skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh that's not what I'm saying at all.

I was recently at a meditation retreat, and a group of meditators much more advanced than me universally agreed that an apt description of their minds was "like a box of ferrets".

The illusion that you control your chain of thought vanishes pretty quickly with meditation. The reality is that your attention shifts rapidly (especially between different senses) and that most of those shifts aren't under direct conscious control.
In this case, the article clearly states that a human will review the footage... not sure what happened in the above cases, if there was no review, or if the review was simply rushed? I do think it would be fair if the state had to pay the same fine back to the person they incorrectly fined as compensation for their time.
Not sure this is actionable. I was expecting something like "it's the ultra processed bla bla bla" but apparently even something as basic as rice is great for some of these bacteria. It's not really realistic that I'm gonna drop rice.
Congrats on the launch! Looks sick
> These are very much pro. That they're extremely functional for art is the whole point.

I'd argue that iPads being great for "art" is false. They have one killer app for one narrow specialized area (Procreate/illustration) but they aren't widely used as a main device professionally outside of that context (they are often used as a satellite device). They have adequate support for hobbyist level video editing/audio production/photography. They have minimal to non-existent support for motion graphics or anything related to 3D. Calling a device like this "extremely functional for art" I don't think is a defensible statement (unless it's specifically scoped to illustration).

I've written about my analysis of creative of apps on iOS devices here https://blog.robenkleene.com/2019/08/07/apples-app-stores-ha...
Charge it slow, charge it to 80%. You want to basically stop the graphite anode from being destroyed and the easiest way to do that is fast charging and charging it to full.
This reads like synonymised robo-plagiarism.

> Not only do lithium-ion batteries have a finite range of expenses, but overcharging them can harm the long-term fitness of the cell.

> A Vivid Display is a Wasteful Display Screen.

> That stated, if you set it to minimal brightness, you won’t be able to see any issues on a sunny day. For this reason, we’d suggest permitting vehicle brightness and letting Apple decide what’s splendid for you.

dang, I think you should block this domain.
> Mostly just the difficult to reach thing.

But then you're just referring to specific subsets of them in heavily rural areas. The transmission lines that run parallel to I-95 or the 101 are not particularly difficult to get to.
So get rid of cafe standards and import duties/blocks and add a federal gas tax to price the increased pollution and fatalities of larger vehicles. This is a policy that would actually work and let us fire a lot of beaurocrats to save even more money
+1000 to PRY, if something needs to possibly evolve separately dont force it into some shared abstraction, I think DRY probably causes the most bad code but we still keep doing it.

Agree with mocks also, currently not even using them, just go with integration tests and set db back to known state between every test run, oh and wiremock for rest
That's perhaps the weirdest insult attempt in a long time.

Perhaps not removing the tiny spider like creatures that suck your blood could be something to brag about in some overly macho context. But removing them? Of course I remove them, from myself, children, pets, and anyone else. Ticks are a fact of life, and you will get bitten if you live in their areas.

A vaccine can not some soon enough. In the meantime, Lyme can be cured by antibiotics. Staying put indoors or constantly being on antibiotics during summer is not an option.

If I contacted my practitioner and wanted prophylactic wide spectrum antibiotics I'd be kindly shown the door. That is a controlled substance for a reason. That reason is antibiotic resistance, a well studied scientific fact, and not something where our own opinions matter much.
I wonder if market rules of satisfying user needs and demands is operational here still instead of shoving down things of user's throats ... actually no need to shove, they swallow anything shiny or coming with loud fanfare. It is spectacular what users are willing to work with, wrapping their world around the needs of the poorly made and sometimes even offensive software ...
I record a few hours when the birds are noisy in the morning and then run it through birdnet. It's integrated with audacity so you can just pull up a wav and its annotations and listen through for the various species. I could imagine automating this and using it to track migration patterns, etc, around your house.
I know it's old-hat to say at this point, but I'm getting really exhausted of seeing companies trying to sate investors and techbros by introducing more and more AI-powered "features" into existing applications. I don't need to be able to generate images in my Facebook messenger chat with my parents, nor do I need to ask Microsoft Copilot how to use my own computer.
Would like to second this … heavier vehicles tend to cause road damage more …
According to the article, these are the issues.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/thunderbird/+bug/2...

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glib2.0/+bug/20632...

It looks like snap related. I wonder when Canonical give up on snap. Is this a NIH syndrome? They reinvented the wheel(package manager) and failed miserably.

