skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's so depressing. Many of the people who are pointing the finger at the regulators for the annoying cookie banners don't actually see the web site/app *as* a bad actor. The fact that they had been tracking tons of extra data via cookies without their consent or knowledge was totally fine to them as long as it wasn't inconveniencing them in any way. The cookie banner is an inconvenience to their mindless consumption, so NOW it's a problem and they just don't care what the solution actually is as long as the thing goes away.

I've seen this attitude from tech people, too, so it's not just a matter of tech ignorance or illiteracy.
Next was the human who inherited the generated source and cursed every entity in existence.
I'd think so too, but the number of implementations that use dark patterns that make it more difficult to reject consent than accept it seems to indicate they aren't erring on the side of caution.

I'm not talking just de-emphasising the reject option here, but cases where there is no reject option or it's buried beneath 2-3 more clicks.
Where do you think those fans blow the heat?
> The only way it could work would be if founders got some ownership of a VC fund.

Sounds like a decent option. :-)
hey: I want to be tracked and I'm extremely annoyed that the law forces me to consent on every f- site I go to. Seems fairly clear that I consent when my browser makes a request to someone elses server and I have js enabled.

If you don't want to be tracked: disable js, disable cookies, don't go to website you know will track you.

As a user: the way you can check whether you have a tracker is as trivial as interacting with a cookie banner. Plus the cookie banners are all different but the UI to check cookies on your browser is standard and the same. if the EU wants to do something: force browser vendors to educate users on how to use their software
I left tech at 49 and became a lecturer. It's a bank holiday here in Ireland and I write this from a cafe, following a nice walk. Enough said.
> we automate things that could have kept hundreds of people employed

Well I do agree with that. But I think that should also be re-examined and we should automate less...
Looks like this was an application: YES/MVS
https://cdn.aaai.org/AAAI/1984/AAAI84-032.pdf

About Lispedit: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1006142.1006164
You don’t need to inform people you are using cookies.

It is not about cookies.
I don’t understand what that has to do with the original request. Planes don’t typically change at the last minute.
What did you not like about the original Red Alert 3?
Well said. It's frustrating seeing people earnestly pretending as if the 'solution' we're living with now is any kind of improvement.
> Why is this unfortunate?

GP answered your question, for some reason you decided to cut the quote right before the answer. Here is the part that is missing from your quote which answers your question: '[...]with a default “gubmint bad!” position'
Ravenser Odd: the medieval city Yorkshire lost to the sea
>>Only couple years ago, people would argue vehemently that dogs are not conscious.

This sentence makes it sound like you believe in 2022 everyone decided dogs are conscious in reaction to the latest shiny toy coming out of silicon valley.

You can find "people" who will argue anything, but I find it very hard to believe dog owners didn't tend to think their dogs were conscious a couple of years ago.

At any rate here's a quote from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:

"In his seminal paper “What is it like to be a bat?” Thomas Nagel (1974) simply assumes that there is something that it is like to be a bat, and focuses his attention on what he argues is the scientifically intractable problem of knowing what it is like. Nagel’s confidence in the existence of conscious bat experiences would generally be held to be the commonsense view and, as the preceding section illustrates, a view that is increasingly taken for granted by many scientists too."

This would suggest sometime between when the encyclopedia article article was written (2016) and 1974 the ideas that animals like bats, cats and dogs are conscious became the majority view. It goes without saying but this has nothing to do with LLMs.

But even before then I find it hard to believe a generation who grew up watching Lassie (1954 to 1973) didn't believe dogs were conscious.

>There were long stretches of time when 'intelligence' was a benchmark for 'consciousness'.

I find that hard to believe? Really, the biological similarity of animals and humans would seem to be the obvious benchmark, not "intelligence" whatever that means.

The encyclopedia of philosophy again says

"Neurological similarities between humans and other animals have been taken to suggest commonality of conscious experience; all mammals share the same basic brain anatomy, and much is shared with vertebrates more generally. Even structurally different brains may be neurodynamically similar in ways that enable inferences about animal consciousness to be drawn (Seth et al. 2005)."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
This assumes that dark matter exists when there has been no direct evidence of it. The observations demand that the models change to fit the data. Some argue a light touch (dark matter).
First one is abuse of market position though ;)
Yup, 100%. Grok isn't very good and it was rushed.

Rest re: pastiche model, etc. are proposing things I'm not claiming, or close to what I'm claiming.

n.b. you don't multiply the parameters by experts to get an effective parameter count. Why? Think of it this way: every expert needs to learn how to speak English, so there's a nontrivial amount of duplication among all experts
Thanks for this, it seems a lot of cookie popups are there just due to cargo culting
If AI features on mobiles get that important, like websearch was for the internet. Why should i buy an apple product if it uses the same assistant (or worse, as it runs native in the android world?)

edit typo
I can't believe that this person didn't have these doubts the whole time and just kept towing the party line because it was easy and popular. Now in their winter years, there's feeling of remorse. This sort of self serving reflection is nothing more than trying to have the cake and eat it too.

