenever they find something particularly interesting to them.

I can say personally (while I don't post on HN), when I share content in a community, it's things I find interesting, which often I see from the projects/blogs I subscribe to/follow.

So odds are OP is just someone with ADHD who finds this content useful to themself and people like them so they share new content from the site when they see it.
This actually happened in my neighborhood yesterday and two people came out to talk to the driver. The moment I saw them pull up I even double checked that my garage door was closed. We came out before the person who called the tow truck did.

Car thefts have made people paranoid and vigilant.
Enshittification cycles keep running faster these days.
This is presuming that ChatGPT's integration with Dalle uses the same API with the same restrictions as the public API. That might well be true, but if so that just makes the prompt above even more curious if genuine.
We're weeks or months away from people using AI voices and videos of themselves in these contexts, if they aren't already.

In the end, socializing will mean our AI personas interacting while we scroll tiktok on the toilet.
I didn't see this when searching thanks
Obfuscating your commandline is racy. The only fix for issues like this is to not pass passwords on the commandline, except when debugging.
Some states require all parties to give consent to recording private conversations. I'm not sure if this is the reasoning or not.

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING...
The company would have to prove the human was knowingly acting outside of their job/training and was disciplined for that. Such discipline must be on the path to firing the employee if the behavior isn't corrected. Note that training is important here, an employee who isn't trained is assumed to have more authorization than someone who is.

Or in this case they need to take the AI out of service immediately until they can get a corrected version that does not do such a thing. I will accept that the AI can be tricked to do such a thing and remain in service, but only if they can show the tricks are something an honest human wouldn't attempt. (I don't know what this is, but I'll allow the idea for someone else to propose in enough detail that we can debate if a honest people would ever do that)
Wolfram is scared that Gorard is going to upstage him.
> A company that can't figure out the difference between a scam like Better Homes and Gardens and a rigorous review site like Housefresh should be pouring every spare dime it brings in into fixing this problem. Not buying default search status on every platform so that we never try another search engine: they should be fixing their shit.
Assuming (optimistically, I agree) that one cycle is 1000km, at 200 cycles and the given rate of capacity decrease, you would have traveled around 180 000 kilometers. Assuming average American drives around 23 000 km per year, that's nearly 8 years of use.

The above is somewhat of a best case scenario, but having the battery at 80% capacity after 8 years seems good to me.
> Even I have to use git because who uses anything else?

It's pretty widely not used in the games industry because its support for media files is poor, it's pretty difficult to train artists to use it, the integration with game engines is pretty poor, git LFS is a layer of complication on a system that already has UX that's difficult for artists, git LFS hosting is an additional can of worms, there's essentially no file/directory-level permissions for managing contract work (and doing so with submodules+LFS is complicated).
5000 word essays aren't a good way to communicate with peers. Writing doesn't convey nuance well, and I'm strongly of the opinion that writing always comes with an undercurrent of hostility unless you really go out of your way to write friendliness into your message. I'm all in favor of scrapping meetings for things that could be emails, but conversely if you're writing an essay it's probably better to just have a conversation.
Radiation isn't magic. Several feet/meters of water are used as shielding for the fuel for a good reason.

If you put an activated fuel rod inside of a lead lunch box, you will still die. You will now die from a lethal dose of bremsstrahlung. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

If you interact with this material as an amateur without processes, robotics and safety, you will die. Period. You will also suffer from intense nausea and be unable to move before you die.

Sharks with lasers are more realistic than this concern.

The more plausible scenario is a "dirty bomb" that spreads depleted uranium particles everywhere and gives people cancer long-term. But there's an element of impracticality to this and there's a reason why it hasn't happened yet.
Readyset auto-parameterizes cached queries similar to a prepared statement. If you run the same query with different parameters, it will be routed to the cache. The first time a parameter set is queried, it will be a cache miss and trigger an "upquery" to populate the cache, after which that set of parameters will be served from the cache.

Different where clauses (sets of parameters) would map to different query-caches and currently need to be cached separately.

Aggregates supported by Readyset[1] will also be automatically maintained, but depending on the query, they may be handled by post-processing after retrieving results from a cache

[1] https://docs.readyset.io/reference/features/queries#aggregat...
SPA mode (what I assume you mean by BFF mode) is brand new, so almost nobody has used it. However, a close example would be the Oxide web console, which we build as an SPA because we want to serve it as static assets from a Rust backend. It's very close to your suggested stack: React + React Router + Tanstack query + zustand, though importantly we also use React Router's loaders to give the app a better-than-SPA feel on navigations. I do plan on moving it to Remix SPA mode when I get a chance, but like I said the result should be very similar so it's not that high a priority for me. If I were starting from scratch I'd probably use Remix SPA.

Repo: https://github.com/oxidecomputer/console/

Live demo here with in-browser MSW mock API: https://oxide-console-preview.vercel.app
People ask these kinds of questions because tech companies and the media have been calling these things (rather ridiculously) "AI".
The part that requires a signature will be taken out and replaced. Infotainment systems will get gutted and replaced with aftermarket ones.