Debian has dpkg/apt and the upgrade process has long history of smoothly done. Now they add another half-baked package manager that need to be tended carefully. Extra software is extra burden of maintenance.
> Systems terminating accounts with no appeal are already a serious problem.

Right, there is no issue with how "smart" ML models will get or whatever ignorant framing about intelligence and existential risk gets made up by people who don't understand the technology.

The real concern is dumb use of algorithmic decision making without recourse which is just as valid whether it's an if statement or a trillion parameter LLM.
So this is where the right leaning (and quite reasonable, in the long term) observation should be: there's a business opportunity to build and deploy storage capacity with grid stabilization the top feature.

That takes vision (which isn't always there), but also time. Perhaps also recognition in the regulatory ecosystem that this is needed, so that the business case (ie, build it and they will pay for it) is there.
I presumed that with all the online updates, Microsoft would have put in some kind of kill switch or something.
The hill I’ll die on is to avoid classes, everywhere. You don’t need classes. Just use functions and structs (or plain objects, etc.). OOP was a terrible mistake and mixing state with logic was a major catastrophe that poisoned a few generations of engineers. Burn the Gang of Four design patterns and scatter the ashes into the ocean.
Cory be like "I wrote about this in a story of mine in 2019" when the bit about YT's mom in her office in Stephenson's Snow Crash, 30 years before TFA was written, perfectly captures the present situation.
> EVerything more or less evolved into a sort of tron-bike shape for most of the runs I tried.

I ran it in the background for a very high mutation rate for a long time and it managed to come up with something very different---a little wheel attached to a big wheel, which bounces around and goes over all the obstacles.
Not a Google engineer, but I do keep around a device that represents “potato” specs that I test against when doing Android development. Not a perfect solution since there’s a bevy of old/low end SoCs with varying performance characteristics, but I figure it’s better than what many are undoubtedly doing which is testing against their newish flagship and calling it a day.

I used to do the same on iOS, but came to find that performance differences on older devices there generally weren’t nearly as severe and that iOS users as a whole tend to use newer devices. When combined with reasonably well written Swift, performance on old devices generally isn’t a problem.
> There is a semantic difference between Option<Option<T>> and Option<T>. If I intend to retrieve a setting from a file, the former allows me to differentiate between a missing file or a missing setting

Does nesting Option's really has practical use or does it quickly become confusing?

In your example, Option<Option<T>> return type doesn't tell me by itself that this differentiates between a missing file or a missing setting. I would need to get this information from somewhere else.
My dad didn't want to pay for the Office. I might ended my story badly. Sorry about that. But, I don't agree with that the SaaS is not related. It is. API optimization is also important and it can directly affect the performance of web apps and even native apps.

Update: I updated the article.
If you want to see a video series of someone making this lathe design from scratch (right from casting aluminum), here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuUOO3qn30

I was amazed at the accuracy and surface finish he could achieve with homemade parts.
My wife has an 8 Plus that she said she would never give up. Somehow she has kept it going.
> (j) (1) “Developer” means a person that creates, owns, or otherwise has responsibility for an artificial intelligence model.

For as long as you don't distribute the model and you only use it for yourself, you don't fall under this definition (if I understand correctly).
Aren't Microsoft trying their best to turn Word (and the rest of Office) into a shitty web app?
> A developer of a covered model that provides commercial access to that covered model shall provide a transparent, uniform, publicly available price schedule for the purchase of access to that covered model

Interesting, we don't have transparent, uniform, publicly available price schedule for healthcare and other basic needs (electricity, e.g. see PGE).

Something is fishy here.
FYI, you are entitled to a refund in the U.S. if your flight is delayed significantly. As of last week, it's 3 hours for domestic flights, or 6 hours for international. The refund is automatic. It's been true for a long time that people could get refunds for significant delays, but the definition of how long "significant" means was not defined.
Agreed. I'd also like to say that it seems weird to go this hard, especially considering how the dang thing is essentially a dev kit.
Oxford Mathematics Student Lectures – All Lectures
Those blog posts are pretty bad. Just read the original paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.09353. The key section is 4.1.
Absolutely agree with 1 ("Maintain one source of truth"), not just in a service but in an architecture. I am dealing with a microservice architecture where decisions have been made to store the same state across different services. Needless to say this is massively challenging to keep in sync and requires a ton of work keeping the production systems consistent. Not to mention the difficulty of setting up proper test environments where any given data store might be reset or refreshed at any given moment, causing all kinds of havoc and causing people to lose trust in the test environments.

