skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Seconded. I'm 64, and today I learnt I had no idea what historians do when I read https://www.benlandautaylor.com/p/how-to-learn-history

I can't find an article from him where I can fault the logic or didn't learn something new. Perhaps some are a bit wordy, by my he does write readable words.

Back to the topic on hand, I googled "How to learn history". Why? Because I now I have a fair idea of what the best introductory page on the subject is. To give Google it's due his post is the 15th result by my count, so it's discoverable if you are persistent. To give this article it's due, the top 14 hits are exactly as he described in this article - little better than SEO horseshit.

It triggered a lightbulb moment for me - a theory on how Google ranks its results. Sites that specialise in serving higher grade horseshit on a wide variety of topics are in a hand curated list, and sites in that list are ranked first.

Why do I think it's hand curated? Two reasons. Google keeps returning the same few sites. It's been puzzling me for a long while why sites Quora and wikiHow appear are at the top, when there invariably are far better resources out there. Reason one is I keep reading every metric Google used to automatically rank sites has been gamed into uselessness, so it has to be hand curated. The second is hand curated means the size must be manageable to a human. Given the shear number of topics (millions if not billions) the only way to keep it manageable is to restrict it to sites that serve a lot of topics. So www.benlandautaylor.com won't be in that list, despite being high quality. It doesn't contain enough topics. No one-horse blog would.

Finally, I've come up with a plausible explanation of why sites that clearly are little better than SEO farms keep being ranked highly, even though many of them (like Quora) are almost always worse than useless. While they are worse than useless, being only a little worse than useless is a high bar on todays internet. That question has been driving me nuts, because I'm positive no search engine likes the situation.

That said it's immediately obvious to me his pages were way better than even the highest grade of horseshit the search engines float to the top. If it's obvious to me, it will be obvious to an suitably trained AI. They are already far smarted than me in their domains. The CPU consumed by feeding a AI the entire internet regularly boggles the mind, but I guess that will change. Maybe there is some hope for internet search after all.
> the systems don’t have a path to profitable functionality.

I don’t buy this at all.

Sure loads of ChatGPT wrappers will die but there is definitely money to be made. Robotics is going to be big. Companies are firing customer service people. Etc

Sure that last one is perhaps not desirable but it does prove both practical value and feasibility

And as the price per token plummets and context increases more application will open up.

Just because VC money is keeping some shops open that should die doesn’t mean that’s true for the entire field
Or you just miss promotions, raises, bonuses because you didn't do enough, "moderate impact"
Interesting articles!

I think the first part of the first article immediately introduces an anti-pattern - forcing the user to make an instance of a class just to be able to call a pure function. It's just unnecessary noise, either make them static methods, group them in an object literal, or import the module as a namespace.

Adding the "pattern" as a mutable public field is a bit sketchy, and would make it show up in intellisense, but hopefully nobody will access/modify it. Making the pattern as a `const` at module scope solves that problem but you handwave away that approach saying it "pollute the symbol space for intellisense", which isn't true (non-exported items aren't available outside the module).

The next section on validation is a good example of another anti-pattern. The example of:

public get isUserValid(): boolean

is not a good way of doing it, because it relies on hopes and prayers that the user of the class remembers to call this. A better signature would be:

function isUser(input: unknown): input is User

Notice the key difference - you can't get an instance of User without it being valid. There shouldn't be a notion of "yeah I have a User, but I don't know if it's a valid User". Your way allows people to operate with User, blissfully unaware of whether it is valid or not, hoping that they might notice the right method to call. Instead: Parse, Don't Validate [1]

Note that to do this correctly, you have to either:

1. Separate data and functions
2. If you must use a class, then hide the constructor and provide a static constructor with a return type that indicates the function can fail

[1] https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...

_________

Part 2 was an interesting exercise in how the popular OOP patterns from the GoF book vastly overcomplicated code, negatively impact readability, and make following the code feel like Mario (the princess is in another castle)

No need for inheritance, abstract base classes, of any of that complexity, all of that could be done with:

type ShippingCalculator = () => number

const shippingCalculators = {
USPS: calculateUSPS,
UPS: calculateUPS,
FedEx: calculateFedEx,
DHL: calculateDHL,
} as const satisfies Record<ShippingMethod, ShippingCalculator>

Intellisense works fine of course, and code navigation (via F12) is straightforward and easy to navigate.
Mostly agree, just a minor nitpick

> he probably would have preferred to go to school and play with his friends.

Not all kids want to do kiddie things. At 10yo or so, if I had the competence and choice between doing actual work for 8 hour at my dad's office, and going to school with the other kids, I'd totally have chosen the former.

