skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
src/Python/kernels/ground_truth_functions.py: https://github.com/jk78346/SHMT/blob/main/src/Python/kernels... :

> [ blackscholes_2d, dct8x8_2d, dwt, hotsplot_2d, srad_2d, sobel_2d, npu_sobel_2d, minimum_2d, mean_2d, laplacian_2d, fft_2d, histogram_2d ]

src/kernels: https://github.com/jk78346/SHMT/tree/main/src/kernels :

> [ convolutionFFT2D, ]

What is the (platform) kernel context switching overhead tradeoff for what size workloads of the already implemented functions?
Death Stranding Essay
No, all west coast. Our team has 5 hours of daily meetings per week, most of which could be an email. Much of this time is just him reading a shared spreadsheet that we've all entered our daily focus into; so much wasted time.
Apache Software Foundation is just an umbrella organization to keep things on life support till someone can apply sufficient motive force to resurrect. I think that's really valuable. Lots of projects there have had that effort applied to them and kept going.
No matter if the data supports it or not, all that your comment is telling me is that you don't have kids.
I need something like this.

but will Facet handle sales tax? also I think the landing page should have a sample book.
Windows 11 laptop Snapdragon X Elite shows CPU that's serious threat to Apple M3
An interesting point, I remember hearing of the janissaries, who were slaves, but well trained and equipped; there appear to be instances of those janissaries seizing political power. Relying on a military to maintain power is like a mouse keeping wolves chained up, and using the wolves to control lions. Its far more reliable and economically feasible to control the minds of the populace, as long as you have control over what they see/hear.
I definitely thought you meant that you asked it to write 5 bullet points that covered/summarized 14,501 books haha. Would love to see the output from that prompt.
reminds me of working on a derivative sales desk for an investment bank - they wanted me to write something everyday about what was happening in the market to send to clients, but then my boss would criticize me for "being too much of a scientist" i.e. requiring facts and logic...
I was following it ok until I reached the section around "basis state". It doesn't actually explain what a "basis state" is.
Leafish: An open-source Minecraft client written in Rust
My impression is the Senate doesn't actually regularly reject bills. They have, but its few and far between. The Senate also isn't really independent as they're appointed by party in power and vote in groups whipped by their leaders. Even recent development under Trudeau who "released" all liberal senators from being Liberal Senators such that now they sit as "independent" senators, but they all still vote in a one big block that votes exactly the same way as the liberal senator group, they just changed names. There are, however, a couple more splinter groups with specialized interests in the senate because of the shuffle, which is good to see, but by and large the Senate is very ineffective at being a check and balance. Mostly it's a rubber stamp process unless it's particularly egregious then it's a wrist slap asking for minor changes. Hence decades of debate on reforming or even abolishing the senate, which has been a mainstream debate for a long time and still ongoing.
Personally I'd see that as a net benefit - if they want to leave, great! It's an even more beneficial second order effect than billionaires and millionaires moving to avoid taxes.
> The issue is that their methods are unacceptable and, when understood, are likely to be explicitly rejected.

This sounds to me exactly like refusing to learn.
That's especially tempting since we're used to probability problems often being set up where considering previous state is the sucker's answer. E.g. a fair coin has landed on heads three times in a row, what are the odds of it being tails on the next throw?
AI-generated disproportioned rat genitalia gets into into peer-reviewed journal
Hence why they are so worried about AI. I’ve stopped reading the news about technical matters. The mistakes are too numerous and their analyses are no better than the layman’s.
https://github.com/Lea-fish/Leafish
Remember that people were skeptical that they could pull off flight at all, and they set the bar for success at 5 flights but delivered 72 before it crashed!

The linked story about how it narrowly got there is well worth reading:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/before-ingenuity-ever-...
I disagree. Life 500 years ago was a constant struggle to stay alive. That left very little time to sit around and be depressed.

For those humans, at that time, who were mentally ill, I agree, they either died from exposure or were protected by other humans. That protection was expensive, though, and wasn't available to many families.
Is this more-or-less functional reactive programming (FRP) using Pydantic?
> No guarantees are given, for nothing

This is a double negative. Depending on how you interpret the comma, it could mean "guarantees are given for everything." (Pointing this out in case you intend to protect yourself from liability with this statement.)
Funny indeed, that’s the first reference on the wiki article. shrugs
They're not the same, but they're still a for-profit company.

90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil; they were evil because they felt that monopolistic practices were the easiest way to increase their share price. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to try and maximize their share price and so it's hardly unsurprising that they did the infamous Embrace Extend Extinguish, and until regulators stepped in, such practices worked pretty well.

Most companies don't get large enough to form any kind of real monopoly, so it's easy to get on a high-horse. It's also easy to act like it was just a product of "those people", but I fundamentally think that it's a natural consequence of a company that has achieved nearly-total market dominance.

