skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's an interesting/useful concept and most big tech co's I've worked at have some form of this internally.

But I think it's a little dangerous to market this as "feels like local functions". It glosses over a lot of really important technical considerations (like, the network and all the dragons that come with it) which will eventually bite people who don't understand that, and will immediately turn people off who do understand that.

I'm not a marketing or copy expert by any means, but what might be a neat product is (rightfully) getting criticized in the comments here for the positioning.
Try setting up your Linux desktop/laptop with a Cyrillic language keyboard only, and then try typing in your ASCII login password.
> asking them whether they trust the government is going to produce data of any value at all.

Ye. A lot of these kind of questions people just answer the correct answer. You can see that in regard to education level, where less education seems correlated with more honest amswers, since they don't know the correct one.
POWs played golf at the 'Great Escape' prison camp
It's self-defeating though. AI tools fundamentally require trust, because the tool functions as a colleague, editor, partner or friend.

A good way to think of it is as the embodiment of its creator. That's OpenAI, and because Sam and the whole staff have publicly acted in what we'll call a "controversial" manner that is in serious tension with the common good of all humanity, folks rightly should view OpenAI's AI black box untrustworthy, a snake oil.

Maybe the AI will habitually pit you against your trusted colleagues when doing so might be profitable to OpenAI staff, the way Sam did. Maybe the AI will claim to be altruistic and then once it's achieved a position of trust it will, when you are most vulnerable, function decisively against users' needs and goals the way OpenAI staff acted against their managers in the OpenAI board.

These people are selling trust when they have decisively demonstrated they are unworthy of it. There are entire professions built on trust that demonstrate this is not a "natural" course, it is instead a path to long-term irrelevance.
Oh damn. I recently bought one for my girlfriend. This was one aspect I didn't even bother checking.
This seems compute intensive for rag utilities or im missing something, i don't really see the application when you could get the same results with sparse embeddings(keywords) then re-ranking. It is promising-with context length issues, amnesia becomes a problem because the retrieved docs often bloats out the context window, this is the right direction for personal llms
Interesting, covers many recent Xiaomis(Pocos), some Motorolas, some Pixels, more Oneplusses, Samsungs, two Nokias(?!), one Sony Experia 5 II, one ASUS Zenfone Max Pro, two 'Nothings'(?), many Realmes...

Been unaware of it, tempted to try(but probably not, because Android-induced bruxism lurks there...)
Evolution of Gaming and AMD FreeSync Technology
Yeah, sorry. I stand corrected =(
That was not a reaction plan, it was an offensive plan. That's why they even bothered with targeting Soviet airfields. At the time the USSR had not yet developed an ICBM and so nukes would have been delivered by air. If it was a response plan, then targeting those airfields would have been wastes of nukes. The idea was to destroy their entire country and nuclear capability, before they could do anything.

Remember, there's only one country that's ever nuked another country.
A 'fair judge'? You mean one that applies the law? Most of the experts I've seen say the case has no chance. Or are you saying this is another 4d chess move like what happened with Twitter?
In my outpatient family medicine clerkship, I saw over 25 patients a day. 20 minute appointments from 8 AM until 5 PM. It was a whirlwind of activity from beginning to end. I don't think in 4 months I saw my preceptor get a 20 minute lunch break. It's crazy. Each room you go in, subjective, objective, assessment, plan, boom, next room. Hope you got all your orders in before that next patient without getting too far behind! I don't think people get how much their doctors are doing behind the scenes.

And after each appointment they need to document everything in the chart. If you aren't charting in the room, you will be there for hours after your last patient catching up. But if you do chart in the room, your patients get mad at you because you are on the computer the whole visit.

Then you have to prechart at the end of the day on all of your patients tomorrow and get ready to do it all again.
It depends. For some applications, sure.

But especially when you're doing multi-row panoramas with long exposure times, preparation is key, and so is execution time.

I often do multi-row HDR panos. With brackets of 3 exposures each, the time for a single frame can quickly add up to 45s or more. In a 3 row, 5 column pano that adds up to a total exposure time of 11.25 minutes - net. This doesn't include the time between frames needed to pan to the next column (or worse, next row and 1st column), making sure you get enough overlap, align everything and finally tighten the tripod head knobs/clamps again.

Depending on the season, the usable blue hour may be as short as 15 minutes. That mean's you essentially get one shot at this.

