skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Correct - border collies are what he described.

When kennel clubs formed in the late 19th century to standardize breeds, the border collie stood apart by only testing for herding ability and not selecting on anything else. Other breeds were selected mainly for looking like what that breed looks like.

Turns out border collies are consistently classed the smartest dogs. They also have less of the typical genetic issues other breeds have
That's basically border collies
Hey they don't anymore so, progress!

I remember comparing notes with fellow employees at a previous job, and depending on when you'd started working, the system had different password rules for you (users who'd been created earlier had a smaller set of allowed characters, etc.). Pretty sure it worked out to some Oracle nonsense.
On the other hand, an over-zealous IT guy at my job just deleted our Jira automation account (because he didn't know what it was there for and got sketched out by the name $CompanySecretary). Cue (a few days later) a large pile of pain as we tried to find and fix every workflow and ticket that formerly referred to that user before something really important broke.
I looked in to it a while back and IIRC the domain provider accepted cash payments via mail so Satoshi's real identity likely wasn't tied to it in any way.
Quantum Electro Dynamics VEM Drive
US Patent Application for Profile Information Associated with a Contact (2016)
I can't speak for the OP, and I realize fast food is probably at the worst end of this, but I'd settle for things like:

1) Getting my order right >2/3 of the time.

2) Not having to repeat my order 3 times because the employee taking it is either stoned out of their mind or distracted fighting (sometimes literally) with their co-worker

3) Getting my order to me before it's cold

The only positive of the "eating out" experience post pandemic has been that I'm very quickly running out of places I feel like spending the money they're asking for to get the service they're providing so it's helping me save money. But it's still frustrating none the less.
oh snap, mr hot-shit has the skillzors.
If you responded with that I’d hire you
Pedantic warning here. In fast and loose day-to-day common English language "exponentially more" means "fast growth" or "a whole lot". But that usage is meaningless! Why?, technically, you can't have exponential growth without a dependent variable. You can have exponential growth as a function of time, height, spend, distance, any freaking metric or variable. But it has to be as a function of a value.

You CAN'T have exponential growth that is not a function of some value or variable or input.

I suppose in this case you could argue you have exponential growth as a function of the discrete using-an-LLM or not-using-an-LLM, but I've never heard of exponential growth as a function of a discrete.

Often people using the term "exponential growth" in common English don't understand what it means. Sorry.
Yeah, yahoo and google is very meaningful on the other hand.
PRL was not "Soviet occupation", unless you're referring to parts of Poland during 1939-45
It works for some, but not all. I think people underestimate the degree to which the body becomes more efficient after significant weight loss. The body becomes very good at making do with as few calories as needed. Everything becomes more efficient, like walking, and NEAT goes way down. This is is all working against the dieter. Worst of all, the hunger and over-efficiency never goes away, but persists forever or until the weight is regained and then some. There are tons of stories of people on Reddit of people whose maintenance calories are way lower than predicted by TDEE calculators due to this.
no one said said, stop chasing strawmen.
> I find it interesting that generally the first instinct seems to be to use LLMs for writing test code rather than the implementation. Maybe I've done too much TDD, but to me the tests describe how the system is supposed to behave. This is very much what I want the human to define and the code should fit within the guardrails set by the tests.

I feel the same way about how test code is viewed even outside of AI. A lot of the time the test code is treated as a lower priority code given to more junior engineers, which seems like the opposite of what you would want.
Depends on where the time is saved. If it's in figuring out how to do something in Django where StackOverflow is flooded with outdated answers, sure. I see those kinds of savings. But the tragic beauty of programming is that a little time saved today can very well mean lots of time lost later. The former you can measure, the latter is a tougher nut.
That sounds more like marxism
Like the comments on a post about a "Populist backlash against globalization"? That seems like an appropriate place to discuss politics.
You are probably right and the percentages change with the language and framework being used. When I write Ruby I write enormous amounts of tests and many of these could probably be derived from the higher-level integration tests I stared with. In Rust on the other hand, I write very few tests. I wonder if this also shows which code could be entirely generated based on the high-level tests.
Yea… agree.

I’m not resonating with the downvotes here on similar comments.

ChatGPT goes above and beyond for me in many ways.

Tests seem… easy in terms of gpt capabilities.

Last week I had it write python that traversed an AST and construct a react flow graph as well as the component. I made no edits, went through a few iterations of prompt feedback, and it worked great. Many similar interesting abilities I’ve observed from gpt.
If anything, learning jazz improved my notation reading skills by making me think faster.
Even if used by "good actors", you're still facilitating money laundering. Which is always illegal. There is no "legal" way to launder money.
Thanks for the detailed explanation! Just to clarify, I think the parent comment must be incorrect? It says “ Any retail investor that sees this as a possibility of getting their money back is about to be disappointed once again”, but from your explanation it sounds like they should get it back, just without profit.
Quick thinking and a stroke of luck averted a Moon lander disaster
I defined it quite clearly and it wasn't that

> programming is the act of writing code, it should absolutely get easy.

