skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Everything is science is just models.

QM/QFT is a particular model that has wide explanatory power in a certain realm. However, once you start getting further and further away from this realm, the model becomes increasingly less helpful, even though it might be "true"/correct in a sense.

Example: QFT should explain all chemical behavior, yet the wave equation only has "nice" solutions for a simple case: hydrogen. After that, the PDE is non-linear and non-separable, so. you have to resort to numeric methods. But the computational demands are very heavy, and even with todays machines you can only get up to ~10 valence electrons or so last I checked.

So modelling the behavior of say, a complex organic compound, such as a drug, first-principle QFT is of little aid. Which is why chemists have their own models which are loosely based on QM/QFT, and are simplifications (e.g the idea of electron "jumping" from one molecule to the other). Yes you have Pauli exclusion principle, Hund's rule, based on QFT, but there are exceptions, and I never got a good explanation it doesn't apply to the entire compound (or the entire object, or the entire universe)
Out of curiosity, what is the use case? (For running Windows in the VM.)
Aren't all the hosts offering one-click wordpress/similar installs as easy as it's ever been?
A bigger standard library is one thing, but new classes and methods are easier to get accustomed to than additions to the core language spec with features like type inference or pattern matching.

I think Kotlin especially is responsible for this change. All that effort almost feels pointless now that Java has kinda stolen its USP.
Try this, works from Spain: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=eu&ia=chat#
I mean you are an emergent phenomenon of the universe and you care, so there is a case to be made the universe cares.
While we are bitching about crappy inputs on websites, I haven’t seen anybody mention a bug I see on some sites. If you autofill things, the websites validation code doesn’t get triggered and will act like you didn’t enter anything in the fields that got autofilled. It’s like they are explicitly waiting for keystroke events to trigger a “user entered something” and forgot to add an “OR $(shit is in the field)” to their conditional.

As a result you have to go back to all the autofilled fields and type something to trigger their validation logic.

Annoying….
That is not the essence of any statement I had made, I recommend you read again.

You make the argument that because there are people believing X, we must allow the surveillance of our devices.
There's a slope between:

"X paid me to promote Y"

"My employer, X, doesn't mind if I write about Y on company time"

"Our socioeconomic system X happens to mean I have way more free time and energy to promote on of its bases, Y, than other people do"

but is it a qualitative slope or just quantitative?
"why yes, the open-source Apache-licensed implementation controlled by the linux foundation is just as commercial as the commercial thing! i'm so contrary and interesting!"

if you don't want docker-contributed code, here are some alternative implementations of the spec: https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/blob/main/imp... I believe nix could use one of these with some volunteer effort? Perhaps you could even be the one to purge the Docker heresy from the project!
HarfBuzz: Text Shaping Engine
"In keeping with our commitment to open generative AI, we aim to make the model weights available for self-hosting with a Stability AI Membership in the near future."

Does this mean that SD3 will not be available from Huggingface etc.?
Slow down: are you seriously trivializing the fact that the food industry was able to very expensively sue someone over criticizing their product ... when she turned out to be correct ... just because she eventually won?
easiest is probably with ollama [0]. I think the ollama API is OpenAI compatible.

[0]https://ollama.com/
That looks expensive compared to what groq was offering: https://wow.groq.com/
I'm quite confused how forwarding a naked picture of an underage person to literally anyone, except a dedicated law enforcement team, wouldn't have already been distributing it.

>Is it that rare for some teacher (even in high school) to receive some of their students work online?

It's been a while, but when I worked in the education sector we had systems for students to upload their work, get graded, feedback, reports etc. Yeah, you could upload .pngs and .jpgs but it's hardly 'the next contact in the list' or 'maybe they had the same first or last name' in those scenarios, you upload the work for specific classes/courses. Obviously that's a single system, I don't know the full scope of what schools use these days.

> Anyway, not sure anything I can say could change your mind.

No, nothing will change my mind that forwarding nude pictures of minors to literally anyone other than a law enforcement case handler is acceptable.
i don't think that's an argument the article is putting forth though. its whole point is that nobody is going to see / care about your stuff regardless of polish, so you wouldn't be getting any feedback either way.
They are all just rows in a SQLite3 DB table. That allows you to search all of them -bookmarks, history, tabs- at once.
I want to say my propane fireplace ... except 98% the reason I even have one is to be able to heat the house is power goes out!

If my in-vehicle nav system could get live updates a la Waze, Apple Maps, etc ... it would be worlds more useful - but, at the same time, I DO NOT WANT my vehicle reliant on internet connectivity to work!

This meme sums it up: https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/8jth...

