skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Technology has been quite detrimental to humanity if those of us in tech want to be honest with ourselves. It could have been amazing. We told ourselves it was going to connect us, and we were all going to be smarter.. but instead we abuse tech like junk food. Instead of social media enhancing our lives it causes young girls to have poor unrealistic self images. Bullying etc. Apps like tiktok have eliminated our attention spans. Young men play video games instead of going outside.

Instead of kids taking advantage of having vast access to knowledge, they watch low effort youtube videos. Parents let them do it because they're just as addicted to tech.

You don't have to go out of your house to go shopping, or work, or even play. We lost all local communities from church, to the office. We live in a dystopia where we spend all day connected to devices.

And now there's AI.

We ALL need to go on a tech diet. Find the good stuff, and keep it, and treat the rest like junk food.. which is fine to have once in a while, but the moderation is key.
That's like an instant infusion of billions of dollars, since gainting that experience and education was paid for by the donor society. So they would almost certainly do better.
Just consider restricted media. Below a threshold, different things happen due to rates of metabolism, preferential uptake, etc.

And this isn't to convince you that your water is "safe", but lead is excreted up to a threshold, and beyond that, it can begin to accumulate in bones and teeth, which is a rate. If yours is below the amount you're likely to consume over the given period that accumulation is likely to occur, then guidance says you should try to reduce it somehow to minimize the probability of long term health effects.

I don't think either of you are at risk for acute toxicity from your water levels, so you could think of it like calories; you're fine with your current caloric intake, but should you double it? Diet lead, that classic taste.
Sounds like "infinite scroll" (and maybe even "personalised feed"?) were anticipated well before the smart phone ("fondleslab") era?
> But I'm 100% that fake research and cheating is rampant in all of natural science everywhere in the world, and I myself had spent 6 months of my life in a lab trying to reproduce fake results from a previous researcher in my lab.

A single anecdote doesn't support having 100% certainty for such a broad claim.
Tall buildings are often demolished floor by floor from the top down. It’s a slow and expensive process. I don’t think anyone has ever demolished a building anywhere close to as tall as this one in a city centre.
Luckily for developers of buildings like this, the cost of demolition will fall on either the city or the next developer who wants to make something better on the site. It would probably _only_ cost somewhere on the order of high tens to low hundreds of millions to demolish a building like this.
> but this feature is clearly gated behind user permission

You're right that the owner of the device should have the ultimate say. But the sad reality is that most owners aren't necessarily good caretakers of those devices. They don't understand what that permission entails, and they don't actually want to take responsibility for the outcome of the decision. But they will want to hold the manufacturer accountable for the damage.

I can't count how many times I heard people say "this decision should be mine to make" only to follow it up after some time with "somebody should have warned me not to do it". It's human nature and the solution for this can't/won't be technical.

Windows XP was a good example of letting the person decide what's good for their device and it was also the OS with the slowest adoption of updates. People collectively decided that the discomfort of rebooting once in a while was worse than letting malware completely wreck their device and data.
I could say the same to you, though I struggle to think why you think my political beliefs have warped my understanding of the War of 1812.
Bing's results are so awful I assumed it was intentional, ie: Google funding it for the purpose of avoiding monopoly-related penalties/etc, but MS mostly seems to be suffering from the same thing as Apple (no Steve or Bill forcing alignment). Quality tanking because people who don't care or understand are making the decisions.
The one thing AI has done really well is generate all the signals of "intelligence" that SV tech folks care about. It's verbose and meaningless, confidently-asserted bullshit wrapped in the right packaging. It's like a Markov chain generator with a Stanford degree.
You might not have found any uses that suit your niche, but that doesn't mean those of us who have are just making up stories about productivity.
War is another thing, that's artificially created for that reason I think.

New jobs are created, creating battle equipment, cause stuff always gets destroyed in war.

Governments buy guns, choppers tanks, so those who produce them, are swimming in money now.

Why would those institutions be interested in a time, where there is no major war ?

I also feel like there's some kind of dynamic between US and Russia, like good cop and bad cop.

Russia is an aggressive lunatic, and US sells guns, offers protection services for rest of the world from this crazy guy.

