skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've had it do plenty of math. Some it does badly at, some it does fine. Generally it's not "disciplined" enough to do things that requires lots of rote repetitive tasks, but neither are most humans, and that has improved drastically as they've adjusted it to instead do what most humans do and use tools. Would it be nice if it also got more willing to "stick to it" when given rote tasks? Sure.

But whether or not it can "do maths" to your definition depends very much on what you want it to do, and how you define "do maths". To me it's irrelevant if it's doing the low-level calculations as long as it knows how to express them as code. If I wanted a calculator I'd use a calculator. And I don't consider a calculator able to "do math" just because it can precisely add numbers.

Meanwhile I've had lengthy discussions with GPT about subjects like orbital mechanics and calculating atmospheric effects where it correctly used maths that I had to double-check not because I didn't trust GPT (though I also want't to verify for that reason) but because I didn't know the maths (not that it was anything particularly advanced, but I lost interest in maths during my CS degree and picked the minimum amount of maths I could get away with).

By my definition it can "do maths" just fine. I guess you don't consider my view of that "reasonable". I can live with that, as meanwhile, it will keep doing maths for me when I need it.

Of course this was also a case of moving the goalposts to set up a strawman - in the comment of yours I replied to, you claimed it couldn't reliably add two numbers.
It sounds like a new c-level executive just got hired and found a 'great way to increase profits'.
if you don’t mention why - it can’t be under scrutiny!
Is it possible to maintain this kind of lifestyle if you are not a millionaire?
I mean, you do realize that there is more to an economy than software? Which is basically either retail or ad selling anyway?
> that they're usually politically motivated feel-good marketing distractions

most of them where not

especially if you look at resource distributions

Like tab containers, browser sync, firefox SSO, VR, FirefoxOs, Pocket, the send file thing, relay, VPN, privacy preserving Translation, TTS, reader mode, pdf.js.

Non of them are "politically motivated feel-good marketing distractions" but bets to diversification (which also mostly failed for one reason or another) (and yes Pocket contains political motivated nonsens in it's recommendation system, but by itself isn't a politically motivated features, but a feature I would want to see more of deeper integrated into FF, just REALLY without the recommendation system and a somehow more natural part-of-FF felling UI/UX).

I mean sure that color theme nonsense was politically motivated feel-good nonsense. But using that as point to get hung up on is exactly what the OP comment meant, people tend to be very selective about remembering things so that they fit their narrative.
There is likely nothing 1nm in this 1nm process.
Full on enshittification
>So for instance the Space Shuttle was only retired in 2011. After all was said and done it ended up costing $1.6 billion per launch - about $30,000 per pound of payload. The Falcon Heavy costs about $0.1 billion (in reusable mode) and brought the costs down to less than $700/lb.

Is that an apples-to-apples comparison? Each shuttle launch cost $1.5 billion when including development cost (that is, $200 billion in total spending on the STS program / 135 launches); as your link discusses, the incremental cost per launch was "merely" $450-500 million. The $0.1 billion figure per Falcon Heavy launch is only the incremental cost since we don't know how much Falcon Heavy cost to develop (And how to account for the Falcon 9 development costs that Heavy is heavily based on?). Obviously Falcon 9/Heavy has every potential for launching far more times than the shuttle, further reducing the development cost allocated to each launch (or at least, until Starship gets going I guess). But we ought to be as accurate as possible in comparing Falcon and STS.
>Fundamentally they are betting that their food demand is inelastic enough that they’ll make more money overall. That just feels more exploitative and is going to be harder to market.

To be fair I think it's less exploitive than Ubers prices surging during a terror attack..
Once again, the "process size" are marketing numbers. There's no actual feature measuring 1nm.

The actual transistors are around 40nm across [1]. They change the geometry of the features, either the shape of the transistor gate or even the method of power delivery. All really incredible features and worthy of awe. Just not actually making transistors with finger-countable number of atoms.