`My wife asked why I carry a gun in the house. I looked at her and said, "Decepticons". She laughed. I laughed. The toaster laughed. I shot the toaster.`
I think it depends on the topic. Of course there are always going to be pop-sci magazines trying to explain things like quantum physics to the layman (as if scientists themselves really understand it), so no way to avoid this, but maybe not a lot of value either, even if people enjoy thinking they understand something.

For simpler and more accessible topics though, like the examples I gave, I do think there is value in teaching partially-correct simplifications. For one thing, you have to start somewhere, so if some partial understanding is what sparks some kid's interest into pursuing the sciences, then that is a good thing.

Maybe more importantly(?), given that most people won't be going into science-based jobs, is just having some base level of scientific literacy, especially in a world (particularly the USA) where religious belief and conspiracy theories, rather than rational thought, seem to be in danger of dominating society.
In the classical Olympics, as in all Greek athletic competitions, all competitors were required to be nude during the events. You can't compete in clothes.

It didn't cause any problems.
> the foundational description of reality

How can we ever really know that? Isn't the best we can do is just models?
I'm not pretending. I know very little about political science and am asking a sincere question. No agenda.
Don‘t attribute to mal-intent which you can attribute to stupidity.

I believe most people that do this kind of thing do it because they don‘t know there‘s a native API that works better for these things.

Remember, the software engineers that are good at their jobs aren‘t the ones that end up teaching at coding bootcamps.
Puzzmo v1 Launch Tech deep-dive
This (and your grandparent comment) seem like such an unhelpful line of commentary. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but the vibe I get from those two comments is: "I wouldn't fall for it, therefore other people's kids should know better. It's so obvious!".

People who are exposed to this line of thinking will now be doubly ashamed if they fall for this, making them even less likely to ask for help.

There's a real world parallel in Search and Rescue operations that I'm personally familiar with: https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2021/01/17/shaming-those-who-n...
You sound like you work for Big Blueberry. Get out of here with your shilling.
Well, I don't have hardware to run a 141B parameters model, even if only 39B are active during inference.
No, I wouldn’t. And I appreciate the Boston Dynamics track record. That said, they do have a reputation for viral video releases. Curiously, they usually show some sort of human interaction with their new robots, but maybe too early here? Particularly loved the video of the engineer shoving the robot as it negotiated an obstacle course.

Would you bet money that it isn’t CGI? The fact that we are asking these questions is just as terrifying and impressive as the malicious potential of the robot itself. Wild days we’re living in!
maybe there's one that is maitre d'llm?
> The anecdotes

The anecdotes show that this is not an 'occasional' or 'edge case' thing but a systemic thing. The statistics show that at least 40,000 people die a year for not having enough money for healthcare and these are the people we know. The statistics don't include those who never go to the hospital to avoid risking medical bankruptcy for their families even if they die themselves. Just being in a hospital bed for one night without anything being done costs $3000/night, whereas waiting in the ER without anything being done can cost $100/hour.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/woman-gets-688-35-er-bill-...

This is a systemic thing. Its not 'not a sane healthcare system'. Its literally a machine that kills people to maximize profit. And it became like this only because people let it and justified this or that other thing in the system.
My bank does this. Infuriating.
Wonder why the second discussion was flagged
What are you saying is the actual mechanism of causality for people making personal software choices based on "wanting" panopticon censorship? I don't think it's "I'll be a good citizen and prefer software that allows surveillance". Unless by "most of us" you mean everyone taking home bags of money working for the surveillance industry in Surveillance Valley?

The way I see it, centralized surveillable services promise lucrative investment returns based on monetizing user data, which attracts capital from the everything bubble seeking anywhere to go, which pays for an overwhelming amount of advertising that fakes social proof. And now that users have been trained to wantonly trust web browsers and shy away from native software, and the surveillance industry business model has been proven out, the situation is quite sticky.
Every time you're tempted to freak out because complex numbers, reflect that you should also be freaking out about negative numbers. Those don't exist either.
> In selling his goods, does the man not capture value from his customers?

No, because selling goods is not the same thing as capturing value. Jesus is not asking for the man to first accrue wealth and then distribute it, he's asking the man to liquidate his wealth and distribute them. The implication is that the man developed his wealth through value capture.

> I don't mind that some of the $700 goes to paying the people that did create the phone. Both parties are left better off.

This unfortunately omits the many other parties involved in the supply chain, who are exploited and whose exploitation is carefully elided or hand-waved away by the phone vendor.

You're not exploiting them, though. Even the vendor has plausible deniability – because local governments have "different norms" around worker safety. And hey, they have money now that they didn't have before! So don't look too closely, OK?

You're a point of negative pressure (demand) in the system, that collectively keeps the whole system in balance. It's difficult to wrap our brains around and difficult to accept, which (IMO) makes its informed maintainers worse than a petty criminal.

Of course, capturing value through voluntary transactions does not necessarily rob the counterparty. But in today's complicated global economy, it's unfortunately insufficient to look at your transactions in isolation to know that you're not robbing somebody by proxy, or becoming an accessory to a robbery.