So any gear that allows you to do that reliably and quickly, for example a panoramic rotator head with indexed degree stops [1], helps immensly with getting good results.

This is an example of a 2x5 "pano" with a 3x exposure bracket (20s, 6s, 2s) I took:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Palace_of_Sw...
(Warning: Full res image is huge)

With 20s as the longest exposure, the chance of a car or bus driving right through my shot was huge, so I had to retake many of the frames, some even several times.

[1] For example the Nodal Ninja RD16-II Advanced Panoramic Rotator
LA mayor Karen Bass to visit Paris in preparation for 2028 Olympic games
Just stopping by to say that this type of post is absolutely obnoxious and embarrassing for you.
Show HN: ReclinerJS – Local CouchDB inside your Browser
Introducing Recliner-JS: a CouchDB-like database that runs directly in your browser!

Get ready to experience the power of a seamless document and attachment management system, just like CouchDB, but with the added convenience of being accessible through a familiar REST API.

Imagine effortlessly retrieving your docs and attachments with a simple URL:

<img src=`/recliner/dbname/doc_id/attachment_name`>

But that's not all! This library takes things to the next level with its cutting-edge partial content streaming capabilities. Lazy Cloud Attachments ensure that your browser only downloads the attachments you need, when you need them, optimizing performance and efficiency.

Built from the ground up using pure, vanilla JavaScript, this library is a testament to my commitment to simplicity and robustness.

Don't just take my word for it – head over to the GitHub repo and explore the usage examples and working demos for yourself! Get ready to revolutionize your web development experience.
To be fair, everything that astrophysics comes up with will be massively under constrained. For all intents and purposes we work with a single datapoint and try to infer dynamics.
Maybe? I don't know. I imagine we don't have any good ways to observe gravitational waves, even fairly strong ones with periods of millenia or even centuries which are still very short times on a galactic scale.

And apart from that, I think that we can only look at CMB and conclude that it's a bit wobbly. Must be quantum fluctuations, sure, why not, but is it only the quantum fluctuations? Or maybe the spacetime between us and CMB source is a bit wobbly too?

Another thing is large scale structure of our universe. Visualizations look like foam. Planty of chaos that wobblines can safely compose into.

I think the work of those scientists is very important because it might allowed us to pinpoint how strong distortions of the spacetime would need to be to explain what we see and maybe we could narrow down the range of frequencies which might gives us ideas how to look for them.

Simplistic and grandiose assumptions make our current best model of the universe a bit restrictive. To the point that we are starting to find direct counterexamples for our theories derived from it. Mature galaxies way too old. Megastructures way too large. CMB fluctuation not exactly fitting best theoretical models. Unreconcilable differences between Hubble constant measured from CMB and that measured from galaxies.

I think accepting a bit of chaos beyond what we currently believe is an inevitable way out.
Only if we've constrained ourselves to take inflation as true.
I'm far from an expert, and I'm still struggling my way through this paper, but from what I can see they are only intruducing one new free parameter, the same number as lambda CDM.
SEA-KIT was acquired by Fugro last year (https://www.fugro.com/news/business-news/2023/fugro-gains-fu...). So in this case: definitely more multibeam (nothing towed although there is an ROV) and less warfare.
Yeah, although this stuff varies from culture to culture. Here's Douglas Adams visiting a 14th century temple in Kyoto:

>I was told it hadn’t weathered well at all, and had in fact been burned to the ground twice in this century.

>“So it isn’t the original building?” I had asked my Japanese guide. “But yes, of course it is,” he insisted, rather surprised at my question.

>“But it’s been burned down?”

>“Yes.”

>“Twice.”

>“Many times.”

>“And rebuilt.”

>“Of course. It is an important and historic building.”

>“With completely new materials.”

>“But of course. It was burned down.”

>“So how can it be the same building?”

>“It is always the same building.”

>I had to admit to myself that this was in fact a perfectly rational point of view, it merely started from an unexpected premise. The idea of the building, the intention of it, its design, are all immutable and are the essence of the building. The intention of the original builders is what survives. The wood of which the design is constructed decays and is replaced when necessary. To be overly concerned with the original materials, which are merely sentimental souvenirs of the past, is to fail to see the living building itself.

