skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wow thank you for pointing out. It's definitely an interesting read
I think there needs to be a combination of size of country and the degree that they're currently involved in unpopular actions that gives rise to the necessity of such distraction. For small corrupt countries I would definitely find it really weird if they had a lunar program but I would figure that they could more efficiently maintain consent of the governed through more traditional mechanisms and must be doing it for other reasons; perhaps quirky 'big man' of poor country likes to play with rockets.
Do you mean acronym collisions? I think that might just be part of getting older; I started complaining about it around 30, but I am a bit of a complainer anyway.
Why doesn't Equation 1b use the h' defined in Equation 1a?
Looks interesting! What are the advantages (besides the mentioned ones) and what are the disadvantages?
Same; a doctor’s judgment is supported by a system of accountability, which distributes the risk of error beyond the patient to the doctor/medical practice/insure. In contrast, (at least as of today) user facing AI deployments absolve themselves of responsibility with a ToS.
Who knows if that’ll stand up to legal scrutiny, but if I have to bet on something ITT it would be that legal repercussions of bad AI will look a lot like modern class action lawsuits. I look forward to my free year of “AI Error Monitoring by Equifax”.
Sure, but we're not talking about burger flippers at McDs here.

Those definitely cost more and have better working conditions in the UE than the US, but that's OK for McD, because the burgers flipped in the EU by the costlier workforce don't get exported worldwide, but get consumed locally and therefore all this is reflected in local prices for local consumers which have no competition from imports from abroad.

But when we talk about skilled workforce for the semi industry and the products being fungible and exported worldwide, the equation can start to flip.
it's mostly the owners of the AI software doing the swindling isn't it?
C++ version of the approach: https://www.codeproject.com/Tips/29524/Generators-in-C

I am using this in my Sciter, just in case. Works quite well and convenient.
> Now these points of data make a beautiful line.
And we're out of beta.
We're releasing on time.
Given that the majority of scientists seem to be cat owners, and toxoplasmosis has been linked to mental illness, it's not entirely implausible that a (human) bug is slowing scientific advancement.
Funny enough Glibc has a lock for threaded printing internally. You can disable the lock in glibc with the __fsetlocking function and the FSETLOCKING_BYCALLER parameter.

I had a threaded server that we were debugging which would only dump state correctly if we deleted a printf right before in a different thread. Really confused me until I figured this out.
Feeding the output to another inference would probably reduce hallucination? but I have this impression that the models talking to each other don't need to know English, a byte stream would do. Just like the hidden layers of an ANN.
As much as we all use HTML, CSS, and JavaScript; it isn’t 2003 anymore. Most web browsers people use are relatively up to date and automatically updating.

This also means… we aren’t necessarily stuck forever with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. We could make a new scripting language. We could make a new markup language - or, better, explore different paradigms that might be more suitable. Maybe there’s a better way than having a DOM in the first place. We’ll never have that discussion though if people are forever convinced of JavaScript being the pinnacle.

I say this as a person who is more willing to question whether ridiculous levels of abstractions means the underlying technology perhaps needs changes.
So it's Windows in a Linux Docker container. Windows Docker containers are already a thing for a long time. Not the best thing, but they exist.

https://hub.docker.com/_/microsoft-windows-nanoserver
How is this interesting for a coder community?
The concept of “pace layers,” to me, is a way to describe the iterative process:

1. Determine the base requirements.

2. Build the first draft.

3. Determine what parts of the first draft are useful. Capture those in a design guide.

4. Iterate on the parts that were useful but not fully fleshed out.

5. Add refinements to the design guide.

6. Define adjusted and new requirements. Pull in elements from the design guide as applicable, design and build new elements when they don’t exist.

7. Repeat.

(Note: I’m sure I truncated some steps you can fit in the flow)

Design systems are living documentation and a lagged record of solutions that work in context. They are incomplete and will always be missing things but with each subsequent iteration they should continue to evolve and adapt.

The design system moves at a slower velocity than the product development which informs it. This is why the phase layer model works well for me to help describe this iterative process.

This compliments your desire for minimal design upfront and rapid development with engagement and validation with the people who are putting it to use.

Addendum: Added note about layer velocities.