If you can't come at me with an acceptance of what I mean when I say programming then go away, your dishonesty is not my problem.
Institutional knowledge and documentation is not free, but it has a cost!
> Equifax leaked about half of all Social Security Numbers back in 2017.

They weren't leaked, they were stolen. Does a bank "leak money" when it's robbed?
Any programmer who isn’t at least coding something on their own to learn something new or out of curiosity isn’t a programmer I would hire.
the F in PFAS is for fluorine

if it wasn't in the liquid and wasn't in the air... where did it go?
But isn't the effect bigger when there is more infrared energy?
The source of it shouldn't matter.
> Maybe I've done too much TDD, but to me the tests describe how the system is supposed to behave. This is very much what I want the human to define and the code should fit within the guardrails set by the tests.

People who work on legacy code bases often build what are called “characterisation tests” - tests which define how the current code base actually behaves, as opposed to how some human believes it ought to behave. They enable you to rewrite/refactor/rearchitect code while minimising the risk of introducing regressions. The problem with many legacy code bases is nobody understands how they are supposed to work, sometimes even the users believe it is supposed to work a certain way which is different from how it actually does - but the most important thing is to avoid changing behaviour except when changes are explicitly desired.
It seems like you’re disinclined to believe people’s personal experience as being different from your own, so you judge them negatively.

But have you thought about it in the reverse? What does it say about your work that it is so easily replaced/supplemented while others report that theirs is not?
Once again, I want to plead. At least have a Warning option to annotate any time undefined behavior is encountered by a compiler. The goal should be to promote optimizations to written code and improve code quality. Not just the result of one particular compiler.
You might want to rethink that. Credit reporting firms actively aid identity fraudsters because it is profitable

https://privacyrights.org/data-breaches/court-ventures
The podcast Darknet Diaries in general is a little like that. It explains a lot of these, often by inviting the criminals themselves. It's fascinating.
It is a good quote and probably too true. Yeah, not an industry I want any part of other than to get in touch with some hard to reach people. I most certainly do not envy them.
As an engineer, my job isn't to write code, it's to deliver systems that do specific things. That means that I need to understand the defined behavior of the code I put into the system. Undefined behavior anywhere means you lack defined behavior everywhere in C/C++.

You can't work around this by writing more code or eliminate undefined behavior with tools like linters and tests. Your one and only option is to write perfect code that only has defined behavior. The number of people that can accomplish this in practice rounds to zero.

So yeah, how can you not care about UB? It's the semantic elephant in the room. Every conversation has to include it, implicitly or not.
We do still have them right here in the US-of-A but they tend to be more clever in packaging... Mary Kay, Amway [0], people working IT at state colleges known for IT but paid for a weird 'stock tip' ponzi email thing, heck I know between 2007ish-2013ish a couple close friends bought into this weird "I'm a cellular reseller" MLM thing...

[0] - Still remember when some otherwise very bright folks got wrapped up in 'Team of Destiny' which was basically Amway over the internet back in 2001-2002ish times.
Bummer I was excited for a scholarly paper by Claire Boucher.
Had a very similar experience with a bank few years ago. I filed an official complaint because it was not possible to verify the caller was authentic.

Can you guess what happened next? Yep... The complaints team cold called me and requested PII to confirm they were talking to the right person. I refused and the call ended.

Later got a letter saying it wasn't possible to followup on my issue and they didn't see any issues with what I had raised. I tried... :/
As an entry into what's going on currently, this blog by the Manyverse leader is useful:

https://www.manyver.se/blog/2023-05-05

He is pivoting into a new protocol which is intended to preserve the community aspect of SSB, while providing important factors, like the need to delete previous posts.
True, as much as that’s not quite what I’d do because I like to just maintain a high, I’m sure a lot of folks would. Hell, on the weekend I’d switch it up to the higher %s to be fair.

NL has this same rule of no more than around 5g, I’m not 100% how much the exact limit is but it’s nearby 5g.
There is a time and place for modesty and humility.

For me, this ain't it, because I know how to solve this problem better than others have done, and so: I'm going to talk about why I think I'm right and I'm going to keep implementing Fil-C.

No need to be offended by the fact that I'm calling my shot!
Couldn’t an llm provided with the right level of logs write really good characterization tests?
Apparently the cost of reading the documentation, asking anybody, or just looking at the account's activity was too high.
> What is the scientific contribution of the paper?

That's not a question you ask other people, that's a bullet point at the top of the outline you created while reading the paper for yourself. You should see the creation of said outline as a measure of your actual interest in the subject.
Intelligence doesn't pass reliably. You may be slightly more likely to get one smart pup in a litter from smart parents. Any given litter is likely to show the standard range of variation for the breeds.