But what would happen if Russia would be gone, or not aggressive anymore, who would buy the guns then ?
World order would be totally different and US would lose customers.
Increased CO2 will lead to more plant growth.
Nice piece. I broadly agree with many of the overall points (I think) although putting them into practice maybe be harder than the writer makes it out to be. One can certainly just avoid nitpicking over stuff like spelling (unless you're editing pre-publication) and likewise when seeing a talk just let it go.

In regards to "softening", eg:

>"Hey, you got your math on example X wrong... I think it actually works to 11.7. Anyways, I only recognize that because I made that mistake dozens of times myself, it's a common one to make, just wanted to point it out."

Stuff like that always reads as condescending to me. Not just a waste of time, but an expense of time which actually hurts ones cause. I suspect my feelings are neither unique nor universal, and that delivering respectful and constructive criticism involves knowing your audience. So it's always going to be difficult if you try to do so to a stranger.
The relevant question is not how many are interested, but for how many it’s a deal breaker.
SvarDOS – an open-source DOS distribution for PCs of the 1980-2000 era
Yeah I find this statistic very hard to believe tbh
We can do logical reasoning, but we're very bad at it and often take shortcuts either via pattern matching, memory, or "common sense".

Baseball and bat together cost $1.10, the bat is $1 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?

A French plane filled with Spanish passengers crashes over Italy, where are the survivors buried?

An armed man enters a store, tells the cashier to hand over the money, and when he departs the cashier calls the police. Was this a robbery?
For “reasons” I compiled Emacs 29.2 on Windows XP last night.
I actually like this answer way better since I don't have to wade through three paragraphs of the medical version of corpspeak.
You make fun of click-through rates because it sounds stupid and irrelevant.

Now, I’m not saying it’s like building the pyramids, inventing General Relativity, or landing on the moon.

And yes we all hate ads and 99% of them are junk.

But online ads have been revolutionizing the economy. Matching consumers and producers have always been extremely non-trivial and an economically critical activity.

You used to have to go to the mall to discover and buy things. That mall was a huge gatekeeper for producers trying to offer goods on the market and a major point of inefficiency. Now anyone can put up ads and start selling with a vastly smaller distribution budget.

Just think of having a small percentage multiplier on the entire economy. Just think of the implications for social equity - you used to have to be well-connected and well-funded to have any hope of starting a business and getting into Walmart.
Did you read the article? Since that is what the author refers to as his data sources' time periods, multiple times.
I hate to say it but at some point it is their device and they can install malware if they want to. I think it is good to put up some warnings and make particularly dangerous permissions particularly hard to give. But at some point it is my device and you need to get out of my way.
> You have a source for that? And a theory that shows what is cause and which is effect?

Out of the top 10 lowest crime countries in the world, you have two micro states, Armenia (which has its own unique problems), and 7 rich countries that are either overtly authoritarian and very hard on crime, or are far more authoritarian than most westerners would be comfortable with (especially with regards to their justice system) and also very hard on crime (those being UAE, Qatar, Taiwan, Oman, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore).

What is the cause and effect? If people think they are likely to be caught for committing a crime, and that the punishment will likely be severe, then they are less likely to commit crime. This is simply common sense.

> Anyway, crime is fairly low here in Norway too but we definitely do not have Singaporean style punishments. So even if 'hard on crime' works there appear to be other methods.

I’ll just directly quote my parent comment.

> the people in the middle who pay for everything have a choice about how to manage this problem. They can take the big social safety net approach like an idealised Scandinavian system. Or they can take the heavy handed law and order approach

Though I will add that the social safety net approach seems to only work in rather limited circumstances. I doubt Singapore for instance would be able to implement such an approach, even if they wanted to.
I'm smiling a bit because I know exactly what you mean and generally agree, with an exception. A common idiom in Elixir is to return {:ok, result} or {:err, :reason} from calls that can fail. Leaning on that idiom, good function names, and good errors goes a long way:

params[:id]
|> find_user
|> verify_user_has_access_to(params[:post_id])
|> etc

When I define the functions I'll use pattern matching on the first argument to each function so that you can either pass in a "user" or {:ok, user} or {:err, _}. If it matches the error pattern it'll just return the error unmodified. The errors have enough fidelity to make it clear where the pipeline failed. I'm not sure this is a super common pattern though but it worked pretty well for me.
Yes perhaps read your own link:

“ The researchers caution that most of medical errors aren’t due to inherently bad doctors, and that reporting these errors shouldn’t be addressed by punishment or legal action. Rather, they say, most errors represent systemic problems, including poorly coordinated care, fragmented insurance networks, the absence or underuse of safety nets, and other protocols, in addition to unwarranted variation in physician practice patterns that lack accountability.”