Economic theorists have done so much damage to real people. They don't know what's going on and they don't act in good faith.
They must have trained their customer support AI with a database stolen from dating sites.
I don't get it. He makes a slightly obscured reference and you don't get to call him out on wanting to convert a country into an islamist/terrorist state? Just because the GP doesn't name it directly?

I would call out a Frenchman singing the praises of Le Pen as well. I bet people would ALSO say Le Pen is trying to "unify France". She is, kind of. Genetically, so to speak. She's a monster. Not on equal footing with Trump, she is far worse. This is serious. Likewise, Egypt has their fascists, the "muslim brotherhood", and Morsi was at one point their champion.

If he didn't get deposed, we might be fighting WW3 now. Really.
When I see people being yelled at for their non-standard theories in internet it mostly boils down to them ignoring (let's call it) the structure of a scientific knowledge, when they just pick from a textbooks statements they like, reject other statements they do not like, and then try to build something on top of a resulting mess.

Scientific knowledge has a structure, similar to a structure of a math theory where axioms and definitions are used to prove theorems which in their turn are used to prove even more statements and so on. You can trace a path from any statement to axioms and definitions. But empirical sciences have structure more complex than that of math. They rely on empirical evidence which is limited by abilities of instruments, and they are subject to change when instruments become better. Sometimes they reject some hypotheses not due to contradicting evidence, but because there were several competing hypotheses and one of them had more supporting evidence.

If you start asking questions why physics thinks that X is true, and ask a lot of them not accepting any statement without asking such question then you'll get a lot of answers (conditionally on a benevolent physicist willing to answer them all), and you'll get eventually the structure of physics.

But then comes some freak and claims he proved Einstein wrong, while it is clear to physicists that he doesn't understand the structure of the theory. To get a simple example I can resort to a calculus and... Imagine a student that when asked to prove that sin(x)/x -> 1 when x->0, "proved" it with a help of L'Hôpital's rule by taking derivatives of nominator and denominator. L'Hôpital's rule doesn't forbid it explicitly, and it may seem to be ok, but the trouble is the derivative of sin is proved with reference to a limit of sin(x)/x when x->0. So it becomes a circular reasoning and if you see how student does it you know that the student doesn't understand a thing about calculus, his attempts to pretend to know calculus are pathetic. Similar mistakes one can make in any discipline, though in them the structure or reasoning behind the theory is more complex, in math you can rely on pure logic, you need no Occam's Razor or something like. In social sciences you need to know all the history of your chosen domain of knowledge, how it evolved and why so. In physics it is simpler but still you need to understand at least some decisions made in the past (or maybe all of them, I'm not a physicist, so I'm just speculating).

One can propose any insane theory contradicting to Einstein, Newton or anyone else and not to be yelled at, but you need to state your starting position carefully with regard to a structure of a scientific knowledge. Like if you want to derive statement sin(x)/x->1 when x->0 by resorting to L'Hôpital's rule then you need first to build your own calculus with blackjack and hookers from scratch in a way that make it to be a non-circular reasoning. And probably you will need to explain your motivation why are you doing that, because people will be asking about it a lot.
I'd be really worried about condensation with peltier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_clearing
Growth at the expense of quality. At the expense of customer Goodwill. At the expense of employee happiness. I'm a full-blooded capitalist but our economy's addiction to growth will, I think, be our downfall.
My guess is that they are because ISPs may keep records of them—I think they are required to in some jurisdictions. But you don't have to store IPs in your server logs.
That is in next years budget
Here's my idea - no data collection without compensation. For example, you must pay me in advance 1 cent for the permission to access 1 byte of my personally identifiable information for the following month, whether that's stored in a cookie or in your own database or you access it via a third party (e.g. Meta). So instead of a "cookie consent" pop-up, I want a "cookie payment" pop up where the site will ask me for my payment details and say how much they'll pay me (again, in advance) for each of the options I can toggle.
For the last 25 years I’ve hated this invention because it has been continually conflated to make the assumption that my preferred language is based on the country I currently find myself.

Every major global tech company has made this mistake and nearly all of them deliberately override my Accept-Language request header and ignore it.

Did you know that over 8 million people worldwide are native speakers of Catalan, whilst only 4 million people speak Norwegian? Guess which speakers are continually ignored.

When I travel to France, should websites push me to use the website in French, even though I don’t speak it? No.

