skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Perhaps there should be domains of focus for the test LLMs - even if they are clones, but assigned to only a particular domain, then their results have to be PR's etc...

Why not treat every LLM as a dev contributing to git such that Humans, or other LLms need to gatekeep in case something like that happens? (start by treating them as Interns, rather than Professors with office hours)
Exactly correct. Nonetheless, a prosecution was indeed brought, and the opinion you're citing is an appeal. Without the EFF's financial support, weev would not be a free man.
These commits can be deleted via `git gc`. Which part if GitHub's "architecture" prevents them from running that?
I wrote a simple LLM backed chat application. My primary usage right now is to copy paste the code I have written (Java and Python) into the chat and ask it to generate unit test cases. I think it has reduced my development time a huge amount. It also generates tests for edge cases. The generated code usually are usable 90% of the time. It also is very good at making mocks for service calls. I'm using Claude 2.1 model with Bedrock.

It's nowhere as fancy as FB tool but I know it is blessed by company.
> But the bigger issue is that utilities are not incentivized to look for cheaper, more efficient solutions like reconductoring because they profit off capital spending.

I have no knowledge of how the regulatory funding mechanism works for US utilities, but I can say from experience that the UK regulator really does push for networks to find the minimum cost solution.

There are other measures that can be taken before restringing. At a high level, these are the things that can be done to alleviate an overhead line constraint:

* Are there any viable operational mitigations - i.e., can the normal running arrangement of the network be modified, such as transferring load on to another substation?

* Are flexibility/demand response services an option?

* Line reprofiling (changing fittings on towers, clearing vegetation) to run the line at a higher temperature
> I don’t think government should do it at all.

I'd want a non-profit to handle it. I'd want full public disclosure of internal processes, data sources and data buyers. I'd want strong, unhindered oversight provided by a fully independent public board along with separate oversight provided by the FTC - with oversight entities able to exhort meaningful influence over methods, sources and customers.
Lesson for US customers: If you really want your shipment to be delivered, add a bullet or a pinch of gunpowder to the shipment.
I really don’t think the issue with RAG is the size of the context window. In your example, the issue is selecting which papers to use, because most RAG implementations rely on naive semantic search. If the answer isn’t to be found in text that is similar to the user’s query (or the paper containing that text) then you’re out of luck. There’s also the complete lack of contextual information - you can pass 100 papers to an LLM, but the LLM has no concept of the relationship between those papers, how they interact with each other and the literature more broadly (beyond what’s stated in the text), etc. etc.
Yeah, there are many, many reasons why Back is not and cannot be Satoshi. These emails also provide more evidence that Satoshi was what would later be called a “Big Blocker” in favor of on-chain scaling and minimal tx fees set by nodes independently (though likely converging). Back is famously a Small Blocker who employed all the major Small Blocker devs with Blockstream, which ended up effectively controlling Bitcoin Core. Thankfully, we still have Bitcoin Cash following Satoshi’s intended path for scaling.
There's obviously two sides to the issue, right? Or else there wouldn't be any debate. Or else no companies would do RTO. Why is it that in multiple years of reading HN I've never once seen an article that covers the other side's position? Why is it that the reporting is 100%, completely, always biased in one direction? It's like this across whole swaths of topics, not just about RTO.

Wouldn't we prefer forums of communication that were unbiased and which fairly discussed the props/cons of each point of view? Or do we really just prefer the echo chamber / propaganda / dogpile approach?
That message was from Martti Malmi to Satoshi.
It's a sign of quality. If you get a sine wave UPS, it probably is more robust in general. OTOH, for conventional UPS, unless you're knowledgeable enough and do lots of research, it can be hard to differentiate between a good UPS or one on which the lack of sine wave is just the tip of the cost-cutting iceberg.
UB is not an event that happens. It’s an assumption baked into the design of the compiler.

For example, on 64-bit arch if you index arrays by an int, compiler can use CPU’s 64-bit addressing modes even when they don’t overflow when 32-bit int would. The compiler is taking advantage of it all the time. It wouldn’t make sense to warn about every array, but OTOH the compiler can’t know at compile time if your pointer arithmetic will ever overflow an int.
Based. Small blockers forced themselves into bad positions to keep control.
The hidden extra cost of sales tax and tip when you go to pay in America feels very much like a scam. I don't understand why the cost is not just exactly as advertised like everywhere else.
Has bitcoin done either of these laughable things within any plausibility?
Well we do have game engines for a while now.
Maybe a game engine with a chat interface would do a better job
“ In August 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury blacklisted the service, making it illegal for US citizens, residents and companies to use.” [0]

Regardless of how you feel about it, you can’t deny that they were doing something illegal under US law, and a consequence of that is that the Feds can come down on you, even if the law seems ad hoc and unfair.