I don't think kids should work or skip school, but their personal preference is probably more varied than we account for.
I've talked to several world class computer scientists/bioinformaticians who realized, on their own, that decompression is the fastest way to fill the cache with data (because the amount of data streaming in is smaller, and CPUs are VERY fast for decompression).

One of the key innovations in the AMBER MD engine that made it work OK on cheaper systems was lossless floating point compression. It still impresses me that you can compress floats, send them over MPI, and decompress them, all faster/lower latency than the transport can send the uncompressed data.
Comparing to those things actually makes it sound quite expensive while also being a very vague amount. The point would be a lot better if it had a number.
I wonder how much this has to do with LLMs making the essay portion of college applications (and even high school grades) somewhat useless at distinguishing among students.

Having a tightly controlled exam without the possibility of AI assistance seems to be the best option left for determining scholastic aptitude.
I don't disagree with the recommendations, and do most of those myself. A big caveat though is most 9-5 jobs aren't very forgiving or compatible with this. I've only been able to do these when on break from work TBH.
Ok, not to belittle your work or anything, but I think you are either not using the words correctly, or trolling us here.

If we used your "non-LLM" library to build an LLM, it wouldn't be "from scratch" would it? Therefore it is natural to assume that you meant that your code is supposed to be "an LLM written from scratch".
It's specifically the claim that we can say enough about linguistics to use it as evidence for multiple waves of migration.

(We have evidence for multiple waves from other sources, chiefly haplogroups.)
> Sure, artificial neural network is a great analogy. But that leaves out what it literally is

It's not an analogy - an artificial neural network is literally what an LLM is. A trie is not an LLM, because it's not a neural network. If someone asked how many parameters a trie loaded with many sentences has, that question wouldn't even make sense, because it doesn't model weights between neurons, unlike an LLM.

I think perhaps you're getting confused between the class of 'next token predicting algorithms' (which is a class with lots of different algorithms in it) and 'LLMs'. LLMs are a specific kind of next token predicting algorithm that work in a particular way. You can make a next token predictor out of a trie (as you have), but it is not an LLM.
Yes, Dubai diversified away from oil.

I'm not sure if Saudi Arabia can reproduce the success. The entirety of Arabian peninsula is pretty much immune to cultural development, but Dubai got a pass because they were the first ones in that area to try building a normal healthy economy, meanwhile whatever Saudis do, they have to compete with Dubai which is already highly developed.

My point being, why would people invest in Saudi Arabia if they can invest in Dubai.
People understate the ability of LLM's to give out info that is dangerous, a black box is a black box. find an AI engineer who knows exactly why a model gives the answer it does and i'll eat my hat.
The Mac version, which was enhanced to run at 640x480 and had a game disc that did double duty as a redbook audio CD soundtrack, was bundled with the Performa 6400 that was the family computer in my house in the mid-90s.

I wasn’t able to play it too much until that computer became mine as a hand-me-down some years later but it was the first “real” video game I’d ever played and it left an impression. For a couple years in the early 2000s it was a minor obsession of mine to hunt down custom levels on the internet to play with it. It was also the first game that I found an alternative client for, when I ran across versions built for OpenGL and GLIDE that could run at higher resolutions.
An interface representing a state machine usually does not directly represent the concrete state machine, but presents an interface to interact with the state machine. E.g. for a parser state machine, submit the next token that will advance the state machine; or an operation to read out the current state, or an operation to obtain a list of the currently possible transitions.

Of course it's not impossible for the preconditions for each operation of the interface to map exactly to a protocol so that the operations permitted in each state correspond 1:1 to the state transitions of a protocol. But that is not the general case, and not how people usually think about interfaces.

I don't know if you are familiar with the term interface description language (IDL), but generally IDLs are not suitable for specifying a protocol, in the sense of specifying (among other things) the protocol's state machine. It would be misleading to call them protocol description languages.

There are other ways in which "interface" and "protocol" differ. For example, we call HTTP a protocol, and things like SOAP and REST and CORBA. But we call a concrete REST API an interface, not a protocol, and we call what is defined by a WSDL an interface, not a protocol. A protocol can be used to access an interface (I use SOAP to access a monitoring API). An interface may support different protocols (I can operate different protocols through the Unix socket interface). We talk about Linux kernel interfaces, not about Linux kernel protocols (and if we would, we would mean something different by that). The two words are not interchangeable.

