skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ooo fun an article I hate from the very depths of my soul. Here are my very biased thoughts:

A) any artistic criticism based in “ew it’s so obviously bad that I don’t even need to discuss why it’s bad” is pretty useless to me. As another comment said, I think the new cover is fucking sick.

B) This quote lays out a faulty argument (“analog and digital both require skill, and AI art isn’t the same thing as non-AI art, therefore AI art is bad” doesn’t make any sense):

Recording on tape and recording digitally require different skill sets that are equally difficult to master. Taking a photo with a digital camera and a Polaroid do as well. Creating AI art and actually honing your craft are not the same things. Not even close.

…but more materially, this quote completely misses the point of the discussion. Digital cameras are easier than analog ones. I’m sorry, they just are. Modern analog cameras are easier than old ones are easier than daguerreotypes are easier than drawings are easier than paintings are easier than books are easier than stories over the campfire.

C) Any article aesthetically criticizing the art that some band chooses for their album is goofy. They like it, their fans might, who cares?? I mean, take the very worst album art of all time IMO: The Life of Pablo by Kanye West. In all my criticism of that album, it never occurred to me to make it a normative or objective claim.

D)
AI crap

I don’t love this level of polemic on HN in general. Like, if I responded in kind I don’t think my comment would stay up for long ;)
Given the long, well-documented history of US government shenanigans [0, 1, 2], I would hope for a more thoughtful response to GP's comment. You would have to be somewhat naive to dismiss such claims.

Or perhaps I misunderstood your comment ?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_...

[2] https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-...
Can transformers prove absence of the solution? E.g., did they tried to train them on the unsolvable problems?

I once tried my hands on the PCB routing and here's a simple problem of simultaneous multipath search that is unsolvable:

A.....b
B.....a

A and B are starting points and a and b are goal points, respectively for A and for B. It is a 2xN maze, the orders of stating and goal points are reversed.

The search algorithm sometimes required to prove absence of the solution. A* can do that, transformers? I do not think so.
As we are not cooks and git is not a kitchen, one must take issue with your “literally.” Be wary of ever qualifying an idiom that way, as they are so often prepackaged metaphors, as here!

But your point is otherwise an insight. Coordination is a (the?) salient challenge and opportunity in all sorts of scaled industrial production. Git itself is fundamentally a coordination tool. Small optimizations can enable OOM jumps in scale.

That is to say: managers do have a purpose, though perhaps only the platonic, spherical manager fulfills it adequately.
Anker products are generally good (and they were the first to make consistently-good cables and chargers -- in the early smartphone days, everything non-OEM was junk), but things still break eventually.

Their customer service is supposed to be legendary. If you drop them a (polite) descriptive note, signed with your name and address, I'll bet you a beer that you'll have a new cable in your hands by the middle of next week.
I've been loading up since 2006-2007... every quarter I get more shares from dividends. Also bought META at IPO.

I only had to sell AAPL/META for a downpayment.
> cast iron whose maintenance is a cast-iron bastard.

I have had my cast iron fry pan for thirty years

Very easy to maintain

Very tolerant to abuse

As good as the day I bought it

I have heated it to heroic temperatures for cooking meat, on the stove top and in the oven. All good, just be *very* careful picking it up!
Which, sadly, does not get the support it deserves (for instance it does not seem to support backing up your dev drive - new Windows feature).
The precise claim (I believe) is that the prior update which you had, made some assumptions about the correct way to phrase your perceptions.

That is, you say, for the update, "the probability that this trial came out with X successes given everything else that I take for granted, and also that the hypothesis is true" vs. "the probability that this trial came out with X successes given everything else that I take for granted, and also that the hypothesis is false." So you actually say in both cases the fragment, "this trial came out with X successes."

What happens if it didn't really? Well, the proper Bayesian approach is to state that you phrased this fragment wrong. You actually needed to qualify "the probability that I saw this trial come out with X successes given ...", and those probabilities might have been different than the trial actually coming out with X successes.

OK but what happens if that didn't really, either. Well, the proper Bayesian approach is to state that you phrased the fragment doubly wrong. You actually needed to qualify it as "the probability that I thought I saw this trial come out with X successes given...". So now you are properly guarded, like a good Bayesian, against the possibility that maybe you sneezed while you were reading the experiment results and even though you saw 51, it got scrambled in your head and you thought you saw 15.

OK but what happens if that didn't really, either either. You thought that you thought that you saw something, but actually you didn't think you saw anything, because you were in The Matrix or had dementia or any number of other things that mess with our perceptions of ourselves. So you, good Bayesian that you wish to be, needed to qualify this thing extra!