I have very little faith that a multi-trillion-dollar company is going to prioritize what's best for the world. Fundamentally, I think that if they feel they can get away with it, they'll revert to monopolistic tendencies and try and increase share price.

I'm not just picking on Microsoft here either; replace them with basically any other near-monopoly in tech and my criticisms still hold.
FEMA and State agencies have been advocating people get at least a 3 day bag ready in there house for each family member.

A better plan is for two weeks.

Back in the day, with the first surge of the Avian flu, Governor Schwarzenegger ordered an bought a large supply of respirators, "just in case".

That stock pile was released and not maintained by later administrations. Then COVID hit.

The problem with something like a Carrington event is that the potential impact is very widespread. The large bulk of our disaster planning is local. The planning rightly expects the cavalry to come to the rescue directly. Katrina was a poster child of both a good and bad response. The Houston boat lift is another. The rest of the country rallies and pivots to the disaster area sending material and people to aid the stricken.

Having a 2 week store when you can shelter in place is a Good Plan for a very large majority of potential disasters. It doesn't work great for fire or floods (where you lose your home, and thus have no place to shelter). But the plan is to be able to maintain for the 2 weeks while the cavalry arrives.

The problem with something like a Carrington event, is the disaster is no longer localized. But very wide spread, thus that cavalry that was planned for is probably not coming. Not soon. Not in time. And the rules have changed dramatically. It's a nightmare scenario. Despite the wide spread devastation of the Tsunami, it, too, was localized, and aid flowed quickly, even across the sea. With a Carrington event, not so much.

This is where, ideally, communities must rally themselves, on their own initiative, to share resources and manage as best they can. As you can imagine, some communities may be able to do this better than others. But your 2 week supply for your family is now likely better used to support others in your community. For every Ant preparing for winter, there are a lot of Grasshoppers. And they get unruly when they get hungry.

It would be unprecedented, and the only real course is to muddle through best we can. State and Federal disaster planning may or may not help here. Back in the day, the USDA running the Welfare programs stockpiled and delivered food (the infamous "government cheese"). Today they just offer debit cards. I don't know if there are warehouses of cheese and peanut butter standing by anywhere any more.

Still, you can do you part, you can do your best. Engage with your neighbors, stockpile a bit more food (don't need to fill the garage with a year supply of dried beans, but an extra case of tuna won't hurt). Make your preparedness part of a continuing cycle of giving, as your stockpile starts reaching the 6 month due date, donate it to a food pantry, and get some more. But reaching out to your neighbors can help a lot, get them to work on their 2 weeks supply.

Its not all about guns and gear. It's more about civility, and having a little more food or blankets to share with others in times of crisis. No reason to expect to feed the whole neighborhood, but don't expect them to leave you alone with your stocked garage while they go hungry.
Everything LLMs produce is a fabrication, because it is all based on a linguistic simulation of reality, experience and meaning.

In many cases the output corresponds to a benign factual reality. In other other significant cases it corresponds to falsehoods.

If LLMs had any mooring in reality - whether physical, historical, moral, or cultural - they wouldn't try to diminish the difference between Hitler and Musk (and I'm saying that as no fan of the current version of Musk).

That, coupled with our brains' inherent tendency to believe their output, is why they need guard rails.
I like the implementation
> This country in its current formulation appears incapable of ever escaping the gravity of feverish Christian moralizing

On the contrary, it sounds like Christian morality would be helpful here; the Bible is pretty pointed about loving everyone (including enemies), forgiveness, and, y'know, specifically helping prisoners[0].

[0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A...
Maybe name it after a wizard. Albus?
First you hire more selectively, slower, with higher "fit" requirements (talented, flexible, aligned with technical choices), and everyone are well motivated, so it just doesn't happen that often. You just accept that people vary, some will have better ideas, more productive, go through things, etc. and that's OK. People should not have to constantly stress about their day to day peformance that much. But when there is a problem, multiple people talk about it with the top leadership over time and then it's eventually handled the usual way.
That was indeed part of what I wondering about.

Larger and smaller, in my beginner mind, was a difference of much recursiveness the design of the model allowed.

- User request implies knowledge about X.
- PULLING in weights for X.
- Probability of user knowing about Xm and Xz is low (because the training data says Xm and Xz are PhD-level knowledge or something).
- Pulling in weights for an ELI5-level explanation of Xm and Xz ...

I thought, an LLM would do this recursive pulling of weights based on the semantics of the user request, which it does, but it doesn't do that "dynamically" based on "recalculated" weights and regenerated combos of tokens, which could happen if the training data wasn't "frozen" and accessible, which I learned further down in the comments, isn't.