An LLM is not going to address any of that.
You are misinformed implying a significant majority of medical system errors are due to misdiagnosis.
> Not just institutions, individuals too.

Individuals and organisations can also be impostors.

The impostor as individual cannot usually scale the lies. An organisation can be a total imposture or have internal structures that are impostor structures.

This is not exclusive to government.
Is this a way of saying that large language models don’t have the concept of “I don’t know”?
The constant drip of hormone like chemicals from plastic food containers.

“The romans drank out of lead cups, they were so stupid” as I take a swig of caustic carbonated syrup out of a syrofoam cup that when it was empty smelled like chemicals to the point it would burn your nose a little if you took a big whiff when you opened the box of them.
Your "Of course" is a red flag.

Unless you have a very precise definition of "LLM" then there's no "of course". It's possible to imagine a hypothetical software system capable of returning "I don't know" or "I'm not sure".

I haven't RTFA but I presume they are arguing within specific constraints. The important point is - could an augmented LLM or an "LLM plus something else" solve this.

I don't have an answer to that but I don't think it's an "of course" type answer.
I mean, I grew up in the 90s and it was absolutely an entertainment-less void compared to today. At night TV channels would go off air or be replaced by some QVC ads. There wasn’t netflix, if you were lucky your parents had 3-4 VHS tapes.

Internet was only a thing rich kids had. Hobbies were for older people. If you were young and wanted to be entertained you would go hang out with your friends, go ride a bike, or go to the mall. All of these were fairly social activities.
It is somewhat rare when our intuition is found wrong, however this is one of those times. The fact that a known hawk supported their ostensible enemy, is a weird situation.

However-

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-op...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas...

> A year later, Netanyahu was further embarrassed when photos of suitcases full of cash going to Hamas became public. Liberman finally resigned in protest over Netanyahu's Hamas policy which, he said, marked "the first time Israel is funding terrorism against itself."

By the looks of it, this was going on for years.

But I am more interested in understanding if this had any impact on you? Do you still think this is BS? Are you cautiously looking for more evidence? Is the evidence sufficient to have changed your position? If so how?
The name "tacit" comes from the APL family as far as I know. It certainly fits with Iverson's style, as he was fond of seeking out just the right word to describe something regardless of obscurity ("ravel", "copula", etc.). I think the name would have come about after the development of function trains in 1988, and I found a paper "Tacit definition" about Iverson's J from 1991: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/114054.114077 (digitized at https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/TacitDefn.htm). Not knowing when "point-free" started to be applied to programming, I can't say which is first. I doubt J's developers were aware of "point-free" in any case.
A hallucinator seems like an excellent thing to have as a component to an intelligent system, but it must be coupled with evaluators.

Such an architecture seems plausible for the human brain as well.
So in other words, it’s very human-like?
but that depends on how large the factor actually is. if it were 10% or more, then sure. but the fact that the very existence of a genetic factor is put into question, suggests that the factor, if it exists, is so small that it really is negligible.

another reason why we can ignore a genetic factor is that we can not influence it. or, that trying to influence it carries serious ethical implications.

it is also to small to serve as a tool to predict future performance.
Most likely women now have increased wealth so don't need to marry for economic reasons, and societal norms now make being single more acceptable.
> something virtually every other systems language

Huh? Apart from C++?
A luxury lifestyle is cheaper than a child. The last estimates I’ve seen are around $300K (and that was before the recent bouts of inflation) to raise a kid and that didn’t include college. So that’s like a Lamborghini, right? Or a lot of fancy vacations. And that’s just one kid; you might get some economies of scale with more, but the marginal costs are there too.
Unfortunately it's not an uncommon experience when reading academic papers in some fields to find citations that, when checked, don't actually support the cited claim or sometimes don't even contain it. The papers will exist but beyond that they might as well be "hallucinations".
What would I rebut? I never blamed SF on Republicans. The other poster did. I was implying there is a strong 'US Christian' attitude to be more outraged by accidentally helping someone that doesn't need it, that outweighs being 'Christian' and helping those that do need help. I'm not sure Christians are even glossing over this anymore. And this does lead to more bureaucracy to ensure this doesn't happen, and that is done by the legislatures when they create the organizations.