>I couldn’t feel entirely comfortable with this view, because it fought against my basic Western assumptions, but I did see the point.
> That's not actually very common in non-profits.

there is a lot wrong with that assumption based on a single anecdote.

private foundations can have a single board member and that board member can be the single donor. although the IRS does not care in granting tax-exempt status, not all states offer a single board member for their own non-profit entity catalogue, but relevant states do like Delaware. of course Delaware does right? additionally, it doesn't matter what a state's non-profit entity selection has as any entity can obtain non-profit tax exempt status from the IRS technically, even unincorporated entities like sole-proprietorships ie. your general person when operating the charitable mission.

there is some transparency of this which is not aggregated, in the 990 series of tax disclosures that non-profits have to provide, this can show how many board members or directors there are, if that's whats important for you to prove. I don't think that's important, but this is about "common" or not and I don't have the aggregate data, that's where to get partial data.

none of these forms tell you the bylaws of the organization, these are still private documents. the bylaws dictate board member selection.

next, if Donor Advised Funds count as non-profits in your mind, that's a slam dunk as those are all pools of capital for grant making run by a single donor.

and where the transparency totally fails is in exempt non-profits, these report only the "postcard" 990-N and is entirely on an honor system that they have less than $50,000 in "annual receipts". these are cheap to create and nobody knows anything about them, what's actually on their balance sheet, there are basically no audits as they are tax exempt and there is no reason to determine what's missing.

I usually don't write this stuff as its more beneficial if the people had more disjointed opinions about tax matters, but I don't think Congress will ever reach consensus on any opinion people harbor so its fine. One of those examples where truth is less familiar than fiction.
In my experience in the clinic, the attendings are spending an incredible amount of their time doing busywork required by management instead of actually caring for patients.
disclaimer i am working in gamedev and using C++.

I find the paper is really low on anything that other organizations relying on C++ heavily can take home as advice.

Like they still need their C++ systems [3]. They failed to make changes in their C++ systems that will make a difference [2]. And only progress they have is writing new peripheral or unimportant systems in other languages [1]. They do not believe that anything of importance will be following rewrite path on their side [3].

1. "gradual transition towards memory-safe languages like Java, Go, and Rust"

2. "We see no realistic path for an evolution of C++ into a language with rigorous memory safety guarantees"

3. "A large-scale rewrite of all existing C++ code into a different, memory-safe language appears very difficult and will likely remain impractical."
Small Joys When Programming
What Cannot be Skipped About the Skiplist
Tank Museum in U.K. Playing Big Role in Keeping Ukraine's Armor on Track
No? What is your point?
> I think you're getting a bit lost in the debate!

This is the second time you've made accusations, which at this point feels like you're gaslighting me but I'll assume good intent. Here's what you claim:

> At no point did I claim that there is any reason to believe that human intelligence is a stochastic parrot.

Here's what you said:

> 1. Current gen AI may only seem like a stochastic parrot, but there's no reason to believe that human intelligence isn't just a really fancy stochastic parrot.
The biggest mistake I have made in completing coursework in many cases has been losing time understanding the readings when I could have used the time to rush through and submit the assignment.

Reading the material to understand it first? Not enough time will remain to do the graded work, and my grade suffers, but at least I’ve learned something and expanded my understanding.

Rushing through the graded work instead? Sometimes I have completely forgotten that the assignment had happened by the time the A arrives, and I have to locate the instructions to know what it had been about.
I agree with your point in general, but in this case specifically I strongly disagree.

The idea worked out by Oppenheim and his colleagues/students is a fairly concrete theory which aims to marry quantum mechanics and general relativity. They're working on a bunch of approaches to turn their model into testable predictions in different regimes.

They have a bunch of different papers with different ways their model could be falsified. None of them are at the level where you could falsify their model with current technology but they're seriously working on the theory required to make their ideas potentially testable.

I went to a talk a couple of years ago at a conference by Oppenheim and he is very clear that what they're looking for is to make concrete predictions which can be tested.

Edit: you can see here for another paper where they try to push their theory towards producing some testable predictions

https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01982
The presumption that additions are free, when, in current hardware, there's not a dramatic difference between the cost of an add and a multiply, seems particularly damning.

These algorithms reduce the number of multiplies, but seem to increase the total number of floating point ops (including both adds and multiplies), unless I'm mistaken.
Maybe? But a few things count against that hypothesis. Elephants are already very mobile animals, so they can simply move away if they don't like the smell; dislike of the smell would, you'd think, drive them to move away rather than remaining with the corpse, moving it around, and trumpeting loudly.
Secondly, do elephants do that with other animal corpses they discover in their travels? We would expect not, though this would need observation and trials to find out for sure.
Thirdly, does this way of burying the corpse make it more difficult for scavenging animals to discover the corpse? If so, that counts for the other hypothesis.
Oban looks great, how would one run a python cuda based workload on it?
The N100 is the current thing. It is in a large variety of form factors with a variety of available connectivity options.