That's why I wondered whether more processing power and or time would benefit this recursive generation and pulling.
Magnetic effects at the origin of life? It's the spin that makes the difference
What they do well is exclude as many people as possible while maintaining a similar level of academic standards as...UVA and Michigan and UC Berkeley, which aren't fundamentally exclusionary institutions.

I struggle to see what they're doing right.
The ads I see on Windows desktop machines (and shenanigans with nonstandard Html extensions and browser defaults and etc...) tell me Microsoft is just as eager to leverage it's monopoly status as ever.

No doubt the company is cautious about some things now but even in these, it will push the boundaries.
You must have missed the part where the business was actually successful at this.
Gemini says bad things about tabloids and your "eyes are opened".

Meanwhile, Peter Thiel forced Gawker to actually close out of petty revenge.

Open your eyes a bit more.
The main reason I know people invest in real estate is because it's considered a relatively safe store of value, even if it incurs losses. "Location, location, location" is the mantra of real estate as well, as some places will be developed and appreciate in value while others might depreciate. Of all the investments which can suddenly disappear for various reasons, real estate can at least be rebuilt upon if the property burns down.
Domain Spoofing Vuln in Status Android Wallet
My bet is when change eventually comes in NK, it will not be some kind of pro-democracy popular movement. It will be a coup during a time of weakness from a group of second-tier elites who think they could have it better if the depose the dictator and replace it with a council.

If we're lucky, that comes along with some reforms. These would be reforms geared towards making those second-tier elites better off, of course. Perhaps just a change to how resources are spent and distributed. Perhaps some de-collectivization and private property. Perhaps secretly negotiated reduction in sanctions in exchange for some liberalization. But that could still be a move in the right direction.
Interesting testing strategy, but you said you can't live without it. What do you actually use it for? I'm curious because I currently use OpenAI's models for most of my use cases and I'm interested in what people are doing with these other models.
One constant through all of this, across millenia, is the helmet so. Something modern armies re-learned the hard way in WW1.

After all, despite what fantasy and roleplaying games say, a helmet is and was the most important, and first, piece of armor to get.
This data is already "re-identified" by some somebodies. And complete intent to harm over a course of 5 years proven out. I have evidence, lots of it. The individuals initially affected by the search leak need to be notified by a representative of AOL and probably SOE. Time to stop the dark patterns of attribution games and ready the individuals for what is to come. If I had been caught alone, I probably would have not made it through the harassment that came from the people that have re-identified the data.
nope, do the math

edit: i ran a monty carlo simulation¹ and i was doing the math wrong. it really does matter if monty knows or not. here's the simulation where he knows:

In [15]: non_censored_trials = got_car_trials = 0

In [16]: for trial in range(100_000):
...: car_door = random.randrange(3) # the other two doors have goats
...: your_door = random.randrange(3)
...: monty_door = random.choice(list({0, 1, 2} - {your_door, car_door}))
...: if monty_door == car_door:
...: print("Monty showed the car, never mind")
...: continue
...: non_censored_trials += 1
...: your_new_choice = next(iter({0, 1, 2} - {your_door, monty_door})) # you change your choice
...: if your_new_choice == car_door:
...: print(f"You got the car because you changed from {your_door} to {your_new_choice}")
...: got_car_trials += 1
...: else:
...: print(f"Too bad you changed; you should have stuck with {your_door}")

(...output omitted...)

In [17]: got_car_trials / non_censored_trials
Out[17]: 0.66921

so in ⅔ of the cases, switching doors gets you the car. by contrast, if monty didn't know which door would reveal a car, it's only ½ of the cases:

In [21]: non_censored_trials = got_car_trials = 0

In [22]: for trial in range(100_000):
...: car_door = random.randrange(3) # the other two doors have goats
...: your_door = random.randrange(3)
...: monty_door = random.choice(list({0, 1, 2} - {your_door}))
...: if monty_door == car_door:
...: print("Monty showed the car, never mind")
...: continue
...: non_censored_trials += 1
...: your_new_choice = next(iter({0, 1, 2} - {your_door, monty_door})) # you change your choice
...: if your_new_choice == car_door:
...: print(f"You got the car because you changed from {your_door} to {your_new_choice}")
...: got_car_trials += 1
...: else:
...: print(f"Too bad you changed; you should have stuck with {your_door}")

(...output omitted...)

In [23]: got_car_trials / non_censored_trials
Out[23]: 0.49987257709086

so if monty picked the goat door on purpose, you do gain by switching. but if he just got lucky, you don't

______

¹ thank you, manoj
> You do not know if he would have shown door 3 had you picked door 2! This is NOT in the prompt. You cannot assume that.

Monty isn't a contestant. Monty's action and outcome is part of the fixed description of the problem. He opens one of the doors and reveals a goat. Full stop.