Then the other guy brought up "SF". A single word argument as if that was a 'rebuttal'. His 'rebuttal' was actually three words, "SF", "New York".

What are they implying by their one word argument?

I say something about Christians/Republican's, they just respond "SF". As if "SF" is in itself an entire argument against anything liberal or progressive and hence why we need to return to 'Old Testament' Bible values. "SF" is just another dog whistle for them, that we shouldn't be 'soft' on people.

You are bringing up actual problems. But what Republicans 'hear', is 'be more harsh on people'. Don't solve those problems, put them in jail.

And that despite Godwin's Law, this seemed very much in line with how Republicans argue (debate, market), they repeat the same short slogans over and over again. For so many years people have over used calling each other 'Nazi', that now we can't make any comparisons or someone brings up 'Godwin'. When there are actual real parallels that we should be pointing out.

So. My error is maybe lumping all Republicans in as Evangelical Christians.

I guess the problem is you listed a lot of different problems, and they all combine into something bad. But the article was about each individual program/organization trying to maintain itself. So I'd say this is one of those 'multi-polar' problems where each organization is trying their best, but they solve for a local minimum that is not optimal.

Is it really a single program spending $57K per person? Or is that number from adding up a number of programs? And it is all these different organizations, each solving part of the problem in-efficiently. And never solving the root problem, because that is out of the scope of any one program.

And, even if someone just handed me $57K in cash, could I afford to live in SF?

Isn't SF somewhat landlocked? hard to expand housing? And isn't housing somewhat geared towards the rich that skew right? Is it really progressives trying to keep away housing?

This is a bit all over place.

We could talk details about:

1. real world SF problems,

2. or how Republican Marketing techniques really do follow the Nasi playbook Goodwin or not,

3. or how organizations in general get stuck in some local minimum of bad incentives.

There is no one rebuttal to this thread. It is complex, and Republicans boil it down to a slogan, that is exactly what that nasi quote says to do.
FTA

> Financial, legal, and technological changes are all part of the equation

And anxiety seems like a perfectly rational response to driving a 1500kg oversized killing machine.

If I had to choose between anxious drivers and the overconfident who speed and run red lights, I would take the former
Also endocrine disruptors. Phtalates, PFAS, azatrine, glyphosate, artificial coloring, etc.
People expect splinter-free epistemology instead of just putting on some gloves.
I don't mean it as a negative, just not unique to gradient methods.
Interesting, what is the logic for requiring practicing doctors to all publish like that?
> dismal ← 10⊥(⌈/10⊥⍣¯1⊢)

And what does that look like in C?
The oldest PV array on the grid is, what, 38 years old? Or is it 39 now? It's in Europe.

EDIT: more than 40 years. Inverters had to be replaced five times though.
It's about Mexico City
our dog does that too, among other specifically unique ways to communicate things
I think the corollary to this question pattern is always: "And if yes, who cares?" If the software in question is open source, the ones using it will still have enough access to it even if it were dying. The ones not using it don't want it anyway and chose one of the many other options.
Industrial revolution was the key to Europe’s current prosperity. Without it, it was going in the direction of mass starvation, because old farming methods weren’t able to sustain the growing population. The increased population would have been a disaster without the industrial revolution.

It’s the reason England crushed China, even though England’s population has always been microscopic in comparison to that of China.
M-x betteridge-mode
Situation is similar even though less dire in Barcelona.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/01/spain-expected-to-...
39% seems relatively high by Australian/Spanish/South African standards. Barcelona's reservoir is currently sitting around ~16%.

Is that 39% number deceiving, meaning that the actual supply to Mexico DF would run out sooner?
IMO It is point free even if the syntax is not as nice as Haskell. Same as foo . bar . baz
that was what they were selling, but apart from the problem of everyone doing it, there were also many shady operations to outright scams that never even intended to provide the value they promised.
Fixing sewer pipes for SWE salaries sounds pretty good to me.