N100 sips power while performing as well as a 60w quad core Skylake.
Thank you for sharing that was interesting. I’m surprised he says it is against western assumptions, but perhaps western assumptions has changed over time and adopted these views more.
Came across this on twitter. Here's why I think SPC is related to Software Development (and Agile concepts, particular the burndown charts) more generally:

To be clear, they are related but not the same use case. IMO, both Agile and SPC leverage the same insight: variation is inevitable: what matters is not that it exists, but how you deal with it.

With SPC, you are establishing a normal variation so that you can identify abnormal activity that is warrants further investigation.

With Agile you're not really looking for outliers per se, it's more that you want to get to a place where your "normal" variation is a much smaller range. Because a smaller range leads to better quality and more output:

Variation in the software dev context is the difference between your estimates and the actual work required to deliver a feature, etc. High variation means you're constantly in a rush, need to cut corners, need to cut scope, etc.

This has a lot of downstream impacts in terms of quality but also in the actual scope of what you can deliver. In short, you need to spend more time fixing bigger problems.

Less variation means smaller problems and less time spent fixing --> more time is allocated to new feature development.

(and separate topic, but variation in Software dev has a special property where it only accrues in the "takes longer" side vs. the "take less time" direction. You never "make up time" because something is quicker than your estimate. see note below.

So the burndown chart is less about enabling you to see outliers, more providing visibility to the variation so that you can work towards making it smaller. If you're constantly loading work in the end of the sprint, you have a problem with the scoping process.

How does that track back to Agile?

One the key elements of Agile process is breaking work down into smaller batches --> and Breaking things down into smaller batches is* they key mechanism to reducing variability.

NOTE:
*Software pretty much only takes longer than expected because there is high visibility into the fastest something can be done, but very little visibility into the unexpected things that can add scope to the project. So it's extremely rare for something to happen that make it take less effort than your estimates, but very common for things to add scope.

It's similar to estimating how long it will take to drive somewhere: you can get a pretty accurate sense of the fastest it will take based on distance and speed. But the things that extend the duration of the trip, like a car accident or unexpected road work, are just much more unpredictable. So if you were to plot that variation on a chart, you only see it move in one direction.
It's about letting the TCP implementations on the end-points know early that the capacity of the link has been reached; so that they adjust their bandwidth usage before a long queue (which would cause latency) accumulates on the router before the bottleneck link.
Active queue management can achieve this with "explicit congestion notification" (ECN, a bit in the IP header) if supported by the endpoints; or alternatively by probabilistically dropping some packets early.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_queue_management
If the base of this theory is some form of chaos you can always fit the distribution of the chaos to explain outliers with the probability they actually occur at.
Of course, absolutely. It’s a serious question.

There is the issue that Biden or any other elected leaders are answerable to their electorate, and other institutions in their country, in a way that authoritarians are not, so it’s a matter of the commitment of the nation too, but that’s not directly an issue with the simulated war concept. It’s nonsense for purely practical reasons.
> the board drastically overplayed their hand

I think this is the wrong interpretation. The board had zero financial or power dynamic motivation, as there was nothing to gain. Due to Altman's backdoor dealings and manipulations, it is pretty clear that the board was right to make their decision in terms of being in line with the charter. The non-profit charter is legally binding, and it's possible that the board's action was to protect themselves legally because it's possible that Altman's machinations will bring regulatory action. OpenAI is indeed being investigated. This also explains the board's reasoning to resign if Altman was reinstated. They had zero reason to do that except if it was to protect themselves.
Minisforum MS-01 Review the 10GbE with PCIe Slot Mini PC
LLM Interface in Pure Rust
I'm not sure you understand how WSL works: it's just the native `curl` binary for whatever Linux distro you're using in WSL. On both Ubuntu and OpenSuSE, which are the two I have installed, --cacerts works as expected, because of course it does.

Separately, Microsoft bundles curl.exe as part of Windows since somewhere in the later Windows 10 or early Windows 11 releases, I forget which. This also appears to be honoring --cacerts.

So no, this seems to very much be an Apple problem.