An interface describes the boundary between two things. A protocol describes a behavior between multiple entities. By the implementation of an interface we mean the implementation of one specific side, the one that exposes the interface, not the one that uses the interface. An interface can exist even if no one uses it (only one side exists). The implementation of a protocol, on the other hand, is split between both sides. You can't have only a one-sided protocol. If no one uses the protocol, neither side exists, so to speak.
Colonial America was not rich with plunder. They lost every battle with the British (except the last one), and was on the edge of defeat at every turn. This, despite have the home turf advantage, and the British had to ship everything over via sailing ships.

The industrialization of America happened after 1800 and took place in the free North, not the tobacco cotton plantations in the slave South.

Where were the Indian tobacco and cotton plantations, anyway?

Besides, explain why didn't the other American countries get rich from all this plunder, too?

Recall all that oil in Mexico and Venezuela? Why has that plunder failed to make Venezuela and Mexico rich?

> Then finally yes the US had a large manufacturing economy

Why do you think that happened? Did the US plunder machine tools from other countries (like the Soviets did after WW2, though that didn't seem to have helped them much)?

> It is clear to me that much of the United States' wealth comes from the plunder of the conquered peoples of the continental US,

Again, why aren't Mexico and S. America wealthy?

> Caribbean islands and Pacific islands.

This is sheer fantasy. A few islands in the Pacific fueled the industrial empire of the US?
I personally will almost always say I don't know while talking thru to a solution. Admittedly this is informal speech that doesn't make it to written form.
Generously, Musk has never been serious about making predictions. When he says stuff like this he just means he's excited about it.
Amazon virtually kills efforts to develop Alexa Skills
this is important as it collects and reports its references. a) it’s the correct paradigm for using llms. b) through human interactions, it can learn from its mistakes.
Stay on topic bro, now isn't the time for your anti-capitalist views.

We're talking about "the people doing the day to day work are fiercely competitive and they want it all".

Do you really think those people's main goal is "to live a calm and good life".
This doesn’t seem like an apples to apples comparison.

If your review was being published, you probably did it professionally and were being compensated to be true and provide valuable feedback.

That is a fundamentally different power dynamic than posting feedback on the internet with no compensation or protection against retaliation except for the promise of anonymity.
I'm actually not.

I'm wondering why you know an obscure fact about postal service in a country you don't live in?
You're creating a fantasy. Social media platforms aren't like radio or TV broadcasting and don't require a license to operate.
Have you tried the ray traced version? In my opinion it's the best way to play it. https://github.com/BredaUniversityGames/DXX-Raytracer
I get the impression he was generally tagging along with his photographer father, who was taking so many of the photos of the boy we see in the article.
Do these subscribers see search with no ads?
It's a system flaw which allows certain people to come into possession of such large amounts of money to begin with.

Ayn Rand said that when those who are receiving most of the money are dealing in favors instead of goods and services, that's when you know your society is declining.

The reason that billionaires and celebrities are monopolizing most of the money is because the monetary system has made the entire global economy about social connections. Although many people have the skills necessary to invest money efficiently in a just monetary system, because we don't have such a system, that skill is worthless and instead, in the current system, the money MUST go to politically connected people in order to get a return. The pool of politically-connected individuals is tiny as politicians can only deal with a limited number of individuals and cater to the needs of a limited number of corporations. That's why we have such extreme centralization and fragility.
You face the same issues with table names though. So do you not name your tables?

The solution to your entity problem should be the same. You do the reasonable, practical thing, and rename/refactor if they drift away from the original mental concept.
https://mytapscore.com/

I've used them and been happy with the report. Happy to share if requested.
200-1000 plus installation, googling Home Depot.
Note, this is disputed by some of the Diné: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXpJd-V2n4U
Yeah. It mentions that in the article, though the H100 seems to be available whereas the H200 is unobtainium (unless you're a massive cloud hyperscaler).
You can build a moat and fill it with bullshit scraped from Reddit. That's all AI is anyway. Sorry to burst anyone's hype bubble.
The ray traced version is absolutely phenomenal. If you've never seen it or heard of it, check it out here:

- https://github.com/BredaUniversityGames/DXX-Raytracer

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eQJKFFEc7E
Yes, hence the counterfactual 'if'. This is in stark contrast to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39999794 which mentioned: "We had near zero interest rates for years, but I didn't see any private investors making infrastructure investments that wouldn't possibly produce a return for 50 years."
You guys don’t like what’s coming for sure
What do CISUs think about this?
What if we just nudge the moon into an orbit that always eclipses the sun?
So after a day up, the only actual answers here are somebody using it to distract themselves from getting too engrossed in what they're doing by sending a clickbait discord post to themself, and someone who wants an offline search engine that hallucinates.