It's my observation that lots of people have dogs who are smarter than the person appreciates. People don't listen to their dogs, they just talk at them.
Seconding digdugdirk's comment :) Thanks for the thoughtful response and I apologize if I came across as mean.

My problem is we have no clue what those lines actually were. If it was effectively dead code, then it's not surprising that it was untested, and the LLM-generated test wouldn't be valuable to the team. We have no clue what the value of the test actually was, and using a single stat like "lines of code covered" doesn't actually tell us anything. Saying the test was "exponentially more valuable" is pure speculation, and IMO not an especially well-founded one. (Sort of like saying people who write more lines of code are more productive.)

This speculation seems downright irresponsible when the paper specifically emphasizes that this result was a fluke. When the authors said "hit the jackpot" they did not mean "hit the jackpot with a valuable test", they meant "hit the jackpot with an outlier that somewhat artificially juked the stats." I truly believe if the LLM managed to write a unusually valuable test with such broad coverage they would have mentioned it in the qualitative discussion. Instead they went out of their way to dismiss the importance of the 1,326 figure.
I’ve had it enabled for months across both Javascript and Kotlin codebases and it’s…fine? Good enough that I leave it enabled. But only barely. I’m certainly not orchestrating a dev team.

It has probably the same productivity boost that intellisense gave back when it came out. Which is good, but still marginal. Certainly not replacing anyone’s job.
One example is:
OD uses stubs to save you local disk space. when you want the copy local you click it and it reaches out to the internet to get it....
If you lose the internet copy, you DONT HAVE a local copy... you only have a stub.
> they are objectively two of the most powerful people in the party.

You didn't hear that Sinema left the party? And Manchin is considering leaving it?

That's what I was referring to when I said they were (or at least felt) excluded from the party.
Well if its priced higher now with the expectation that some users are subsidized that kind of screws up its utility when comparing to times or places that don’t have that system, if it was originally some proxy for food prices and cost of living.
Shields Up for Software – Legal Liability
For a long time, I wanted to use a robot with a gripper to make tea. Is there any 6DOF robot available within a reasonable price of <$1000 to do so ?
BOXX is more tax advantaged.
I'm in my mid 30s at this point. Starting on my 18th birthday I've never been allowed to see my credit record from at least one bureau. Any attempt to do so is met with a requirement to prove my identity, and any attempt to prove my identity is responded to with a request for further documentation.
You got a reference on the CFAA? On the contrary, I found that it was probably not a problem to change a URL parameter

"We also note that in order to be guilty of accessing “without authorization, or in excess of authorization” under New Jersey law, the Government needed to prove that Auernheimer or Spitler circumvented a code-or password-based barrier to access. See State v. Riley, 988 A.2d 1252, 1267 (N.J. Super. Ct.Law Div.2009). Although we need not resolve whether Auernheimer’s conduct involved such a breach, no evidence was advanced at trial that the account slurper ever breached any password gate or other code-based barrier. The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published."

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/13...
I think the value of a symbol is in the idea it communicates. Most people don't see a dead butterfly. They just see a butterfly. The reality of whether it is more or less like a dead butterfly doesn't especially matter unless a significant amount of people interpret the symbol that way.
How do you know that the tests accurately define what the code is supposed to do?

Another way, if you know what the code is supposed to do, why write it down in two places?
The first half of which decade?
I can’t believe we haven't figured it out yet.

- What about the email at gmx.com? Can an insider get into it?

- Access logs with browser agents and ips?

- White paper writing style and code analysis and heuristics.
Heaters like in the printers get too hot without a pure sine wave
What's the causal relationship between that military dictatorship in the 70s and mismanagement and overspending today?

What does scar mean here?
And more tape drives. But Space:1999's moon base still had a huge number of Blinkenlights and related gear that I have to believe was under an expensive IBM support contract. I wonder if the company found a way to get out of the contract? Some clause requiring the moon remain in its historic orbit maybe?
I find it amazing that, for all the evidence we have of generative models having some fairly complex internal model of the world, people still insist that they are mere "stochastic parrots" who "don't really understand anything".
I have a pet theory that the smart people at the NSA are aware that politicians with 4 year terms aren't effective at long term financial planning. The current debt situation coupled with the last ~30 years of mostly loose monetary policy has set the US up for serious problems if it doesn't come up with another world-changer like the ICE, electric light, or internet. Hence, Bitcoin is a hedge industry could embrace against a failing dollar.