If you think revealing one of the two goats (the other of which might or might not be behind your current selection) isn't information of value in assessing whether your chances in that scenario are improved by switching, I'd encourage you to consider why.

And now I really must leave it to someone else to help you, if they will. But I very much appreciate your politeness.
To be clear, information on the internet has always been assumed unreliable. It isn't like you typically click on only the very first Google link because 1) Google is that good (they aren't) 2) the data is reliable without corroboration.
Because that's what it is: a commodified version of "f*ck you mom and dad" rebellion with DIY window dressings. I grew up in punk culture (my house in college was a DIY punk club [1]) and at the core, that's all it is [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuJ60dAHyc4

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YefQjTeaUDI
Hiren's bootcd is a bootable Windows image with lots of utilities bundled in.

https://www.hirensbootcd.org/

"Hiren’s BootCD PE (Preinstallation Environment) is a restored edition of Hiren’s BootCD based on Windows 11 PE x64. Given the absence of official updates after November 2012, the PE version is currently under development by the fans of Hiren’s BootCD. It features a curated selection of the best free tools while being tailored for new-age computers, supporting UEFI booting and requiring a minimum of 4 GB RAM."
Neanderthals' use of complex adhesives shows high cognitive abilities
Have three identities confirmed - yet the individuals doing the harassment all know best evidence has to come from law enforcement and the logs - not my screenshots. It's part of the game they play with the data.
Meta drops lawsuit against Bright Data
> host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat.

There is quite a lot of ambiguitiy in how this is phrased. So the host knows what is behind the doors, but how does this affect his choice to open another door?

Does he always open another door, or does it depend on what is behind the door the contestant selected?

Is the second door selected by random or will it always be one with a goat?

The implicit rule is that the host:
1) always opens one of the other two doors, regardless of what is behind the selected door.
2) deliberately opens one of the two doors which doest have a car behind it.
I don't see how this "AI rush" isn't going to skew markets, skew the financials of big tech and create a bubble in the space.
Update, Harold decided to stick with his diesel generator and live happily ever after.
To be fair, all helicopters have parts with expiration dates. This is just how you have to design them, a part gets this many operating hours and is then replaced.
You're making several assumptions about how real estate investment works in real life. As someone who dabbled in real estate and might do more in the future, I'll see if I can help:

1. All real estate is local. The US is FAR from a homogeneous market. Most real estate investors buying single-family homes are NOT buying $1 mil houses in coastal states. They are buying 5- and low 6-figure houses in suburbs of growing or stable inland cities.

2. Analyzing real estate investments is not at all like analyzing a purely financial instrument like a bond. Practically none of the numbers are set in stone and every single deal is different from the next in every way you can imagine. It takes a lot of education, practice, and some experience to get good enough at this to not lose your shirt.

3. All successful real estate investors are also good at networking. They go to meetups, they have mentors, they hang out with each other and share information. They form amicable business relationships with real estate agents, contractors, and property managers.

4. There are many kinds of real estate investors, each with their own set of goals, skills, and strategies. It is virtually impossible to just copy whatever someone else is doing and do it well because you are not them. Some investors are at it full-time and end up being multi-millionaires. Some investors want extra income to supplement their full-time job or pay for their kids' college tuition. Some are retired and want a way to grow their nest egg. Some just want the park their cash in an appreciating asset for a few years. Some are good at finding properties well below market rates, some are good at negotiating, some are good at renovating homes at low cost, some are good at being landlords. ALL are good at analyzing deals. You have to figure out what you are good at and whether those things can help make you successful.

If this is something that truly interests you, I would suggest reading a few introductory real estate investment books from well-regarded authors and hanging out on the Bigger Pockets forums. There is a staggering amount to learn and it's not for everyone.
>Here’s the recipe for success, as far as I can tell: 1. You’re not going to make any money from your side projects. Internalize that, and believe it. 2. Do everything in your power to try to make money from your side projects.

Like the Stockdale paradox:

https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/Stockdale-Concept.html

I didn’t say anything for many minutes, and we continued the slow walk toward the faculty club, Stockdale limping and arc-swinging his stiff leg that had never fully recovered from repeated torture. Finally, after about a hundred meters of silence, I asked, “Who didn’t make it out?”

“Oh, that’s easy,” he said. “The optimists.”

“The optimists? I don’t understand,” I said, now completely confused, given what he’d said a hundred meters earlier.

“The optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.”

Another long pause, and more walking. Then he turned to me and said, “This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

To this day, I carry a mental image of Stockdale admonishing the optimists: “We’re not getting out by Christmas; deal with it!”
How do I use it? I only have access to 1.0 Ultra through Gemini Advanced.