[0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_Cash
How would it interact with or extend home assistant?
Oh, "go woke go broke". Disney+ is a HUGE hint. That campaign is practically all I remember about the service, since I've never used it. I'm not sure how it applies to Vice though, they've been left-wing fridge and edgy from the get-go. There was no "went woke" moment for them as far as I know. They are broke though, you have that part right. I suppose if you lump all left-wing media into "go woke" then, sure. I don't think this place is hostile to anti-woke phrases though. If you follow this places creator @paulg on twitter or search his mentions of "woke mob" I would have guessed HN was on the other side, or at least accepting of it.
The problem isn’t overflow, the problem is the backwards logic of the compiler assuming there will never be any execution that leads to overflow, so the code that overflows just vanishes completely.

In other words,

bool overflowed = (x+1)<x;

should be meaningful. It may or may not do what you want on any given architecture, but it shouldn’t just be assumed false.
I think your last couple sentences is the reality. You are expected to be quick at your job and you don't have much time to think about each package. Was that a pretty heavy package you just put on top of a fragile one? That's unfortunate, but the company just doesn't give you the time to do it properly. And the company is okay with accepting that risk at the customers expense.
I don't know what you guys think but this tool is awesome!
>All in all, a DVD-size version of the new disc has a capacity of up to 1.6 petabits—that is, 1.6 million gigabits. This is some 4,000 times greater data density than a Blu-ray disc and 24 times that of the currently most advanced hard disks.

1.6 petabits is 0.2PB, or 200TB. The highest shipping density hard drive is 22TB or 30TB depending on whether you are consumer or cooperate customer. But even with 22TB is is only 9 times. Not 24 times.
This is the both sides fallacy
There's definitely scarcity if you look around.

Check out the housing and infrastructure in Nigeria.

About ~2B people globally are in that situation or worse.
Highly recommend doing this - also if you think your employer is reporting data to The Work Number (highly probably if they use ADP), ask them for information on your employee profile. Equifax has lied to me about the existence of my profile even though they did, in fact, have data on me. Only when my employer told me the identifiers for my profile did I find out that they had previous data on me and I was able to opt-out.
but making employees miserable is the point isn't it?
It shouldn't be surprising. Just take a look at pachinko for the modern day version.
Out of interest, since you seem really knowledgeable: is there any reason no one ever mentions shipping VT fuzes to Ukraine? They seemed to work really nicely in the Battle of the Bulge, and the US is likely to have a vast stockpile of Cold War era fuzes. If they make the sparse shells even marginally more effective, it'd probably be worth it, yet there is not a whisper of their existence.
UB is far from the only source of systems not doing the desired thing - writing code that ends up at UB is as wrong as writing code that was written with an incorrect understanding of the invoked behavior.

Sure, the neat trick of a+1<a not working is perhaps undesirable, but, even if signed addition was defined to wrap, in most contexts an "a+1" subtracting four billion is not gonna be the specific thing you want it to do in your system.

Alternatively, signed overflow could be defined to return exactly 31415, which would be very concrete defined behavior, but barely if at all more useful compared to it being UB.
The last time I used scuttlebutt was at chaos computer camp in 2019. It was neat and peculiar.
Having seen Bunny for a few years on social media, I'm not convinced.
Multi modal LLM already excel at theses sorts of tasks. Try taking a picture of your kitchen and ask chatgpt where to find the beer.

I use this quite a lot actually. Being lazy I take photographs of components and boards and ask it how to wire them to my esp32. It’s able to distinguish the board, chip, etc, as well as the pinouts from a set of photos and tell me what wires to where and anything of note. It’ll often even suggest helpful libraries for the parts. It’s essentially magic.
I think that people will stop yelling "hypocrite!" once they themselves get repeatedly get called out on the same by others.

Our reactions to stuff like that are defined largely by our cultural expectations, but those are in turn constantly shaped by what is made possible or impossible by technology. Back in the pre-voicemail phone era, for example, people would routinely call someone and expect them to be available for a half-hour chat - you could turn it down, sure, but in many cases it would be considered impolite to do so as a matter of social convention. Then voicemail appeared, and SMS was the final nail in that coffin.

So I think that this problem will exist for a while, but if the tech that enables it persists long enough, it will eventually go on as conventions change to adapt to it.
Having a 'regular doctor' can significantly reduce GP workload: study
I learned on a PC, and we were taught that way initially also. I still think it makes sentences easier to read, so still do it. Though usually on mobile it's .nn because that's where my thumb always wants to land.
"This is precisely the kind of vacuous ..."

So I am devoid of anything? Nice. I slapped "only" within quotes to imply that there is more going on and a lot more complexity than implied by a naked reading of my comment. I'm sorry you missed that.