Addendum 2: Fixed a few typos
Companies firing people and hiring more capable people to replace them? What a horrible practice indeed.
I’m a tech person by trade and spent more than a decade in operations - the ones that need to deal with the results of it all. And I can tell you that I’ve met a fair share of developers and ops people that would just ignore all constraints, to the point of blaming management that they required developers (and ops folks) to implement legal requirements. as an example: I’ve worked in an environment that managed sensitive (and legally privileged) data and people would rather circumvent security measures that made their work harder than take security up on the explicit offer to figure out better measures that would put less burden on ops. And the same people complained about the crackdown that followed. Yes, the rules made work harder. Yes, they could have been changed to make things less onerous. But security was reasonable, they were willing to invest time and money to work with the ops folks - so going around the because you know better is a stupid move. Yet people did.
Agreed with that first statement. Some of the things osquery does especially with regards to Linux disk space usage, is frustrating to deal with.
That’s what makes it worse. Go was designed, in a way, as a toy language to solve the assault on the codebase quality by all the fresh graduates Google was hiring. I’m not joking - this is paraphrasing Rob Pike. Go is a language that wastes my time.
It seems like youve mentioned this before, but googling about this only brings up your other comments. Can you elaborate on what the spyware is?
If you can rig the media you don't need to directly rig the election.
A bounty hunter-like crowdfunding system would probably be ideal. I could probably hack together some forum software with each thread being a different crowdfunding campaign. Thanks for the suggestion.
Predictable? In the old days people were yelling left and right that Chinese can't make advanced technology. Then they yelled that they can only copy. Even today many people (including in this very HN thread even...) are still saying that Chinese can only copy and can't possibly make real advanced stuff.

China was in fact contend with the deal of being so far behind in semiconductors as long as they can import them. They could have invested even more in domestic semiconductor development, but chose not to because they assumed that they could just import what they wanted. 10 years ago, the Chinese govt set a target to produce 70% semiconductors domestically, but the Chinese industry didn't cooperate at all because of how easy and cost-efficient it was to import. With these sanctions, they now face an existential threat and thus they must progress. Yes maybe that comes with some spying and copying, but it seems ludicrous to me to focus so much on it. You deprive a person from his source of food and then when, out of desperation, he starts to steal, you complain about his bad morals? That outcome should be the more predictable one.
"social media feels unusual" bro what? I've both spent time at a VC fund and have successfully fundraised as a founder - every partner adds you on LinkedIn bare minimum after a call, twitter was pretty common too
Can you describe how you would have expected peer reviewers to catch this?
How does it compare to FoundationDB? Nether the paper nor the GitHub page mentioned it.
I think that would have helped me the other day. I needed to debug a PWA on safari and i don't own any apple products. So i downloaded a windows VM machine and installed safari on it. It worked out but it was a pain.
I think the diet and lifestyle used to be so drastically different so it's difficult to draw modern parallels.
Sounds like a lot of manipulation techniques described in this book being used:
A little treatise on manipulation for honest people
Book by Jean-Léon Beauvois

I had a psych teacher who shared an anecdote of how she spent a few 100 on Venetian glassware key-rings to gift everyone due to a combination of those techniques, despite knowing and teaching them for years. Knowing something is manipulation and how it works doesn’t make one immune to it. It made no sense to the teacher why she fell for it. She couldn’t really explain it either, except for that is how the techniques work. It uses how your brain functions to shortcut your ability to think rationally, and get you to do something you normally wouldn’t, and that seems obvious in hindsight. You could compare it to hacking someone’s thoughts, except there’s no way to fix vulnerabilities with a software update.
This is going to be really, really, really nice. Signed up for your waitlist. Cheers!
The fact that tweaking parameters which appear to store the board makes it play according to the tweaked numbers instead of what was passed to it the context (i.e. working memory) directly contradicts your assertion that LLMs have no memory. The context is their memory.

I can’t comment on your drug generation task - they aren’t magic, if the training didn’t result in a working drug model in the billions of params you’ll get garbage output, not very surprising.

My point boils down to the ‘what’s more likely’ question: magical stochastic parrots which just by accident manage to create understandable and coherent responses to unreasonably large set of questions or the magic is actually some kind of a world model, or multiple, inside the blob of numbers, outputs of which steer the probabilities, just as this confirmed chess example. My bet is on learned world models because I’m not convinced there’s magic in our physical world.
its also useful when you are building some telemetry agent, since you don't need to parse output of each individual command
The one thing that I thought was a pro for frameworks were all of the compatibility tricks they abstracted away. It allows for your code to be cleaner by not having to constantly use if branches testing the user's browser. It meant that the frameworks update kept up with any new quirks freeing me from constantly researching them and updating my code. My code can stay the same, and my project stays up to date with those quirks by updating the framework.
> Sure, and you can train LLMs to produce answers like that more often, but then users will say your model is lazy and doesn't even try, whereas if you train it to be more likely to produce something that looks like a solution more often, people will think “wow, the AI solved this problem I couldn't solve”.

Are you saying that LLMs can't learn to discriminate between which questions they should answer "I don't know" vs which questions they should try to provide an accurate answer?

Sure, there will be an error rate, but surely you can train an LLM to minimize it?
Your impression is correct. Peer review would never catch this. Peer review basically assumes the counter party is operating in good faith, and as a result a thorough peer review basically is the following:

* is the treatment of existing work semi-thorough (even experts don’t know everything) and fair?