[1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/2_nm_process
Comments Are Code (2018)
> in a perfect world each unit would do the obvious thing without many different paths throught it.

I don't think that's realistic, even in an imaginary perfect world.

Even a single pure function can have complex logic inside it, which changes the output in subtle ways. You need to test all of its code paths to ensure that it works as expected.

> In such a perfect world, the integration test could trigger most (all?) paths through the unit and separate unit-tests would not add value.

This is also highly unlikely, if not impossible. There is often no way for a high-level integration test to trigger all code paths of _all_ underlying units. This behavior would only be exposed at the lower unit level. These are entirely different public interfaces.

Even if such integration tests would be possible, there would have to be so many of them that it would make maintaining and running the entire test suite practically unbearable. The reason we're able and should test all code paths is precisely because unit tests are much quicker to write and run. They're short, don't require complex setup, and can run independenly from every other unit.

> But: In a bigger project you don't only want to know "if" there is a problem, but also "where". And this is where the value of unit tests comes in.

Not just in a "bigger" project; you want to know that in _any_ project, preferably as soon as possible, without any troubleshooting steps. Elsewhere in the thread people were suggesting bisecting or using a debugger for this. This seems ludicrous to me when unit tests should answer that question immediately.

> Also you can map requirements to unit tests, which also has some value (in some projects at least)

Of course. Requirements from the perspective of the API user.

> now that I think about it, you can also map requirements to e2e tests.

Yes, you can, and should. But these are requirements of the _end_ user, not the API user.

> That would probably even work much better than mapping them to unit-tests would.

No, this is where the disconnect lies for me. One type of testing is not inherently "better" than other types. They all complement each other, and they ensure that the code works for every type of user (programmer, end user, etc.). Choosing to write less unit tests because you find them tedious to maintain is just being lazy, and finding excuses like integration tests bringing more "bang for your buck" or unit tests "slowing you down" is harmful to you and your colleagues' experience as maintainers, and ultimately to your end user when they run into some obscure bug your high-level tests didn't manage to catch.
Are they going to pay their employees more during surge? I worked food industry as a teenager with a stint in fast food- it can be crazy, you get physically and mentally tired, from both moving quickly but from the increased number of angry customers. Hazard pay!
I think this is great! It may not work if you're trying to build a five-minute-a-day daily habit, it may not work for everyone, but there's def something to it! There's also a pattern of some pretty productive people making playlists of a few upbeat but simple songs they'd never listen to otherwise, and putting that on repeat when they go heads-down on something, see e.g. one of my favorite examples: https://ryanholiday.net/the-guilty-crazy-secret-that-helps-m...
It's not a meaningless slogan, it means to consider the balance between economic growth vs potential damage caused by growth as a goal.

Consider the case for food, you can remove regulations and let it be a free for all race to the bottom to who can produce the most food for the cheapest price without a care about the environment, food safety or how sustainable it will be; or you can try to regulate known externalities that will cause an increase in costs, prices but will reduce damages to society as a whole.

Or the case for heavy industry, you can deregulate everything and not care about worker safety, environmental impact, and allow factories to be placed near water reservoirs with no water treatment; or you try to zone out factories to places with less impact to populated areas, require them to treat waste, impose restrictions on how they should gas out potential harmful by-products (CO2, sulfides, etc.).

The whole point is to strike a balance between economic growth and not allowing this growth to be detrimental to society in the long-term, it's a pretty damn complex task and a whole apparatus exist around it exactly because it's not simple.

If this is meaningless to you then I'm sorry but we have very different worldviews to how economic growth should be attained; I'd much rather have societies thinking about this rather than purely pushing economic growth at all costs, damned be the ones suffering from its side-effects.

> Ultimately without profits and a productive economy the citizens' wellbeing will become unaffordable and take a nosedive. This is already happening throughout Europe.