There is no notion of a bound or even intelligence for a LLM. It is a tool and no more - we know how they work - that is defined and we run our own. We can marvel at what looks like intelligence from the outputs but it isn't that. They can be enbiggened ad-nauseam but I very much doubt we'll get intelligence per se.

You might disagree with my arguments but please don't describe me as vacuous.
Except the decline of Argentina started with the 1930 coup, which the US had nothing to do with. Then there were four other coups the US wasn’t involved in.
Unless well separated, this will easily turn developer-hostile by some clueless management demanding high coverage and enthusiastic juniors smuggling in massive amounts of AI tests so that at the end of the day you will need get a rubberstamp from an hard-to-maintain llm-gen test code each time you want to submit your work.

Yes authoring some tests might be sped up but not necessarily maintaining them - or maintaining the code under test because you are not necessarily generating good ones. Not to mention sweating over tests usually help developers with checking the design of the code early on too; if not very testable, usually not a good design either, e.g not sufficiently abstracted component contracts which suck in a context where you need to coauthor code with others.

What some people miss is that tests are supposed to be sacrifical code, that most of which will not catch anything during their lifetime - and that is OK because it gives an automated peace of mind and saves from potential false clues when things fail. But that also means max investment into a probabilistic safeguard is not gonna pan out at all times; you will always have diminishing marginal utility as the coverage tops. Unless you're writing some high traffic part of the execution path - e.g. a standard library - touting high coverage is not gonna pay off.

Not to mention almost always an ecology of tests need be there - not just unittests but integration, system etc - to make the thing keep chugging at the end of the day. Will llm's sit at the design meetings and understand the architecture to write tests for them too? Or what they can do will be oversold at the expense of what should be done. A sense of "what is relevant" is needed while investing effort in tests - not just at write-time but also at design-time and maintain-time - which is what humans are pretty OK at, and AI tools are not.

What llms can save time with is keystrokes of an experienced developer who already has a sense of what is a good thing to test and what is not. It can also be - and has been - a hinderance with making the developers smuggle not-so-relevant things into the code.

I don't want an economy of producing keystrokes, I want an appropriately thought set of highly relevant out keystrokes, and I want the latter well separated from the former so that their objective utility - or lack thereof - can be demonstrated in time.
> but doesn't seem to appreciate the extent to which this re-centralizes the network

The difference is that anyone or any group of people can challenge that centralization at any time, and the centralization is never monopolistic (e.g., you cannot completely reject transactions even if you control most of the miners). You'd have to control near 100% of the miners and somehow prevent everyone from booting up a new miner forever.
They style of dissertations is dictated by the program not the authors style.
The other side of the issue is extroverts wanting to extrovert, managers worrying about losing out on the watercooler aspect of career advancement, and the collective will of companies with commercial real estate holdings not wanting to crash that particular market. Cities want it because there are plenty of businesses that rely on office workers buying food etc in downtown cores.

None of those have anything to do with the quality of life of employees or benefit to the company productivity wise. That’s why nobody cares.
Negative, that comes from Azure AD, or Cognito, or Keycloak, or whatever.

The users name, email, phone, location, avatar pic, department, etc all comes over in the SAML payload.
the screenshots of people replying to him who clearly know he's not slackbot, including calling him Tom, kind of contradict the headline here. he was clearly not "undetected".

we've got some former staff in our slack still. they check in and say hi every now and then, it's nice. if one of them started pretending to be a snarky slackbot one day, we'd probably have a laugh about it too.
Boss said to write a stupid prompt, employee knew better than to argue.
It's also interesting that Bitcoin still works despite said critiques. It still allows people to transfer funds digitally in a censorship resistant way.

The only "failing" is that Bitcoin is not a stable long term investment (which wasn't its design goal to begin with).
EcoFlow has non continuous output. Shouldnt be a problem for PC, but some loads ae sensitive to it:

EcoFlow Delta Pro - RTFM Dummy! EEVblog2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JT8M8v_zNg

Bluetti dos much better:

Bluetti AC500 / B300S Power Bank - Review & Teardown mikeselectricstuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuEO17uvI8M
I want to like Bojack and I know it has drama and heartfelt moments (watched all of season 1 I think), but in my opinion it's undone by its moments of "wacky" humor. I don't even mean that there are humanoid animals and humans living together, no explanation -- I can embrace that. I mean the Simpsons/Family Guy kind of humor... I could do without it and I think it would make the show better.

Or maybe it does get better after season 1? Since everyone seems to love it.
Love it but I will insist on grandad or I will set the girls (grand-daughters) on you ... and they are merciless 8)
I'm not even sure if Sinema is really running, and Manchin definitely isn't.
what I believe are safe predictions (no dates, to make them extra safe).