To put it in relief: is money laundering a violation of the golden rule, even if you capture no value from said laundering?
The complex "application is like moving to a new city" metaphor is something I found inspiring UX/UI design and how to make the user feel "located in a new environment". Not that it should use this technique tho, but having it as a tool subject to that. Nature molded us to adapt to new terrain, so if we reduce the application-locate-yourself-in-a-new-terrain-mapping-mismatch then we find a source of optimization of ergonomy for UXs/UIs design.
The inability to recognise how an intelligence trait that correlates with pattern recognition might have an effect on being able to predict the long-term outcome of one's actions and provides the ability to work well with others in a very large group, which a civilization is, and instead defaulting to an ad absurdum argument shows where you might fall on the IQ spectrum.
*under $1m annual revenue and <1m users
To be fair, any autoplaying video is stupid. The whole concept was invented to inflate metrics and manipulate user behavior for the benefit of the app/site owner.
I would not infer that an optimal tax rate would be a maximal tax rate.
I don't think that there's a "win" here. It's just sort of which way you tilt your head, how much space do you have to cram a ton of cores connected to a really wide memory bus and how close can you get the storage while keeping everything from catching on fire, no? ("just sort of" is going to have to skip leg day because of the herculean lift it just did)

It's a fairly fractal pattern in distributing computing. Move the high throughput heavy computation bits away from the low latency responsive bits ("low latency" here is relative to the total computation). Use an event loop for the reactive bits. Eventually someone will invert the event loop to use coroutines so everything looks synchronous (Go, anyone? python's gevent?).

After it seems to me that the only real question is if takes too long or costs too much to move the data to the storage location the heavy computation hardware uses. There's really not much of a conceptual difference between airflow driving snowflake and c++ running on a cpu driving cuda kernels. It takes a certain scale to make going from a OLTP database to an OLAP database worth it, just like it takes a certain scale to make a GPU worth it over simd instructions on the local processor.
Boolean networks and petri nets have been important in biology since the 60s and 70s. If you don't know that history, there are thousands of papers and books to get you up to speed with the intuition and practice behind them. You should not be depressed when you meet a topic with a long history like this - the history is usually linked in the papers own bibliography. Get reading instead!

You are wrong about what science papers are - they're more than just territory markers to claim ownership of ideas. They also explain the idea and get people interested in building on it and using it to create value for humanity.

This paper is pretty simple and sweet, but it needs more than a couple pages to:

1. Define trap spaces and sketch their history and usefulness

2. Prove they're equivalent to conflict free siphons

3. Explore some ways to calculate siphons

4. Show that these ways all beat the pants off existing trap space methods

This is all intuitive - and there are a bunch of references in the bibliography if you want to learn more. One reference is the author's earlier work, which should have more intuition, but less polish, than the current paper.

We could criticize the work. The author clearly took their proof from an earlier paper, bolted some benchmarks onto it, and republished it. And unless we're experts, we have to trust the author included the best possible competing solutions in that benchmark.

But assuming the author is honest, the benchmarks are impressive. It took serious work to implement their methods and build the benchmark. So it's hard to hate the author here for consolidating their win.

To really criticize the paper - and see if it's as useful as the tests suggest - we'd want to run the experiment and verify the competing techniques represent the state of the art and were configured correctly. It would be fun!

I encourage you to learn how to read science. Science does need our criticism and contribution, very much so. But before we can criticize it constructively, we must care about a specific topic, and educate ourselves as much as possible. It doesn't help humanity to give cookie cutter criticisms about papers we don't care about. Let's unleash criticism that gives true value to humanity, and extends what science can do!
The curvature of spacetime is a fiction. A very useful fiction, as Einstein noted, but a fiction, nonetheless. It doesn't matter what the science popularizers say, it's a fiction. It's okay though, because we get very good results with Einstein's Field Equations.

Just shut up and compute!
World economy already committed to income reduction of 19% due to climate change
Lol most NYC venues do not use dice.
Nobody decides. The network itself determines which expert(s) to activate based on the context. It uses a small neural network for the task.

It typically won't behave like human experts - you might find one of the networks is an expert in determining where to place capital letters or full stops for example.

MoE's do not really improve accuracy - instead they are to reduce the amount of compute required. And, assuming you have a fixed compute budget, that in turn might mean you can make the model bigger to get better accuracy.
And how much RAM do you need to run Mixtral 8*22B? Probably not enough on a personal laptop.
Weight is a measure of a force on an object due to gravity or acceleration. Mass is a measure of a object's inertia -- it's resistance to change in velocity due to an outside force.

Rest mass is a fixed quantity inherent to the object), weight changes based on the environment/reference frame -- your weight is different on the moon, but your mass is the same.