The idea is that Bayesianism is one of those "if all you have is a hammer you see everything as a nail" type of things. It's not that you can't see a screw as a really inefficient nail, that is totally one valid perspective on screwness. It's also not that the hammer doesn't have any valid uses. It does, it's very useful, but when you start trying to chase all of human rationality with it, you start to run into some really weird issues.

For instance, the proper Bayesian view of intuitions is that they are a form of evidence (because what else would they be), and that they are extremely reliable when they point to lawlike metaphysical statements (otherwise we have trouble with "1 + 1 = 2" and "reality is not self-contradictory" and other metaphysical laws that we take for granted) but correspondingly unreliable when, say, we intuit things other than metaphysical laws, such as the existence of a monster in the closet or a murderer hiding under the bed or that the only explanation for our missing (actually misplaced) laptop is that someone must have stolen it in the middle of the night." You need to do this to build up the "ground truth" that allows you to get to the vanilla epistemology stuff that you then take for granted like "okay we can run experiments to try to figure out stuff about the world, and those experiments say that the monster in the closet isn't actually there."
Non-paywall link: https://archive.is/lyQKi
Bill Bryson has a bit in "Notes from a Small Island" (I think it was?) about how depressing it is that the British keep taking these older beautiful buildings, and then plonking down uncharacteristic, dull modern style steel and glass buildings right beside them, or replacing lower levels with them etc.

It was always something that bugged me as a Brit to some degree, but, of course, as soon as I read that, I noticed just how much of it there was. It's ever where, on almost every high street. A bizarre mishmash of character and "meh".

> The building, recently sold on to the New River Company, is repaired and refitted for use as offices and a bank. The building looks rather less dazzling at ground floor level as a result.

The Angel, Islington is a supreme example. The same goes for the buildings along the road from it. The building above the ground floor has character. The ground floor looks exactly like what you'd see in almost any high street in the country.

Near where I worked in London, plans went up for renovation that I think ended up working out reasonably well, https://maps.app.goo.gl/XSpdfzdyQE4DpTXr8. Where that Metro Bank is, they ripped out everything behind that brick facade, and rebuilt (it badly needed it), then worked to do up the brick, maintaining the original style.

This kept the building in the characteristic style of the neighbourhood, (see https://maps.app.goo.gl/US1GvYA1fCQ9VCZi6 for examples of other buildings in the area that are of similar age), but didn't leave it stuck with the maintenance issues. Of course you can see just beside it where they didn't do that, and shoved something decidedly more modern in place, and completely at odds with the styles of the buildings on either side of it, or across the street from it.
Ah! But ram is a performance requirement, not a simplicity thing. Simple software can often be extremely inefficient with how it uses ram - and complex software can be complex because it makes good use of the underlying hardware.

I 100% want lean, fast software. But software being lean and fast is often at odds with it being simple. As an example, I’ve written a very complex realtime collaborative text editing library in rust that’s about 3000 loc. I’ve also ported the algorithm to JavaScript in about 500 lines. The JavaScript version is simpler by any metric - and it uses about 10x the ram and runs 100x slower than the optimised rust code.

My point is the rust code is better. It sounds like you may agree - at least in part.
> It sounds like you've found some other pens that work well for you if you managed to hand draw hundreds of diagrams.

Yes! Technical pens are great. My first book was all done using a Faber-Castell Pitt pen and my second book was Pigma Microns. I think Pitt pens are my favorite. I also have some Copic Multiliners which I was very excited about but ended up being a little too narrow for my taste.
While I generally agree with you, who has ever counted Google out? We've made fun of Google for lagging while they instead spend their engineering time renaming projects and performing algorithmic white-erasure, but we all knew they're a potent force.

Google has as much or more computing power than anyone. They're massively capitalized and have a market cap of almost $2T and colossal cashflow, and have the ability to throw enormous resources at the problem until they have a competitor. They have an enormous, benchmark-setting amount of data across their various projects to train on. That we're talking like they're some scrappy upstart is super weird.

>As OpenAI moves further from its original mission into capitalizing on its technological lead, we have to remember why the original vision they had is important.

I'm way more cynical about the open source models released by the megas, and OpenAI is probably the most honest about their intentions. Meta and Google are releasing these models arguably to kneecap any possible next OpenAI. They want to basically set the market value of anything below state of the art at $0.00, ensuring that there is no breathing room below the $2T cos. These models (Llama, Gemma, etc) are fun toys, but in the end they're completely uncompetitive and will yield zero "wins", so to speak.
You can watch "Space: 1999" episodes for free (with ads) on the Roku Channel (website or Roku app) or Amazon Prime.

https://therokuchannel.roku.com/details/36be634b1d4e51098a75...
Limiting suffrage is a surprisingly popular point of view in the US these days. You can find high profile advocates for it with a lot of power/status, like Peter Thiel: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