I know the US isn't solely or originally responsible for those, but boy it sure ran the ball a long distance.
Undefined behavior are runtime conditions, in the general case, not compile-time conditions.
Summary: This is an ad for Backblaze. It adds unlimited versioning backups for your Google Drive etc. Nothing in it was news, if you're already familiar with the difference.
As far as it's ability as an FS mocking layer for tests, I'd think its principle disadvantage would be on FUSE only making sense on UNIX-like systems.
I did that years ago and I've passed multiple hard credit checks. It doesn't do anything.
> (fake edit I looked one of them up from the datasheet and it's $700 for the lowest-tier 1000VA unit lol)

That's the bigger issue, that there's nothing medium price.

I can get a LiFePo4 battery that can do well over a kilowatt for an hour for <$150 with free shipping, and I can get an entire UPS for <$100, but the combination costs so much more.
I agree. Sure in some urban areas a bag of chips is a "quick meal" and those situations I'll look past.

But for the rest... it's a disingenuous excuse.
Ohhh. I misunderstood the example. That would not only depend on a lack of register usage, but depend on where the variables are stored on the stack, which I don’t think anyone could reasonably demand even in 1976.

So I still feel there must be a more reasonable and therefore motivating example of optimizations one would want that are enabled by surprising you with UB. (Which I think was the idea behind this example.)
I need to look more at how tap-to-pay works, because unless it's doing something very clever I'm unclear how that prevents skimmers or other MITM attacks from still working.
The answer is that they literally bought their own law exempting themselves from defamation laws. It's called the "Fair" Credit Reporting Act.

Legislative sanity would see a repeal of the FCRA and the addition of a US equivalent of the GDPR, giving us a right to privacy that's applicable to every single company. I don't consent to being a data subject of any part of the surveillance industry, including this oldest part calling themselves "credit bureaus".
When I do code review I always review the tests first. If they look through and reasonable then I can be a lot less careful reviewing the rest.
> This is yet another article that goes on and on about nonsensical situations that are just shitty code.

> Who cares?

The short flippant answer is: because everyone writes shitty code at some point. It generally doesn't get committed or released, but during development, shitty buggy code with Undefined Behavior happens.

Here's a concrete example of some code that I actually wrote (simplified greatly so it could be a small illustrative example): https://godbolt.org/z/xzehrWE57

Knowing about UB is a useful way to describe what's going on in this code example, and why the compiler is doing what it's doing. If you see your code behaving in "impossible" ways, knowing about UB can give you some hints about where to look.
If the bank failed to apply industry-standard security techniques then yeah, I'd say the bank leaked money. The criminals are obviously the most culpable, but when you're storing more than 100 million SSNs it's not unreasonable to expect your IT department to:

* Update their dependencies within two months of a critical security vulnerability being patched (Mar 7 to May 12).

* In the event of a breach, detect it within a reasonable timeframe (76 days is not reasonable when you're the Fort Knox of financial information).

* Have a reasonably well-segmented network such that a compromise in a single user-facing web app doesn't lead to your entire network being compromised.
I see what you're saying, but that still feels like a participation trophy to me.
No, taking advantage of his partner would be sitting her down and getting her drunk before interrogating her to obtain inside information.

Advantage was taken of the remote working situation which created the possibility to overhear a confidential phonecall.

I'm not against remote work but don't misinterpret reality to push a narrative.
I think that nano-modules of a carbon based aerogel for zinc absorbtion in a aquous fluid is the fixer... but more like - draing the fluid, apply the absorbant, replace fluid -- you dont want it pulling too much zinc from ear, mayhaps:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...

---

>> "Removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions using carbon aerogel as an adsorbent"

-

>>>&Due to its remarkable resistant to atmospheric corrosion, zinc is commonly used to protect iron from rusting, in the process called galvanization. Zinc is widely used for the manufacturing of zinc white and several useful alloys such as brass, German silver, delta metal, for the preparation of gold and silver in the cyanide method, for the desilverization of lead in Parks process and as an anode material in galvanic cells.

>>Various zinc salts are used industrially in wood preservatives, catalysts, photographic paper, accelerators for rubber vulcanisation, ceramics, textiles, fertilizers, pigments, steel production and batteries [24]. Zinc toxicity from excessive ingestion is uncommon but causes gastrointestinal distress and diarrhoea.*

It would seem that if one may be in a 'soluable' regular contact with such items as galvanized metals (such as sheet workers, roofers, construction) in addition to billions of other trades may lead to increase Zinc absorbtion...

In the higher toxicities mentioned above - organ difficulties... but at lower, regular does over time could result in too much free zinc in the body.

---

(f-ton of studies about using aerogels in absorbtion of zinc - so if you could target the inner ear..
To me we are getting a bit away from the point and going into semantics. My point is and was that being tested on easily reference-able knowledge you are able to look up on the job to no penalty is a waste of everyone’s time, in contrast to the gp who stated failing such test in hiring would lead to perhaps not getting the job on account of it.