I don't believe it's happening throughout Europe, it's still one of the richest places on the entire Earth, it might be lagging behind the USA's and China's growth but both of these societies suffer much more the side-effects of their growth (and push those onto humanity as a whole when considering emissions of greenhouse gasses).
OK. For clarity, I am not anti-hash or anything.

For instance, we could still embed the hash in the directory name, in much the same way that many Linux programs use build numbers.

/gonix/apps/console/editors/vim/9.1~246dea34451dbdda21

The core things that I'm getting at here are:

1. Put the human-readable part first because humans see that first.

2. Retain hierarchical layouts. For humans this makes things more manageable and accessible, while for programs, as long as it's computationally-parseable the impact is negligible.

3. Lean in to the hierarchy. If it's necessary to duplicate slightly different versions of dependencies for different programs, then put them inside that program's hierarchy. That's one of its reasons for existing.

4. Embed the hash anywhere a simple regex can find it, no problem; tab-completion can sort that out.

All I am trying to suggest is that a Nix/Guix/successor/replacement type tool could focus more on ordinary joes who find it hard to remember the difference between `/bin` and `/usr/bin` as it is, and make stuff human-readable first and machine-readable second.
>These days I don't have time for Nintendo's nonsense.

But you have time to play their games, apparently?
> Fundamentally they are betting that their food demand is inelastic enough that they’ll make more money overall. That just feels more exploitative and is going to be harder to market.

Yeah, I have no idea how they can sell this to the consumer. I have to pay more for food at supper time? Why would I want to pay for that? You're asking me to eat earlier or later to soften the demand curve, but why am I choosing fast food if I don't want convenience?
It's so sensible it makes me weep. Deduplicating multiple copies of a library can be done by the filesystem if you consider it really necessary, it is after all a file-level redundancy and should be solved at that level.
The astonishing thing is that even the objective temperature drops a lot during an eclipse.
Edit: the framework 16 has six ports, not four. I remain infuriated by the framework 14
.
I find the most crazy thing is not the reentry, but the number of objects (satellites) visible at the beginning of the video.

And maybe the most worrying part is that there is more and more unidentified objects: https://sdup.esoc.esa.int/discosweb/statistics/

Also the number of payload really rised after 2020 (because of spaceX I guess).

1980: less than 1000 objects
Today: Almost 10000 objects, including approx. 4000 in LEO only.
So we know what dropping from hyperspace looks like? Area 51 confirmed!!
Seems like a little bit of a switch-up to conflate “green” with “energy-efficient”. Obviously an efficient hybrid is better than a full ICE car, but what happens when (if?) the energy system is fully electrified?

That said, I understand not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The concerns about the extra weight, embodied carbon, etc in EVs is all too often swept under the rug. With that in mind, would it make more sense for an energy efficiency think-tank to lobby for alternative transport systems?
This horse is dead and disfigured, but here we go again.

Intel 4 (Intel "7nm" rebranding), is roughly equivalent to TSMC "3nm" in transistor density. By the transistor density metric, Intel is not way behind. There is no reason right now to think they can't deliver 10A/1nm in 2027.
https://code.sgo.to/2019/08/01/the-axiomatic-force-conjectur...
Trying to find a signal in the noise
Watches have been moving to a model where they offload more and more work to an MCU for a while now. All modern wearos watches are already doing so. It's just what tasks it'd be able to do that's been evolving, and OnePlus hit the latest milestone first.

It would be great to have an soc tailor made for watches such that this isn't necessary, but no one is really interested in that it seems.
Agree, being immortal and have a good health do not equel each other
Ironically, Wendy's was the first of the major chains to have a value menu (aka dollar menu), in 1989.
Why not using JupyterLite which doesn't require a backend? https://jupyter.org/try-jupyter/lab/index.html
I'm guessing the assumption is that it was manipulated by an intelligent actor into the described 'perfection'.
Don't underestimate the amount of shit people would be willing to deal with to make stuff work.

A capable GPU with 24+ GB would sell if it significantly undercuts Nvidia. Just look at geohot building his tinyboxes with AMD cards.
Ask HN: Looking for a Job
Hello,

I'm looking for a job. Either as employee/contract in japan or contract remote.