* are the claims novel w.r.t the existing work? If not, provide a reference to someone who has already done it.

* can you understand the experiments?

* do the experiments and their results lead to the conclusions claimed as novel?

* does the writing inhibit understanding of the technical content?

No peer review I have ever seen or done would catch anything but the most egregious bug of this nature.
As long it's not a pandasvirus...
This is a thing people experience at the beginning, but once you get over the hump, for many, it is not descriptive of what it's like.
I work in the industry. While this is theoretically true, in practice it is not.

First, bonds for decommissioning solar sites are required by many programs now. These usually cost 3-5% of total initial investment. Not insurmountable by any means.

In reality, these bonds are unlikely to ever be utilized. Most sites will never be decommissioned unless the owner wants to redevelop the land for something more profitable. The interconnection rights alone are worth way more than the cost of decommissioning.

Recently, repowering solar sites has become a hugely profitable endeavor. Most projects have a 20-30 year power purchase agreement, often at a fixed price per MWh. That initial price was set very high based on the massively more expensive cost of deployment (equipment and install cost about twice as much 10 years ago). Squeezing 20% more capacity out of these projects by repowering these sites with more efficient modules and new inverters, is often a windfall, given the falling costs involved.

That's not to say there are zero issues like the ones described. Like most early stage technology-heavy industries, early solar projects often utilized a lot of "innovative" technological strategies that dead-ended and are therefore much harder to maintain.

But overall this is just not much of an issue in practice.
Well that’s not how I think about children, or how very many if any parents I know think about children. The entire premise of your comment is way off base.
Tooling is also a factor I think. Last time I was playing with writing Swift on Linux, the official LSP with VS Code was alright (surprisingly even supporting debugging) but I found myself wanting a proper IDE.
Some rules are put in place to prevent situations that are extremely unlikely to occur in the first place, but are more catastrophic when they happen. Trying to compare incident rates would not account for how well rounded a system of rules really is. I would suggest that the best course of action would be to follow the advice of our fellow countrymen who drafted these rules, then ask other countries to follow it if they want to sale products in our country.
Terrible, overly eager headline and summary.

If this is modern science, then what a shame.

None of this even strongly or directly indicates that early humans did in fact have ADHD. At best it suggests that ADHD, if someone has it, may provide an edge in terms of gathering resources.

I'm sure you could give similar results for things like autism. This wouldn't automatically suggest, however, that really early humans did in fact have it.
Yes, the Form of a slightly concave disc for your dinner. Your kitchen cabinets contain only imperfect reflections of the True Plate.
Its been fascinating reading through this thread and seeing real world examples of deccelerationism and the despair and pessimism that drives it and those calling for more people, accelerationism and the overall hope for humanity that they carry. Deccelerationism is just depression and surrender.
> coroutines will (often) only use a single core

That's generally the desired behavior. If you have decoupled, parallel workloads they're going to naturally be working on disjoint data. The idea behind coroutines is that you have some kind of local workload with synchronous data that, for whatever reason, is easiest to express "inside out" with a function that gets to loop over something and "push" the results to its abstracted consumer whose code lives somewhere else, vs. the natural functional paradigm where the inner loop is a conceptual "pull" controlled by the caller.
I love JavaScript, but that HTMJS page has to be a joke. Putting that much JavaScript inside an inline onclick event attribute is pretty ridiculous. It's like a blog for how not to use JavaScript.
Frameworks generally don't enable you to do something, they provide a framework in which you can do something you already could, but in a way that's more organized, efficient, extensible, robust, and/or stable. I.e. they enforce rules. You can come up with those rules yourself and follow them ad hoc. All the framework does is programmatically enforce them and abstract away boilerplate (e.g. "define X as a function of declarative state" is a common one, like React for UI).
LLMs literally just place words one in front of another based on a probability and the "goodness" of training data. Of course it's going to make stuff up.
> However, investments in previous decades built such a foundation

To add on to this, China entered the Fab space in the late 90s/early 2000s when vendors in MY, SG, SK, JP, TH, and TW began outsourcing low margins sectors such as Memory, Photovoltaic, Packaging, and OSAT to Guangdong+Fujian in the early 2000s due to falling margins

It takes a generation to build the supply chain needed for precision fabrication, and in certain sectors of the Chip industry (eg. Design) China is still somewhat behind (though it is changing rapidly due to investments in the 2010s).

I'm no wumao, but a lot of the criticism against China's R&D capacity on HN is just plain stupid and show a ridiculous lack of understanding of EECS, business, or East Asia.
Amazon has sales regularly. They basically give them away. $19 is the usual sale price.
Design systems PM for Figma here. What the author is saying here is correct for enterprise-scale companies. To your point where you urge for rapid iteration, if Microsoft launched a new product and needed all buttons to have a dropdown for said new product, would you update MS Word’s buttons to also have that dropdown?
Of course not, and that’s the authors point. Product teams should move and iterate faster than the core design platform. They should be free to break from it for their exploratory needs, and these platform teams shouldn’t bend over backwards to support them.