- total market size will go up
- Nvidia's market share will go down
- Nvidia's profit margin will go down

The trillion dollar question then is whether the uplift from #1 is bigger than the downdraft from #2 and #3.
If it were me I’d just make a web page that makes the display and shows it on the TV. With WebGL there is little limit on what you can do.
I think there is a simple solution to the thought experiment in the beginning, ignoring the paragraphs upon paragraphs of EY liking the sound of his own voice: The information content of each experiment consists of more than just the stated number of patients tested and success rate. In particular, each experiment report I notice is strong evidence that someone actually used humanity's limited resources to perform that experiment, and slightly less strong evidence that they actually followed the stated procedure. Therefore, the completion of the "stop when I have a high enough success rate" experiment should cause me to update in favour of people with the means to actually running such an experiment, and hence make it more likely that at this very moment there are other research groups out there that are like 1000 patients in and have not yet gotten their 60% success rate.
The reason why AGW is such a big threat is because it causes Sun's energy output to be trapped more effectively. Even if we collectively dumped every single joule of energy we generated into the environment, we'd still be miniscule compared to that.

Note however that it can have local effects - e.g. if you use water from natural sources to cool your datacenter and then dump it back into the environment, it can easily raise up the water temperature enough to affect the ecosystem around. This can also have far-reaching effects - e.g. say you do that in a river where salmon from far away comes to spawn...
Not quite, it’s the fact that if you have to assume the UB condition and make behavior defined for that condition, then you can’t apply certain optimizations, and/or you have to generate extra code to detect and handle the UB condition.

In any case, it would mean that existing programs that do not exhibit UB (but that contain expressions that could be UB when executed in the context of a different program) would suddenly compile to less efficient code. It’s not surprising that compiler vendors have little interest in agreeing to such changes to the C standard, which effectively would mean a performance regression for their compilers.

You can’t change the situation without either forfeiting some performance or changing existing programs.

This is how UB came about in the first place, in the first ANSI C version. Everything the compiler vendors couldn’t agree on to specify even just an implementation-defined behavior for, became UB.
Honestly somebody should put a bounty to be paid of course in BTC for definitively identifying Satoshi. With enough incentive I’m sure can be figured out. Recent AI improvements should be able to be used to scan all his/their writings and code.
What’s this like? The architects I work with throw together a shitty flow chart that is very high level, say, “here it is,” and then I need to figure out the other 90% to make it work. I basically ignore everything they give me, because it’s completely useless and lacks all understanding of what we’re trying to do. I then give them something that works, and if they want to update their flowchart to reflect reality, that’s up to them… they never do.

They also tell me, “this is the payload your API needs to accept,” and ignore the fact they half of what they are sending has never and will never be used by anything. It’s just needless complexity I add to get them to stop having meetings about it.

Are architects supposed to actually give me something I can work with and make my life easier? I’ve never experienced this, but I work in a very dysfunctional organization.
We’re sorry … sorry we got caught
Amazingly, without changing either the title or the overall positive tone of the article.
Jqjq – Jq Implementation of Jq
Why, so they can destroy even more of the US? My home stated was basically ruined thanks to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Logistics and support still (more?) important today...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmM5KSoW2qA
Worth noting that glucose meters are OTC. Continuous monitoring solutions generally seem to require a prescription, though there are telehealth companies that will help you sort that out. According to the article what the FDA really objects to is “non-invasive” glucose monitoring devices of any sort, on the grounds of general lack of evidence of accuracy.
> Bank transfers are free in my country even cross country.

So why do people pay so much money for wires?

Your entire post basically boils down to "Bitcoin does not provide any advantages for me". Hey, good for you then! Recognize that there are billions of humans that are not you and move on.

Perhaps one day, you will need to make a one time transfer with Bitcoin and you'll be glad that there's no way to censor you for your past Bitcoin-doubting ways, by design.
Season 1 is definitely the weakest season, especially at the start. There's definitely still wacky humour in the rest of the show, but it loses the family guy cutaway gags.

I'd personally recommend giving season 2 a shot, if you still don't like it then the shows probably not for you.
I’m saying that do this officially as a normal federal job would still be an improvement over them getting the same advice over drinks at the country club, and paying normal wages means non rich people can accept those jobs.

Think about it this way: say you get your wish and we zero out the staff budget. The guys who were going to put their signature on the latest draft from ALEC are going to do it anyway because you don’t need advisors for that. The impact of not having those positions would fall on anyone who _isn’t_ just following the big lobbying groups - the staffers are the ones who are going to give them alternatives to consider and think about what they’re not hearing from the well-funded lobbying organizations.
It's unlikely this will be useable for AI, however
Maintainers: The stars of the US Air Force (Featuring the F-16) (2022)