I won't dismiss all these arguments offhand, because there's a lot of valid things to be said about how poorly informed the average voter is. But it troubles me that a lot of people seem comfortable openly saying that maybe things would be better if Those People (substitute group of your choice) weren't allowed to vote, and I see those kinds of arguments from various points on the political spectrum, even if they are often just angry venting i.e. 'if retirees stopped voting that would fix things, since they want bad things'

A specific example I've seen a lot is that climate change would have been fixed already if only The Olds weren't voting, since they (at least according to this PoV) are actively voting against climate measures since they'll be dead before the sea levels rise. Not going to express an opinion on this one.
That's the short version. Blackstone on trespass:

"(Trespass) signifies no more than an entry on another man’s ground without a lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. For the right of meum and tuum, or property, in lands being once established, it follows as a necessary consequence, that this right must be exclusive; that is, that the owner may retain to himself the sole use and occupation of his soil: every entry therefore thereon without the owner’s leave, and especially if contrary to his express order, is a trespass or transgression. The Roman law seem to have made a direct prohibition necessary, in order to constitute this injury: “qui alienum fundum ingreditur, potest a domino, si is praeviderit, prohiberi ne ingrediatur.” But the law of England, justly considering that much inconvenience may happen to the owner, before he has an opportunity to forbid the entry, has carried the point much farther, and has treated every entry upon another’s lands, (unless by the owner’s leave, or in some very particular cases) as an injury or wrong, for satisfaction of which an action of trespass will lie; but determines the quantum of that satisfaction, by considering how far the offense was willful or inadvertent, and by estimating the value of the actual damage sustained."[1]

Except for the carve-out for fox-hunting: "In like manner the common law warrants the hunting of ravenous beasts of prey, as badgers and foxes, in another man’s land; because the destroying such creatures is profitable to the public."

[1] https://lonang.com/library/reference/tucker-blackstone-notes...
It's more than just "hanging out for too long". You have to be clearly occupying the space, and you have to be improving it.

In California, "Adverse possession" requires a lot: You have to occupy a place continuously for 5 years, like how an owner would. You have to pay all taxes on the land for that time. You have to be clearly occupying the land, so it's obvious to all (including the owner). You have to be acting like you are the owner of the land: Getting & paying for electric, water, internet, trash pickup, etc..

So, there's a high bar that has to be met.
I think there are probably 100 startups that have already spun up this very second to tackle this use case and will subsequently go bankrupt once Microsoft adds this feature to Teams.

At least we have the memories we made along the way.
Eh quality is subjective. There are good parts, like Books3 and arxiv, but a large part of it is common crawl which has just about anything people put up on the internet, random IRC chat logs, HN and Reddit shitposts, Youtube subtitles which are in broken English half the time, and of course the Enron corporate email dump to make every model sound like an HR middle manager.
This is like comparing the price of a sewing needle to a needle in an atomic force microscope. The beam is not what's expensive. It's the requirements set by what you're using the beam for.

For photolithography you're steering the beams with such precision that it results in one of the most accurate manufacturing processes known to man, in vacuum chambers, performed in cleanrooms, involving purities in the tens of part per billion for the materials involved.

That sort of accuracy isn't required when blasting garbage. Electron beams are how old CRT TV's worked, which were in nearly every home. If you have access to a vacuum chamber, you could order the parts off Amazon, if you want to DIY. You can also just go buy an electron beam welder and be done with it.
antiorp
Not sure how to word this without getting too weird, but It's certainly possible to identify well over a dozen people by smell alone — not just friends/family that one spends a lot of time with, but also attractive people.
Use animal fat

Cheap, and better than the best vegetarian oil IMO
Is there some misalignment of HN title and abstract? The title
mentions Globalisation and the abstract does not, but instead relates
populism to economic conditions. Is a link merely implied?

I did not read the full paper yet.
This comment just unlocked a new fear of mine.

I specifically got a custom domain and email address for any non-personal/"professional" comms, which is essentially just me@<custom-domain-featuring-my-name>.com.

At least with non-ASCII characters in passwords, while I think it is stupid to not handle those properly, I can at least see some sort of an excuse there, no matter how weak it is. All it takes to mess this up is not thinking about handling those scenarios, so I can definitely see "this issue was created due to us not thinking about this possibility or not willing to deal with handling it."

But what's even the reason to not allow sub-3-character local portions of emails? How does one even mess those up, aside from intentionally setting some triggers for less than 3 characters in local portions of email addresses?
Do not worry. They will soon enough do something about you too. That's the point.
> Then, in turn, our brains are not hardwired to associate specific smells to specific objects.

I think you are speculating cause.

Culturally we tend not to communicate much about smells - it could just as easily be that most of us have the ability but it is never trained because it isn't much use to us.

Anecdotally I know people with a wide range of different olfactory abilities.