Another way I like to frame this is the following - a design systems team should support 90% of the use case needs of its products, not 100%. Adding support for that additional 10% often bloats the components and reduces usability and consumption. It’s often not worth that effort. New products are often rapidly evolving, and dwell in that 10% land quite a bit. Let them cook and experiment. If other teams end up adopting the same patterns, that’s when you bring it into the system.
So it’s a Windows VM contained inside a Linux VM and managed by Docker?

Not a bad way to do penetration testing or sandbox a potential worm or malware.
Feedly is great, but it baffles me it still doesn't support notifications on Android. It's strictly pull, and I'm now used to push.
If I understand the abstract correctly (which I very well might not be), I don't think it is saying a bug caused problems across all of science, but that it resulted in an incorrect conclusion in one meta study of disruptiveness in science.
Tendency to try different things to avoid being bored. Either new ways to do old things, or finding new hobbies.

Both can be big advantages.
In case anyone is wondering, it seems it's $35B for land approx to the highway running by this approx right angle triangle of coast:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wvh44SKibJ3JpAQx9

170M m² = 170 km² ~= 18km * 18km (coastlines) / 2 (bisected)
Our hire of a misaligned C-level executive led to divisive tactics and undermined team dynamics, revealing the "Iceberg of Ignorance" where leadership was last to see underlying issues, impacting trust and operational efficiency amidst growth.
I wish most of the software I use wouldn't need access to a GPU. Unfortunately, the only thing keeping me on Windows right now are graphics-related things (Adobe and friends).
Let's say you lock your house's front door with a secure pass phrase while you're still inside. Once per second some stranger walks up to your door and knocks. You now get up from your chair, go to the door and say "Pass phrase please?"

The knocker says "password123" and you say "Wrong, go away." But one second later they come back and knock and you have to get up and go to the door again. And again. And again.

The bad guys never get in because they only try stupid passwords, but the constant getting up and going to the door gets pretty tiresome.

So you get a dog, you put it outside your door and you train it to keep away for one minute any stranger who knocks but fails to get in.

Now you have a lot more peace because you're not getting out of your chair every second to ask the pass phrase from some rando.

Fail2ban is the dog.
It seems you are right. The blog post reads “I've created HTMJS as a *sarcastic* way to express my thoughts.”
Forget responsive design and WYSIWYG... VSCode, Figma, Discord, Slack.. etc.. etc.. can be implemented with html and css and it's a better experience than any other GUI framework for any other platform.
It's a Windows VM running in a QEMU container. No Linux VM, unless the container host is a Linux VM I guess.
I find this snarky comment hilarious while also being disgusted at the implication
That approach will get you 80% of the way there - which for a lot of applications is next to useless.

The problem is that for a lot of chips there aren't any datasheets available. Sure, something like a memory bus is trivial to trace, but how are you going to reason about Unknown Pin #464 coming from Unlabeled IC #4 which seems to randomly have a 500ms pulse on bootup and every few minutes afterwards?
If someone thinks it's a swindle when a woman charges for access to a real person but freedom when a tech company charges for access to a bot, they're really in a competition to see who can avoid giving in to the industry that profits from putting people into that mindset.
This is just the same lazy and dishonest people justifying their decisions as “efficient”.

Shitty, misinformative GPT-written block text. Cheap, Chinese-made, low-QC products on Temu or Amazon. Spammy, low-information SEO-optimized results at the top of Google search. Barely functional code written by an offshore team several corporate entities removed from the end users of that code. Shell subsidiaries to assemble Boeing planes to shift the responsibility of QC from the actual manufacturer.

It’s all the different angles of the same underbelly. Our favorite flavor of capitalism rewards the lowest denominator drivel, and perpetually validates that quantity over quality is a profitable and inevitably attractive trade off at sufficient scale.
People who make addictive social media apps and bureaucratic enterprise software love to glorify their work by lumping it in with vaccines, clean drinking water, and global food distribution in order to claim some of the halo of those obviously beneficial technologies (though claiming “fire and rock tools” is taking that to a hilarious new extreme). I hate to break it to you but you don’t work on any of those things. You work on selling people ads and making it easier for their boss to fire them. That tech is neutral at best relative to these problems you’re claiming and often destructive — ask people in Myanmar about how social media has affected war and violence, for example. Digital technology hasn’t had a demonstrably positive impact on worker productivity let alone mortality, hunger, or war. Start being honest with yourself that working in tech is a lot more like selling carbonated sugar water or making reality TV shows than it is like saving the world.