For number 2, (please repeat yourself), the truth is in the middle. Don't repeat yourself when the proper abstractions present themselves, and always be on the lookout for a good abstraction. But don't force an abstraction where it's not appropriate. Where to draw the line is the hard part and in my opinion comes from experience and intuition. If in doubt, repeat yourself.

Number 3 (overused mocks) I find myself swimming against the tide of popular opinion. I think mocks are very valuable for unit testing. This doesn't mean you don't write your integration tests without the mocks, but I still think there's a ton of value in being able to quickly write a large number of fast unit tests that say "when this component does this, I expect the system under test to do that". As for leaking implementation details, I don't think it's such a big deal at the unit testing level. The details need to be tested somewhere. I appreciate this is an increasingly unpopular viewpoint but it has served me well.

For number 4 (minimize mutable state) this is software engineering 101, but always bears repeating.
Better yet, the website could allow you to login an instantly view the evidence against you, in addition to filing the appeal. Also, if your appeal is found valid based on the video evidence, you should get the amount of the fine back from the government as a fee for them wasting your time.
> The Meta AI experience has so far been a spam-filled one. Nowhere is that clearer than on Instagram where the search function, once a place to look up a friend’s account, now exists seemingly to usher users into conversation with a chatbot. “Ask Meta AI anything” it now reads in my search bar. Um, no. I just want to look up my dog’s daycare to see if they posted any pictures of her.

I've experienced this and it's perplexing. I was recently looking for things to do in Osaka during my upcoming visit. Probably a high-value query for advertisers: I would definitely be receptive to ads from restaurants, museums, etc. But instead it dumped me to a chatbot that was not capable to funnel me to any ads like that???
We already have None in e.g. Python but that merely means that "x.mathod_name()" instead of throwing a NullPointerException raises an AttributeError, because None has no method "method_name". Okay? Not really any meaningfully different.
Gotta love people working on replacing themselves. Jokes aside, seeing an AI interacting with a computer is kind of scary. It's not just outputting text anymore, it's doing the full work of a human working on a computer, meaning... a ton of people
On a motorcycle? Not to me. Maybe to others. I would interpret the "made" in "made in USA" as referring specifically to the manufacturing of the physical bike.
I didn’t say they weren’t.
I think I've heard this called a Unity build where there's a precompile step that just dumps everything into a single file and compiles that so it doesn't have to re-include everything at different compilation units (when I first heard the term I got confused because it was in a game dev context but had nothing to do with the Unity engine lol).
Sounds like the civil court is the meaningful contest?
Question. What happens if I write a piece of software that is harmful that doesnt have the AI label.

It seems dumb to have a separate classification for harms caused by trained AI models. The training aspect doesnt seem to limit liability at all. A judge might rule differently, but thats why the justice system is built such as it is, to make intelligent decisions based on the specific facts of a case.

I am betting that software that causes some significant harm is already outlawed. So this whole thing is just a waste of time.
I work at a B2B SaaS and we have so many customers asking us about about our plans for integrating AI into our platform, for no other reason other than their leadership/stakeholders want to use more AI.

We ask them what they want the AI to do and they don't have an answer. They just want AI
I've written a submission to the authors of this bill, and made it publicly available here:

https://www.answer.ai/posts/2024-04-29-sb1047.html

The EFF have also prepared a submission:

https://www.context.fund/policy/2024-03-26SB1047EFFSIA.pdf

A key issue with the bill is that it criminalises creating a model that someone else uses to cause harm. But of course, it's impossible to control what someone else does with your model -- regardless of how you train it, it can be fine-tuned, prompted, etc by users for their own purposes. Even then, you can't really know why a model is doing something -- for instance, AI security researchers Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor point out:

> Consider the concern that LLMs can help hackers generate and send phishing emails to a large number of potential victims. It’s true — in our own small-scale tests, we’ve found that LLMs can generate persuasive phishing emails tailored to a particular individual based on publicly available information about them. But here’s the problem: phishing emails are just regular emails! There is nothing intrinsically malicious about them. A phishing email might tell the recipient that there is an urgent deadline for a project they are working on, and that they need to click on a link or open an attachment to complete some action. What is malicious is the content of the webpage or the attachment. But the model that’s being asked to generate the phishing email is not given access to the content that is potentially malicious. So the only way to make a model refuse to generate phishing emails is to make it refuse to generate emails.