I'm versatile with almost anything, please check my profile for contact.
Thank you. I think the paper as it is provides enough evidence to support the claims. If I understand the authors correctly, they trained the compared models on only 100B tokens, all drawn from RedPajama, to make the comparisons apples-to-apples. That's sensible. It allows for easier replication of the results. Otherwise, I agree with you that more extensive testing, after more extensive pretraining, is still necessary.
The complement play for Mistral was that they'd be the low-cost SaaS serving their own models or any better ones that the FLOSS releases created and the upsell: you prototype and develop on Mistral models like Mixtral and then when you become a big boy, you outsource hosting or customization to them (with their razor-thin margins enforced by competition). The model releases generate demand for their low-cost hosting and consulting. (Think Red Hat, not OpenAI.)

As opposed to an all-inclusive API where the pricing can be as high as the consumer-surplus with very fat margins, because it's all-or-nothing.
Not really, this is just the downside of using larger, more capable CPUs is that they have higher power consumption. It's the same problem Apple has as well, it's not like it's a Qualcomm-specific problem.
The cost of their chips need to some down first, way too big and expensive
True, although they could very well do upgrades on the kind of VPS' where they were already oversubscribed. If you're not paying for physical cores I don't think that argument works.
I've just read the article, not the paper (yet). From the article it's pretty clear that they are talking about chords, not (just) the spectral composition of sounds. Since the invention of tempered tuning in the 17th century, the notes in a chord are no longer in an even numbered ratio, but usually in a multiple of the twelfth root of two. It is rather the case that people today consider a chord to sound strange if it is made up of whole-number ratios, which again indicates habituation. Besides, Pythagoras' theory also referred to specific tone intervals, not the spectral composition of arbitrary sounds. Anyway, let me first read the paper to see what they actually claim to have found out.
Meta might demo a pair of 'true' AR smart glasses later in 2024
> But not allowing access to the camera? YouTube obviously isn't using the camera, what is that achieving?

Isn't it? How do you know for sure? It definitely isn't if you don't explicitly let it.

One possible use is browser fingerprinting and other such profiling. At a minimum the existence of a camera or not provides one bit of information for a fingerprinting data pool. I don't know if the relevant interface provides further information (camera capabilities like resolution, for instance), if it does then that would be useful for this purpose too.
Was there a jump cut at the end or was the person collecting the chute really mere steps away from where it landed?
Oh fuck, thanks for catching that!
Interesting, for me that sounds like exactly the montage thing, just without the set endpoint necessarily. But if you focus on your goal number too much, you may get disheartened by the slow progress there, or the brief setbacks along the way, whereas if you learn to enjoy the underlying process, you're just doing your thing and then before you know it your weight is sort of where you want it.
I personally don't think that a programming language should save me from myself unless I explicitly ask for it. For every case I first prove to myself that I can get away without bounds checking, otherwise if I'm in doubt, I put it in and profile.

I think Rust is a nice language, but when it's presented as an "antidote" to "evils of C/C++", and is "indeed made to kill those" I lose my interest.

Also, while I think learning Rust is worthwhile, I think promoting Rust's barriers as saviors are funny. We say that Apple's against general purpose computing with all its walled gardens. Then Rust is against "General purpose programming". I want to be able to write programs which crash and burn like meteors entering the atmosphere, because this allows me to understand the hardware under me. Promoting a walled programming language as "the one and only" is wrong.

Why should I embrace a programming language as one and only if that doesn't allow me to do what I want with my computer?

Edit: No, unsafe doesn't count, because it doesn't remove all checks.
The astonishing thing is that the objective temperature of the air can drop by several degrees during an eclipse. So "the blanket" itself gets colder quite rapidly, given an eclipse only last very few minutes.
They are Machine Learning, a, so far, unsuccessful attempt at AI.

They aren't AI which is why the phrase "True AI" is so commonly used.
It runs python / sqlite / typescript in the browser https://jupyterlite.github.io/demo/lab/index.html
Reminds me of a bit from a novel I read (won't be naming the title to avoid spoilers) where one of the minor twists is that the gigastructure of galaxies that we observe in the universe - the thing that's conducive to things like "star formation" and "life" - is an art project by intelligent species who've been alive since around the time of the Big Bang.

(No, it's not part of the Xeelee Sequence :P)
It’s a pity if realizing these gains absolutely requires full pre-training from scratch. I imagine more than a few people will at least try to find a way to repurpose the knowledge contained in existing models.
Agreed. I find Vivaldi’s split pane ability incredibly useful. Surprised other browsers haven’t implemented this kind of this yet.
Thank you. That’s very helpful. My day job is pretty basic stuff so I’m trying to learn things on the side, but have the same worry that the day job is where the main learning opportunities would be, so I probably need to find a better gig. Thanks, and good luck on your PhD search.
In theory, you must have written some code to train the models + download the data ... just openning this code + adding logging to store the sources trained on, you could achieve trully "open source" (anybody can now go and scrape + train the same way you did and achieve the same outcome/model)

I'm not saying "opening models is bad", it's good. However imo it would be nice to have a semantic way to differentiate between those two
Mozilla is one of the last names in the web business that I still have a modicum of trust in. Chrome is essentially spyware at this point. Google built up a fandom among the technorati by contributing to open source during the 00s and 10s, and by arguing that this meant they wouldn't be like 90s/00s Microsoft with coercion of standards and monopolistic practices. Well, they became that kind of company anyways, and too many people still buy into the old "don't be evil" line.
>Four ports is not enough.

The Laptop 16 has six ports, as anyone can see in the second photo in the OP:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/366abf477764c02feed15e0be103f...
KDE Neon with Plasma 6 now available https://blog.neon.kde.org/2024/02/28/kde-neon-6-available-no...
River: A Reverse Proxy Built on Pingora
This article is clickbait
They can only ban you if they find 2 copies of the same cart running at the same time. This hardware, for all intents and purposes, looks to the Switch like a physical cartridge.
Super useful package. I hate working out maths by hand so I usually use it whenever possible.
I personally see more bot and spam, but except for a month or two at the beginning, they are detected and deleted pretty quickly. I've seen a huge surge of clickbait tweets since the monetization of bluecheck accounts but that's not the same. The note feature is great for the moment
There's more to it. Youtube's own embed is by itself harmful just due to the sheer size of it

- Google's own Lighthouse will mark youtube embeds as bad practices for many reasons. And will provide you with an article on how to replace the official Youtube embed with third-party libraries: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/lighthouse/performance/thi...

- Google's own "Performance leader at Chrome" penned an article for web.dev where he mentions that you should use this other third-party library https://web.dev/articles/iframe-lazy-loading
> the rainforest is in for a bad time

you mean: we are in for a bad time ?
The implication is that is the star system had potentially been artificially modified or even designed.
Any entity capable of performing such a feat that must logically possess advanced technology. That's all.
If grids are very conservative, that would also seem to suggest that grid operators would want existing solar farms topped up rather than replaced - old debugged solar farms declining, to be replaced by excitingly untested new ones, seems like an unnecessary risk? Compared to if one could just instead just slot in the new solar panels one by one, gradually, incrementally, into old trusty solar farms...
I honestly don't see how movies are different with any content ie YouTube videos. I am pretty sure MrBeast etc have the same lawyers as any big studio.

Could this run locally? I would certainly pay for that and you're off the hook on how anyone uses it.
Two options-

1. Solve the problem using a tool.

2. Solve problems that a tool has.

It should not be a surprise people pick 1.
They did make it, in 2021. https://generative.ink/posts/loom-interface-to-the-multivers... (click through to the GitHub repo and check the commit history, the bulk of commits is at least 3 years old)