Incorrect understanding of the problem and badly misused over time. I’d vote to have the IP2Location databases killed off and buried for good.
> It does not seem easy to "compile" combine them coherently them into an ISO and install. (ok usb stick, whatever is best these days)

I don't think this actually is an "operating system" in the traditional sense of the term. It isn't trying to replace Linux/Windows/XNU/etc, it isn't something like Fuschia or seL4. They mention a "minimal kernel", but I bet it isn't their own custom OS kernel, it is just a Linux kernel with some minimalist configuration

It is more an "application server" – if WebSphere, WebLogic, Tuxedo, CICS, TXSeries, etc, are "operating systems" then this is an operating system too.

Maybe a merged "application server"/"database", which is not actually a new idea (go back to 1999 or so, and Oracle's J2EE app server was built into Oracle RDBMS, and ran as part of the database; shortly thereafter Oracle decided this was a bad idea, and moved to a more conventional architecture in which the app server runs in a standard JVM outside of the database)
It's sad that you have to pay a subscription to bring the web back where it was 10-15 years ago, isn't it?
In your scheme you can't tell the difference between the single byte binary input 0x01, and the four byte binary input 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x01.

Those are the same if you're treating the binary data as a stream of 32 bit numbers, but not if it's a stream of an arbitrary number of octets.

Your parent is suggesting that if after chunking the input into 5s, your last chunk is "10" you would treat that as 0x01, "100" as 0x00,0x01, "1000" as 0x00,0x00,0x01 and only "10000" as 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x01. That's not four encodings of the same value at all.

Treating "1" (or any single leftover character) as invalid in such a scheme makes sense because a single character can only encode 85 values, from 0x00 to 0x54.
At one company where I worked the head of legal and the compliance officer scheduled a meeting with me[1] without any notice. I showed up and it turns out they wanted to know why we didn't have a cookie banner. I explained we didn't have any cookies.

They insisted we implement a cookie banner which would set a cookie to say whether or not you had accepted cookies. This was the only cookie.

[1] Never a good sign when legal and compliance just book a meeting with you like that and you don't know any normal context.
The very last paragraph:

> A full debug build of Cranelift itself using the Cranelift backend took 29.6 seconds on my computer, compared to 37.5 with LLVM (a reduction in wall-clock time of 20%). Those wall-clock times don't tell the full story, however, because of parallelism in the build system. Compiling with Cranelift took 125 CPU-seconds, whereas LLVM took 211 CPU-seconds, a difference of 40%. Incremental builds — rebuilding only Cranelift itself, and none of its dependencies — were faster with both backends. 66ms of CPU time compared to 90ms.
I read far too much of it and got nothing beyond “too many websites look the same”. Horrible, careless writing and proofreading. One interesting idea was that “usability”, although it’s the conventional standard, is not always desirable—friction and surprise in design can be preferable.

This site completely breaks my browser’s zoom function, making it almost unusable. Perhaps that was intentional.
A personal anecdote: I was charged with adding a cookie banner to my company’s website after having successfully resisted having one for many years. The reason given to me by the new owners of the business being that the marketing department wanted to try some new stuff, and the lawyers told them that it required consent on the part of our users. I was also told that I shouldn’t spend a lot of time on this, and to therefore use an off-the-shelf product (OneTrust), and to not customize it any way. When I remarked that the default texts for the banner sounded very scary and implied that we did a lot of things that we weren’t actually doing, I was told to leave them unchanged, because we had to assume that they had been vetted by (OneTrust’s) lawyers, and that it would be too legally risky to change them. My argument that OneTrust’s offering was a one size fits all that had to be compliant with the sleaziest, most ad-tech compromised media sites out there, but that we were not that, failed to make an impression.

A couple of observations:

1. Players like OneTrust and the consultants who specialize in this, are highly incentivized to play up the risks of not being compliant. My layman’s estimation of the legal risks is that the risk for good faith actors is actually pretty low. If the authorities find that you are not in compliance, you will most likely get a chance to rectify this, and possibly a slap on the wrist. Those scary fines measured in percent of global revenue, is not going to be what you face for an honest mistake.

2. Those businesses that rely on invasive tracking, and therefore really must use these banners, benefit from everyone else mistakingly believing that they too must compromise their UX with these banners. It makes what they do seem normal and acceptable.
This article provides an excellent overview of the latest in speed of optimizer vs quality of optimization.

In particular, copy-and-patch compilation is still the fastest approach because it uses pre-compiled code, though leaves little room for optimization.

Cranelift uses e-graphs to represent equivalence on the IR. This allows for more optimizations than the copy-and-patch approach.

Of course, the most optimized output is going to come from a more traditional compiler toolchain like LLVM or GCC. But for users who want to get "fast enough" output as quickly as possible, newer compiler techniques provide a promising alternative.
> I want genuine autonomy over my life, not being a cog in a machine

I have some news for you about life for the vast majority of people right now... Including yourself, most likely
Can somebody explain this thread to me? Sums and for-loops are the same
I've got to admit, I'm unclear what the equivalent of a cookie banner for murder would be.

This criminal uses murder! If you continue to interact, you consent to being murdered.

Murders you anyway
Never have I ever seen so many platitudes in one post. Makes me think of the Flemish “Bond Zonder Naam”[1], who monetise these kinds of uninspiring sayings where I live. In Dutch also called “tegelwijsheden”, because your grandma would have these sappy and dull ‘wisdoms’ painted on a tile in their kitchen. Apparently some people also see money in it[2].

[1] https://www.bzn.be/
[2] https://www.tegeltjes.com/tegeltjes-wijsheid
Can't blame a company for trying to make their AI charismatic :D
FYI: Odden is Danish for a spit of land.
Like -by is Danish for town.

And -thorp (eller -rup på dansk) is a hamlet.

Of course I may have ballsed that all up.
No, unlike G.711, G.722 is lossily compressed using psychoacoustic concepts, and modems wouldn’t know what to do with the extra acoustic frequencies anyway.

G.722 might sound better to humans, but G.711 is definitely better for modems since it’s effectively just uncompressed PCM (disregarding a bit of dynamic range compression which modems are generally fine with).
It's good to see other people talk about what I've been privately warning about amongst my circles for almost 5 years now, though no one has really taken it seriously and I've been often dismissed as a conspiracy nut for saying this.

The reason citizens like you and me are kept around is because we have typically provided some form of economic output, in the form of labor and taxes, to society, and indirectly to the wealthy and powerful class, which is billionaires and politicians.

If most citizens don't have anything to contribute in an economy, they can be eliminated entirely from society so that this class can win the zero-sum games in society, and have natural resources to themselves. Thus, in the best case, commoners will be kept around in government provided housing (with all the things that it implies), with strict limits on reproduction and a very small baseline of resources so as to give the appearance that the government wasn't killing its people, though death would still be incentivized in the form of lower standards of medical care, so that society's dead weight can be eliminated.

In the worst case, politicians and billionaires would simply join forces to eliminate aforementioned dead weight through mass genocide. There is no downside to this, except that the first country to do this may have to face criticism, but I suspect eventually all countries would move in that direction once a few have taken their first step and established precedent.
See for example GitHub's statement [1] about no longer displaying a cookie banner. While ironically the blog still does display them, the main site doesn't.

[1] https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
There are extensions to hide the cookie banners and while you have not clicked yes you have effectively said no.
The close to million users now on https://www.stilldontcareaboutcookies.com/ suggests that there's a pretty sizable amount of people that care less about the philosophy of European data laws and more about just getting on with their day.
what exactly are you implying here?
> just as the ancient priest knew that a cartload of grain burned as an offering to his god would not be available to feed the poor

Did any culture do this? The Greeks famously burned bones wrapped in fat for their gods, and there is a myth explaining how the gods had to be tricked into accepting the inedible part of the animal.

Chinese food sacrifices are placed in a position of honor for a while, after which they are taken away and eaten.

The gods don't actually want any food, so practices will evolve -- really quickly -- in the direction of not giving them any, or at least not making the gifts permanent.
I don't see the comment arguing for that at all, and I don't think the analogy to crop monocultures being more vulnerable to pests really holds.

There are good reasons we deride "security through obscurity" as valid, and just because "structural diversity" makes automated scanning harder doesn't mean it can't be done. See Shodan.
The fees example is maybe apples to oranges. The fees are a problem because they subvert the pricing information signals needed for the free market. The problem is not the fact that they are charged, the problem is that they are not included in an upfront price display. Were they included in the total upfront price and never specified the users should not care - it's not their business how a company spends their money.

But I suppose that was just an example you picked to illustrate the industry's malicious compliance, and not the main point, in which case fair enough. :-)
Nothing else solves that problem either. Sure you can pass the buck from investors to someone else, but they also don't know what is correct. Everyone is guessing - they often have various evidence but it is never complete enough to be 100% confident in your decisions and so there is always someone guessing.

The difference is here the people making the guess are also taking on the risk of what if they are wrong. When someone else makes the decision they don't have the risk and thus less incentive to get it right. Also that "someone" making the decision tends to be making a lot of decisions and so are unlikely to spend enough time researching it, or alternatively since they don't feel any pain they will spend far too much time on research. (there is no objective way to say what is enough time in research)
Yes, you do care, in fact, you care a lot! You made it the centerpiece of your argument and went to a lot of trouble to do so.

Flag away, my friend.
> And compare to (say) the Federal Reserve's handling of the economy in recent decades.

Can you elaborate on this point?

It seems to me like the federal reserve has done a fine job with the tools/mission they have. Their goal is to manage growth and keep inflation within some reasonable bounds and they seem to be doing that ok. They don't have the power to build more housing, change zoning laws, or dictate how the government responds to a global pandemic.