Matter is just perturbations in a variety of fields that have complex interactions with each other -- those interactions are what give rise to mass. the higgs field is one of the fields that create mass, most importantly in electrons, but when you measure the mass of any full sized object, almost all of the mass has nothing to do with the higgs field and has to do with the fact that protons are actually balls of quarks and gluons moving very rapidly in a confined space because of their self interactions.
That’s a very tricky comparison at best, 3 gens up but 2 product lines down. Comparing 1060 to 4060, or 1080 to 4080 might be more fair, even accounting for the skew in product lines.

I’m not sure how you’re doing the price comparison. 1080ti launched at $699 (with inflation that’s $870 today). The 4060ti launched at $399. Why does that seem the same to you?

We’re in a ray tracing thread and for ray tracing, there’s no contest, the 4060ti wins there by a long way.

UserBench says today the 4060ti is 17% faster for 20% lower price today, which is about 33% better perf per dollar… which interestingly tends to match their user score and sentiment.

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-4060-Ti-vs-...

Also worth noting that some old games are bottlenecked on the software, not on the GPU, so it’s not surprising to find a game that was around for the 1080 or before and doesn’t get any better with more modern GPUs. Comparing the 1080 to the 4080, fp32 perf went up ~5x, and due to Amdahl’s law, game benchmarks tend to see more like ~3x in overall system perf.
Hell, I remember a proposal to encourage that during the GWB administration for “terrorism”. I wish I could find it, but Google is incapable of returning anything from before 2023 any more.
I meant financially meaningful. If they can’t pay their loans, then by definition it’s not financially meaningful.

They made a bad bet and they’re going to pay the price for it. Being deceived on the expected outcome doesn’t automatically allow passing the financial responsibility to tax payers. If there’s actual fraud, let them sue the institutions.

Maybe they can find a new generation of liberal arts majors and continue the Ponzi scheme.
I'm confused are you summarizing my comment?
Benchmarks published by the company itself should be treated no differently than advertising. For actual signal check out more independent leaderboards and benchmarks (like HuggingFace, Chatbot Arena, MMLU, AlpacaEval). Of course, even then it is impossible to come up with an objective ranking since there is no consensus on what to even measure.
Calling the model 'truly open' without is not technically correct though.
Correct, the experts are determined by Algo, not anything humans would understand.
2/3 of my bushes died. One is still going strong. It takes time. They also need acidic soil.
You're not bringing much evidence to the table to single out Google for your frustration. Targeted tracking of individuals with cellphones is enabled by every cellphone, by virtue of the fact that it's a radio and signal strength and connection is logged and forwarded by the towers themselves; there's nothing special Google is doing to modify that process. So I don't know why we should focus on Google and not, say, T-Mobile or AT&T or TracFone or the entire cellular infrastructure.

You seem to be alleging that Google is brokering third-party access to data stored on the phone or generated by the phone (beyond the telemetry that's natural to every cellphone), but there's no evidence to support that hypothesis. Have I misunderstood what you're alleging?
Good, the hydraulic version sucked ass. Jerky, unpredictable power delivery, when it wasn’t broken. Was such a pain to model and design kinematics around.
It feels absolutely amazing to build an AI startup right now. It's as if your product automatically becomes cheaper, more reliable, and more scalable with each new major model release.

- We first struggled with limited context windows [solved]

- We had issues with consistent JSON ouput [solved]

- We had rate limiting and performance issues for the large 3rd party models [solved]

- Hosting our own OSS models for small and medium complex tasks was a pain [solved]

Obivously every startup still needs to build up defensibility and focus on differentiating with everything “non-AI”.
Yep, that's a big problem. And if I'm remembering correctly, that problem was vastly worse with the for-profit schools (actual for-profit like Capella and WyoTech, not privates like Harvard or Georgetown, which are still non-profit).

And for the average graduate, yeah, it usually works out in the end, but there can definitely be cash-flow problems in the early phases of careers (thinking about teachers and other "service" jobs that require/prefer college but don't pay well).
"Who among us doesn't have 8 H100 cards?"
> thinking it was a Google-style interview question - "How many bathrooms are there in the Netherlands?"

Where does the idea that this is a Google-style interview question come from? They've never interviewed that way.
Maybe it's worth noting that a very similar looking article from the same website was recently flagged and is dead because it appeared to be AI generated nonsense: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39872271

I haven't checked if this one is correct.
This is a bit of a misnomer. Each expert is a sub network that specializes in sub understanding we can't possibly track.

During training a routing network is punished if it does not evenly distribute training tokens to the correct experts. This prevents any one or two networks from becoming the primary networks.

The result of this is that each token has essentially even probability of being routed to one of the sub models, with the underlying logic of why that model is an expert for that token being beyond our understanding or description.