AI seems totally not like a giant bubble.
You might be interested in Extra Credits's video on "Challenging vs Punishing Games" https://youtu.be/ea6UuRTjkKs

They mention some games basically require you to memorize levels (Battletoads) or otherwise have things happen that aren't telegraphed. They remove player agency from the equation and make a game punishing rather than challenging, and punishing games just aren't fun.
A quick glance of the repo shows that the "type" is just a prefix. You can do whatever you want with it. Basically the same thing as what the article suggests, no?
Are Hackers the Biggest Threat to America's Critical Infrastructure?
Truong My Lan: Vietnamese billionaire sentenced to death for $44B fraud
People need mental healthcare too. Done. Solved. Treat it like any addiction.

Of course the trick is that social media access doesn't require folks to pay an upfront cost, so it's harder to slap the cost of this additional service on the transaction. But of course as financial regulation makes banks do KYC and file SARs (suspicious activity report) social media regulations could do something similar. (Hurray more surveillance saves the day!)
Google has dozens of chrome extensions in their app store that anyone can check in 2 mins are plain malware, and they do nothing about it. If they cared about security that's what they would be working on, these guys just want to publish papers.
The argument is that random tezxr is not intelligence.

And the word random here.id exactly precariously intetwondd with both probablistic and coincidwntal
My narrative, which nobody seems to notice, is that free markets are the key to prosperity.

> these very good very smart very special White People™

There are many very poor countries run by white people. Any people can decide to become rich by deciding to become free market - like the Japanese after WW2, and Chinese in Hong Kong.

Japan and Hong Kong became very rich from free markets, and no natural resources. Mexico, S America, Africa, etc, are loaded with natural resources yet remain poor.

> terrible governance

Ding ding! A winner!

P.S. Spain never got rich by plundering S. America. That's because they conflated gold and silver with wealth. Real wealth is productive, skilled people using their talents to create things. All Spain got was inflation.
I think the reason it it wears away at your value structure. You have to "sell" your mind (thus polluting your non-work day thinking) to a system that feels "wrong"

For lawyers, it's a clear meritocracy based on how much you can bleed. For doctors, a kind of "virtue" in the work that cancels out some of the stress/BS. For software, it can be like temporarily joining the popular circus that's in town (similar to a lot of meme crypto companies)
Spirit bet on a return to ZIRP, and was wrong.
None of this has anything to do with antitrust
Everyone laughs at (their meme-based strawman model of) Ayn, but she warned us about this.

Lots of her ideas were indeed simplistic if not downright dumb, but not all of them.
Science of admission has changed?
What’s the best Descent-like modern game? Heavy emphasis on the importance of full 3D movement (3-axis rotation and 3-axis translation), maze-like levels, and a combination of time crunches with untimed puzzles. I loved Descent 2, but found the open spaces of Descent Freespace sorta boring.
I too would like to get paid for having to read whatever stuff the Twitter guy posts online that somehow ends up being displayed as news
There is an underlying "tragedy of the anticommons"[1] problem that will be exasperated even if kids and young adults stop consuming mass media.

For example, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia communities almost refuse to believe any performer, label, TV/film/game studio, etc would ever release their work under a CC-BY license, even though some of these parties (as large as Warner Bros and Amazon) have a pattern of doing so in the past, probably for marketing purposes.

Typical attempts to justify why an entity is unable to distribute copyrighted content as CC-BY include:

1. Someone pressed the wrong button and marked the audio/video as CC-BY.

2. A separate marketing company may be responsible for social media accounts or website and they didn't have permission of their client to upload certain audio/video, or didn't have permission to distribute with a CC-BY license.

3. The copyright is owned by a production company which is a subsidiary of a parent company. The distribution and marketing of the copyrighted content is handled by a separate subsidiary company of the parent company. Both companies may even be led by the same vice president / CEO of the parent company. However, the theory goes that one subsidiary may not have the permission of the other subsidiary to use a CC-BY license. The CEO of the parent company also may not have the permission of the subsidiary companies.

4. A performer or label may not have gained the permission of ALL rights holders of a work to release under a CC-BY license. What if the movie studio did not get the permission of one of the multiple script writers, the person holding recording rights of a background song, the writer of the lyrics to the background song, etc. In an extreme case, perhaps a random person comes along later to claim that the movie contains a background song, the background song contains a sample, and the sample they consider to be a copyright infringement from another work.

The problem is that if you're an indie filmmaker and release a trailer to your film or excerpts from your film with a CC-BY license, the tragedy of the anticommons situation means that people won't believe you meant to or were allowed to use a CC-BY license. Even releasing all the complex web of contracts between rightsholders in your film wouldn't stop people from disbelieving in your ability to distribute with a CC-BY license.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons