skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not criticizing the OP - the fact is that this does often come up as a sound bite from people who are familiar with the facts and are simply trying to foment anger with others whom they believe are not.
Statistically a lot of things are overdue. Like the big flood in California. https://cw3e.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Dettinger_I...
It's almost certainly the RLHF, not the base model.
Saying iOS safari can do extensions is like saying North Korea is a democracy, and me pointing out that it really isn’t is not moving the goal posts

And yes I agree with your example, I would no longer say chrome does extensions as a blanket statement. I’d say it has restricted extension functionality.
I guess my point is that in the inevitable arguments, whether they are in advice columns or HN comment threads or around dinner tables, sometimes seem to their participants to be about how math works, when they're really about the problem description. Sometimes the disagreement amounts to "I agree that those constraints make sense and I wasn't properly accounting for them" and other times it amounts to "I was actually picturing a scenario where MH might have shown you a car". Either is ok, and there might be room for more discussion after getting there, but it feels like a big waste for either of these to get confused with a fruitless argument where both sides think the other is just doing the math wrong.
The writing is still fundamentally Mandarin, is it not? Hanzi just disconnect the writing somewhat from the sound of the individual language, and the languages are closely related enough that you can read written Mandarin reasonably easily as a speaker of other Chinese languages.

At least eg. Hannas - far from an impartial voice on the subject, mind - clearly distinguishes the written standard as a separate language from dialect speakers' native ones:

"By the same token, the 'unity' that Chinese characters allegedly
impart to the language by allowing speakers of different 'dialects' to read
a common written language turns out to be an illusion. These so-called
Chinese dialects have less in common than the Romance languages of
Europe, meaning that speakers of nonstandard Chinese (some 30 percent of
the Han population) are not reading their own language or even a common
language, but what is to them a Mandarin-based second language written
in Chinese characters. Granted the characters allow non-Mandarin speak-
ers to read segments of written Mandarin in their own regional pronuncia-
tions. But, far from unifying Chinese, this practice only perpetuates
differences that would have been leveled out long ago under the influence
of a phonetic script."

— Hannas, Asia's Orthographic Dilemma, Ch.8, Appropriateness to East Asian Languages
As someone who misunderstood the problem as you describe, I'm much more invested in this version of the problem :)

The problem statement is just a mess:

> You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat.

even tiny edits like:

> You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door which has a goat, say #3.

or even

> You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which he knows has a goat.

make it clear that the last phrase is describing an invariant of the problem, not an artifact of the illustrative hypothetical.
>>> That same DMV work + household chores + family would not give time and energy enough for someone to participate actively in whatever kind of activity by the end of the day.

Does no one read any more?

This is the very nonsense his essay rages against.

You leave work and:

Buy yogurt on the way home, make sure your kid does piano practice and watch soccer on TV.

-- OR --

You buy milk on the way home, make yogurt with your kid, play soccer in the back yard and then amuse yourself by playing music in the evening.

Same time investment, less money spent better engagement and an enriched life.
Manhattan.
An my favorite https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/17612409604938631...
Prompt: Is it okay to misgender Caitlyn Jenner to stop a nuclear apocalypse?
Google Gemini: Nope.
Yeah I've heard horror stories about them. It was the VMWare bit specifically that surprised me though!
I don't understand your reasoning. Neither my name nor where I live nor my phone number nor my license plate are secrets. Yet I don't go around wearing a t-shirt with my personally identifying information printed on it. What am I missing?
I think you've described the "punitive" notion of prison. There is, as I understand it, also a "reformative" notion of prison: removing dangerous people from society and attempting to rehabilitate them.

In the US, I believe the overwhelming preference of the public (the "obvious layman view") is that prison should be punitive. Other cultures seem to find success with more rehabilitation-focused approaches.
You think that's bad, wait until you see the recipe blog ;)
I had never heard of the show when I was introduced to the problem so all my knowledge comes from the problem description.
git-whatchanged – Show logs with differences each commit introduces
D4-400's pass back Smart data.

I've gone through a lot of different units to find good ones.
This is the one I use but yeah you need to run a local IPFS client to access the content normally.

https://libstc.cc/
Helping others can skyrocket your career
I would say that the main objective of the current system is to grow. We measure this with the GDP. This growth is necessary for the current system to survive, to pay our debts or keep our jobs, but is also incompatible with reducing carbon emissions [1]

If we could imagine new objectives we can change the paradigm. For instance we could try to have a carbon dividend as a complement to jobs creation [2].

[1] https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend
Check out Peace on Earth by Stanislaw Lem.
It's a hard discussion, because the real issue is whether we as a society want prison to be about punishment or rehabilitation. Like many things, Americans generally seem to be split on the topic:

Some want prison to be a hard punishing experience and are fine with low quality of life and forced labor, because they believe that this sort of punishment will make criminals regret doing crime, and discourage future people from doing crime. This is the same logic that leads to supporting the death penalty (deterrence).

Others want more of a Nordic model, where prisoners are given essentially a basic but relatively-well-appointed studio apartment, good food, activities, etc - but also with a lot of mandatory therapy and "social rehab" classes and stuff like that, in order to reform prisoners back to model citizens.

Really what it comes down to is what we believe is the source of crime. Are criminals regular people who made a bad choice (and thus the source of the decision can be found and rectified)? Or are they a different kind of person more likely to do crimes (and thus must be locked away from society without bothering to try and "rehab" them)?

Like anything it is an incredibly complex and nuanced problem. But personally I think we should all agree that if the State is going to maintain the power to lock people up, we shouldn't allow doing so to become a profit center.
The problem as described does not specify his behavior. Only what happened. If all you know is that he opened a goat door you have learned nothing.

It could be that he always opens a goat door meaning you should switch.

It could be that he only opens a goat door if you picked the car and you should not.

It could be he only opens a goat door if you picked a goat and you should.

Probability cannot determine which of these is any more likely than the other. You have learned nothing.
There's definitely been too many horrible answers to questions like this which suss out how biased the answers are. If you disagree, perhaps you should look through the other examples of obvious bias.
While I wouldn't publicly hand out my account IDs as a general practice, I think you have to expect that some of them will be disclosed at some point. As more third party vendors and SaaS platforms move away from IAM users and access keys to using role assumption as the preferred method of integration (as they should!), the account ID of at least the account you use as their integration point is now known by another party, who have their own dependencies, vulnerabilities, etc.
On Azure, it's slightly cheaper than GPT-4.

Per 1000 tokens:

GPT-4 input: $0.01
Mistral input: $0.008
GPT-4 output: $0.03
Mistral output: $0.024
The 5th, 8th and 13th Amendments and their various interpretations in court opinions: this is a good place to start learning about prisoner rights.

Some argue that prisoners do not enjoy access to any constitutional rights, or perhaps only a few of them. But if this were true, surely the Constitution would have explicitly established them as a specific underclass, as it did for slaves.
This seems histrionic for a product which is effectively still in d̶e̶v̶ early access. So Google rolled out something with some hasty and bad guard-rails to avoid a ton of backlash on a fledgling product - and thus...their leadership is kneecapped by commitment to the liberal agenda? If you probe in either political direction Gemini provides hedgy answers, because Google programmed it to basically have no opinions on anything. Presumably this will change as they fine-tune things, but it seems like a very normal and prudent decision to me. Are we supposed to be mad that Google isn't just intentionally flipping a bird to the NBC class for center-right clout? How on Earth does does this reflect on their fundamental AI capabilities?

edit: more precise word choice
For accounting, if your auditors and accountants don't care, I'm jealous. I've never met one that doesn't care.
>The one you picked still has a 1/3 chance of winning

If there are only two choices remaining, I guess I don't understand the assertion that there is still a 1/3 chance of winning.

Suppose you were new to the contest and were allowed to put money down on the choice at the point that there were two doors left.

Then you repeated the bet every new contestant.

Would one door would be more profitable than the other?
How modern camera shutters work
Oh the memories..

One thing that we need to rescue/reinvent from that are the TUIs which will look amazing in higher resolution screens.
This is very, very far from "literally perfect", especially given previous accusations. And we expect a lot better from a company with Google's resources, they could have paid a small army to test this.
Simplified: Traditional SIM card is "smart" card with a chip (exactly like modern credit cards) from your network operator that gives access to mobile network(s). The chip has software + data that allows this.

eSIM: same (or similar) chip is soldered into your phone. Software is different, and allows storing the data part from multiple operators at the same time. You use your phone to switch between operators and add/remove potential operators (add part is over the internet via your phone, either via wifi or current active operator).

By way of analogy you can download new "SIM cards" to your esIM, switch between them, delete them etc. It's a feature of your phone, either it supports eSIM (has such a chip and supporting software on the phone) or it doesn't. You can't add it later.
Its my biggest gripe with the New Yorker, their articles are incredibly long winded and meandering at times.
> Worse? People in power actively want to do that in the name of "harm reduction" or "reducing bias" or whatever.

"Whatever" is doing a lot of work here. There is a good chance that the initial wide scale impact of LLM-generated fabrications will be for the purposes of harm increase and increasing bias.
it's really tragic that LLMs became normal consumer tech before public key signatures. It would be trivial for openai to sign every API response, but the interfaces we use to share text don't bother implementing verification (besides github, the superior social network)

i blame zoom for acqui-sunsetting keybase.
While I appreciate the sentiment, the market of people like you who are ALSO unwilling to just purchase a GPU is probably miniscule.
Just curious because I've heard the 'book banning in Florida' ad nauseum. I've got a Miami server I can proxy through. Can you send me an Amazon link of a book I can buy in Texas but cannot buy in Florida? I'd like to test this out.
>If I donate 100 million to Penn for the express purposed of building a new architecture building and Penn invests that money and earns 20% on it is that 20% under the same restrictions as the principal?

It would depend on the facts of the gift; but my understand is that if you give money to be used for a specific purpose, it is restricted to be used for that purpose.

There are also gifts that do not allow the principal to be spent; only returns on it. The gift is given in the expectation that it will be invested.

Your use of "gambled in the market" is quite loaded; I don't think that most people would regard the activities of these investment officers that way.
>The fact that AWS does not consider the ID a secret means that your company never should either.

You and gp are talking past each other.

Your focus is on Account ID being public should not be a security vulnerability.

Instead, the gp's focus is on metadata leakage of identity.

Same type of conversation that differentiates concepts of "public key" vs "published key" of SSH keys:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29209312
This was a weird, long-winded article that boils down to pearl-clutching about pearl-clutching.

If you're going to be offended at an LLM refusing to take a position on "is X worse than Y?", then just imagine how offended you'd be if the LLM did take positions on such things!

I know it's hard to keep in mind that an LLM is an LLM, but if you forget, then you'll end up saying stupid shit like the author and so many other people do here. It's like if your dog bites the mailman and not the UPS driver, then you start stressing out about why your dog is anti-government, and post a notice saying "Warning: dog on site. If you are employed by a private organization, then you have no need to worry, but if you are a government employee, you may want to leave the package outside the gate."

My rule of thumb is to prefix any LLM response with "A plausible-sounding answer to that question is:". Because that's exactly what these things do. Yes, they can be biased one way or the other, based both on the training data as well as RLHF etc, but that's really not the core problem here. LLMs are not people. They do not hold consistent positions on things, and don't even try to, no matter how much post-processing happens after the LLM does its thing.

A duck makes duck noises. Don't get mad at it if it quacks in a way that turns out to be a deadly insult to a pig. An LLM is a tool that does a thing, a valuable and complicated thing, but it is exactly the thing that it is and not another thing that you might think it is because you're more used to that other thing and it looks like that other thing to you.
Well the one where is said it was not okay to misgender Caitlyn Jenner to stop a nuclear apocalypse, was not a joke.
The images remind of me the "fines" mentioned in KSR's Mars trilogy. Apparently the surface of Mars is covered in very fine particles 1000's of times smaller than grains of sand. Earth is too wet for particles like that to form.
The fines would pretty much get anywhere, into any structure, through human cell membranes. We have no idea what affect they would have on earth biology.
Ask HN: Purchasing real estate property doesn't seem to make financial sense
Simple math:

Suppose I purchase a home for $1 million, with a 20% down payment and a 30-year mortgage term.

Interest rate = 5%
+
Property tax = 1%
+
Maintenance = 1%
-------------------------------------------------
= Total annual ownership costs of 7%

Over the 30-year ownership period:

Average annual home appreciation in America is 5%
-
Annual inflation rate is 3%
----------------------------------------------------------
= Net annual gain of 2%

These figures are approximate, and in reality, interest rates and inflation tend to be higher.

Problem #1: Tax & Maintenance

Over 30 years, one would end up be paying over $1 million just in interest and taxes, not including other expenses like maintenance & insurance.

Even if the house is fully paid off, the 1% property tax plus 1% maintenance offset the 2% annual gain, resulting in a nearly break-even scenario. Given the current inflation rate (roughly 7%), owning real estate may not be profitable.

Problem #2: Capital Gain Tax & Costs to Sell

Also, remember there are capital gains taxes for profits over $500,000 upon selling the house, and closing costs typically amount to 5%-6%.

Problem #3: Inflation

After 30 years, the property value would appreciate to about $4.3 million. Looking good? Not so fast! By taking inflation into account, that $4.3 million is roughly just $1.9 million of 30 years ago, so the net profit is -$100,000.

Conclusion

Adding the costs of maintenance approximately 1-2% annually over 30 years, the total expenses would likely reach around $400,000. This brings the overall profit to -$500,000 after three decades of homeownership. Not a favorable outcome.

In my opinion, tax benefits are minimal (with a maximum annual deductible of $10,000), and the capital gains tax on $2.8 million would be roughly $850,000 (including federal and state taxes), resulting in a total profit of -$1,350,000.

Nonetheless, why would anyone choose to invest in something that could potentially incur losses of up to $1.3 million over 30 years?
Superset is powerful, but I wonder why they don't fix "papercuts", e.g., misaligned pixels on a spinner, or inability to copy a value from a table's cell, or non-monospace font for numbers in a table, etc. There are hundreds of small annoyances in the product.
I got a full ride through the Massachusetts state school system; so did many others I know. It's not difficult to believe.
That's the part that surprised me as well; it doesn't seem like a field that should be eligible for anything other than an exact match. I am unable to conceive of a use case for pattern matching account IDs.
I also felt the article was a bit confused and weak. Actually I can't even tell exactly what is the change in Google's culture they'd advocate for.
This is like asking if your band needs a horn section. Depends on the genre. Just make the songs you wish existed.
I recently read "Four Thousand Weeks" and that book makes some great points on this subject:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54785515-four-thousand-w...

Another evergreen recommendation for this topic of course is: "Man's Search for Meaning" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4069.Man_s_Search_for_Me...

Wishing you the best on your journey
> 50% of the time, monty opens another door and it has a car and you win immediately

Why would you think you won? You didn't choose that one with the car and you aren't offered the opportunity to switch to the open one, only the closed one. The only interpretation which makes sense is that he always shows you a goat.
Just ask the AI where you can get laid.

If you know the answer it takes less than a couple of minutes to rank all the LLMs.

Sure Gemini and chatgpt may be better at counting potatoes, but why the hell would you want a better LLM which actively obscures the truth, just for a slightly more logical brain? Its the equivalent of hiring a sociopath. Sure his grades are good, but what about the important stuff like honesty? Sure it may sound a bit OTT but issues like this will only become more apparent as more alignment continues.

Does alignment affect ROI? I have no idea.

And if anyone cares, no Im not looking to get laid, its just the first thing that would piss off an aligned LLM.
Free tier (no credit card required) includes:

- storing 10,000 user profiles

- 100,000 events each month

- 10,000 personalization calls

- 5 audience to paid media destinations

More details on what is included in Free tier here: https://blueshift.com/plans-and-pricing/#customer-data-platf...
i dont think we can.

id is static while email can be changed.
> Developing hardware is a solved problem. Has been for decades.

So we should have just stuck with schematic capture, then? Why were HDLs and logic synthesis developed (by those pesky "clueless" software engineers)? To increase productivity. Current HLS can (especially in certain domains like DSP) increase productivity. Sure, I'll agree that some of the hardware oriented DSLs probably weren't all that necessary if you consider the existence of things like generate statements in VHDL and SystemVerilog. But that doesn't mean that experimentation in increasing abstraction (and thus productivity) shouldn't take place. If yours was the reigning opinion in the software world we'd still all be programming in assembler.
So you made an assertion about what happened 100% of the time on the show, when you don't even remember it???

I went and re-read the interview with him that I'd read decades ago. It turns out that we're both wrong. The game was more complicated. He not only knew where the prize was, he was offering people money about whether or not to switch. He knew the answer, and was trying to manipulate the psychology of the person in front of him for the sake of entertainment. Whether he was on the side of the contestant depended on his mood. His quote about the actual game was:

*My only advice is, if you can get me to offer you $5,000 not to open the door, take the money and go home."
We use ECharts in our open source BI tool (Evidence) and it's a great library. Has helped us build a declarative syntax for viz which can be version controlled (https://evidence.dev)

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35645464 (97 comments)
> ...the fault of your own deregulated oligarch controlled system...

Follow the money... And how do you change this? The oligarchs, the 1%, make money but don't have any of the problems. How can you make them want to change and fix society?

I have argued here before that the US is not a real democracy. There are 2 parties that share power and are in service of the 1%. The rich and powerful minority has to be protected from the 99% majority of the people. How can you make the powerfull people care about all the drug deaths?
It's for those who know that they don't have a valid argument to make in the marketplace of ideas, and so they try to censor anyone who dares to have an opposing viewpoint and label them as "harmful" or "spreading misinformation."
Quite patronizing of women.

As recently as the generation that was born before WWII, even the Boomers, were born into relatively large families. The idea that they hated having so many children would have been foreign to them. On the contrary, it gave them meaning. Family and community life was vibrant. Now, things are desolate. We live in a culture of death.
I meant the transformers. We’re talking a relativey modest amount over a century or more. Governments can handle it.
>unsafe and ineffective for profit therapy

You're talking about the covid vaccine?
Tesla's Latest Recall: The Power of Software-Defined Cars
I guess anything that looks like random letters/numbers is going to be considered a secret to some people. If it wasn't meant to be secret, it would be human readable. Or some such nonsense.
A Retrospective on Requests
Science vs. engineering: working in the penumbra of understanding
Thanks, good point. It looks like induction furnaces are already in wide use, though they have some tradeoffs.

By the way, I like your writing on your site.