It is interesting to try and think of how we could test for the ability. Perhaps not testing for my pencil, but something else - a child - a dog - shoes - urine.
> too busy, can't meet my unrealistic targets

At least that could explain why the driver showed up to the address without dropping off the package. If finding the package takes a non-trivial amount of time, it would add up over the course of the day.

It's otherwise just wild to me that the driver did 99% of the delivery and just noped out of the last 1%.
We need a word for these snake-swallowing-its-tail indirect abstractions we keep building. I have problem X, so I solve with abstraction a. Then I have problem Y, so I build b on a. Then to solve Z I build c on b on a. Then we discover a problem that is actually just X again, but rather than use a to solve we build d on c on b on a to solve it.

I remember installing enterprise java beans to support my soap wsdl 16 years ago. Meanwhile shopify built a basic Rails app using http verbs and killed the product I was using.
You're welcome! People always assume I drew them digitally somehow, but nope, literally on paper with pencil and pen. Here's a video I put together showing the process:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN1MsCXkPSA
95% of the programmers do not know hackernews. They finished their degree in Java and thats what they do their entire career. Noway they can rebuild an entire facebook. Not everyone is an all stack hacker developer, infra structure specialist like many folks here
That's the main reason. Everything else is mostly post-facto justification.

Incidentally, that was also the event that seemed to start Firefox's long decay.
The video argues that yes, greater awareness has happened, and also, we have widened our pathological categories to include normal functioning. First we invented autism (etc), then we widened the definition(s).

Widening the disorder criteria seems to cause more harm than good. We could already improve ourselves without identifying as disordered. And we usually do better when we identify as normal, healthy humans.

Fortunately, we can recognize the absurdity of the widening criteria and opt-in to identifying as normal, like most people are.
If they’re susceptible to injections this is the absolute least of their problems. In fact their DB is already dropped.
Lots of non-tech people use these tools too.

The complaint is more that AI companies are misrepresenting what their AI is and can do, leading to unrealistic expectations.
I'm not saying it's wrong that some of the federal land is inaccessible, but there is so much BLM land that is accessible that it would take you a lifetime to exhaust visiting all of it.

But also, the corner crossing thing is really dumb. Why did the federal government establish a checkerboard pattern? Either way, they should just eminent domain 20 feet off the corners and call it a day.
Working on big projects is difficult af.

The context width required for programming exceeds that of normal human beings. There is just A LOT of stuff to keep track of, it's not logic that's difficult that's the easy part.
I definitely did not originate the ANIMAL game notion. I probably mentioned that in my LispNYC talk recently, but also it's discussed as an incidental matter in a blog post from 2010 where I was reviewing Jaron Lanier's "You Are Not a Gadget": https://web.archive.org/web/20131102031307/http://open.salon...

TL;DR I learned to program in a world almost devoid of computers, but we had occasional magazines and books that talked about what computers would do and I saw mention of an ANIMAL program and thought it'd be fun to write one. My first attempt was in BASIC, and the difficulties I had primed me to like Lisp when it came along. A long series of implementations resulted from that, and there's a Lisp origin story for me that you should see the LispNYC talk to get in fuller form, but it was important to me in how I ended up a Lisper at all.
I used to work in gasification, and my understanding is that Plasma gasification has not reached net positive. You use up about as much electricity producing the plasma as you gain from burning the syngas in a generator. Normal gasification on the other hand, which uses oxygen to do the pyrolysis is very much net positive. It's sad to me that this technology hasn't taken off, as you can produce a tremendous amount of electricity and hot water from waste streams such as agricultural waste, woody biomass and trash. Not to mention if you bury the biochar it is carbon negative.
There are some where I think you’re right, and some where there is pretty clearly some genuine communication going on. You might want to watch a few more.
It's not. But I'm also making a judgment call and neither of us knows or can even evaluate what percent of these queries are "a waste."

I'm flying with my family from New York to Florida in a month to visit my sister's side of the family. How would I objectively evaluate whether that is "worth" the impact on my carbon footprint that that flight will have?
3% of the internet is still an incredibly large amount of people.
Just walked by for the first time in years.

I was surprised to see the buildings across the road demolished and Jamie Oliver restaurant is now called 411 bar.
Using “populism” to describe traditional mindsets is a clever rhetorical trick. You don’t need a label to describe the desire of people to protect local industries and not have foreigners come live in their country. That’s just how most people in the world have felt historically, and how most people in the world still feel.

If you look at China, most of the rest of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc., those things are no-brainers. What requires a label is the new thing. The new idea that embraces freedom of movement of capital, goods, and labor, across national borders. “Populism” is nothing more than the opposition to this new, unlabeled thing.
It absolutely isn't a niche. People "buy bitcoin" in apps on their smartphones without even knowing what a wallet or private key is.