Nearly a year ago I warned that that bills of this kind could hurt, rather than help safety, and could actually tear down the foundations of the Enlightenment:

https://www.fast.ai/posts/2023-11-07-dislightenment.html
Wow. This linked article is pretty eye opening.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy73n7/ehallpass-1000-thousa...
I will join you on that hill, just make a pureish function/method that does the thing its supposed to do and job done. Although in 10% of cases OOP and inheritance is useful
Open source implies that you are distributing it.
It's a prisoner of war camp. All the signs are made by prisoners.
From 15 years industry experience my biggest takeaway is to ignore advice from anyone who claims their point of view applies "everywhere".
Layoffs are paying off, congratulations. I guess.

Trading the core of the business (or whatever is left of it - ie, "do no evil") in exchange for short term gains.

Maybe we will see more "Project Nimbus" initiatives. Maybe a collaboration with North Korean, or Russian governments. Maybe this time they will sell out for $10B+ or more.
App looks fire. Would love to be able to change the shortcut
Damn, that second one is excruciating to read. I wonder if they're aware of how they put people off the Rust ecosystem with their rabid defensiveness.
They still have one of the best AI tech now and for the foreseeable future (despite their woke filters) and a decent cloud platform. And of course as you say they have Ads but also Android. I do feel like they could do 100x better but I think they're still relevant innovation wise (and financially obviously).
Based upon the bug reports you sited it actually seems to be apt related.
I wrote about how I keep build times sane in SumatraPDF at https://blog.kowalczyk.info/article/96a4706ec8e44bc4b0bafda2...

The idea is the same: reduce the duplicate parsing of .h files.

I don't use any tools, just a hard-core discipline of only #include'ing .h in .cpp files.

The problem is that if you start #include'ing .h in .h, you quickly start introducing duplication that is intractable, for a human, to avoid.

On another note: C++ compiler should by default keep statistics about the chain of #include's / parsing during compilation and dump it to a file at the end and also summarize how badly you're re-parsing the same .h files during build.

That info would help people remove redundant #include's.

But of course even if they do have such options, you have to turn on some flags and they'll spam your build output instead of writing to a file.
If you use asdf, I would encourage you to try my tool. A lot of the work I've done is around things that you probably won't ever think about but in mise it just works the way you want it to so you can get to getting your work done.

The reason people like mise is hard to put in a post because its really the care and countless hours I've put into working through workflow after workflow over and over. Testing things out. Going back on decisions I felt like weren't as good as they could've been. Reading and re-reading code in both my own codebase and asdf's. My niche is building CLIs and I am grateful to be able to work on something people are finding so much value in. Understand mise didn't start last year, I've been planning this project for over a decade while working on other CLIs and dev tools.

Here's an example of one: in mise the shims will fall back to system versions. So if you have a shim for `ruby` but you only use ruby in 1 project without a global set then calling ~/.local/share/mise/shims/ruby will go to the next thing on PATH, so maybe /opt/homebrew/bin/ruby. In asdf, the shim will fail outright unless you explicitly set "system" as the version in your global config.

At the end of the day though, I know not everyone will like mise. I certainly have a particular style of building tools and managing the project that works for some and doesn't for others. Ultimately I think this allows me to build tools that while they may never be universally adopted will be more enjoyed by those that it rings true for. Of course if you don't like it I'd be particularly interested to hear what is is you don't enjoy.
Perhap we should compare the cost of development - and maintenance - for an efficient classic software and a bloated and modern one once ... ; ))

(probably the cost of making an ancient Word and the newest one... : )) but there could be lots of other examples of 'modern' ones made along current trends vs. similar feature set classic ones, I wonder how this cost characteristic would play out .... : ) )
The doc file has images, and some simple tables but mostly texts.
Product-Market Fit Framework for B2B Startups
Apophis will swing by Earth at a distance of less than 20k miles
I feel like the legal definition of "AI Model" is pretty slippery.

From this document, they define:

“Artificial intelligence model” means an engineered or machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments and that may operate with varying levels of autonomy.

That's pretty dang broad. Doesn't it cover basically all software?
I'm not a lawyer, and I realize it's ultimately up to judges to interpret, but it seems almost limitless. Seems like it could cover a kitchen hand mixer too, as far as I can tell.
> Different modes of transportation have real pros and cons

Exactly. And the pros and cons for trains, as a mode of transportation, have made them a less viable option for most American journeys ever since the mid-20th century. When you say "there are people who do not drive or fly but use trains", you're not describing the typical, reasonable person who weighs the pros and cons between different modes of transportation, you're describing someone who refuses to even consider alternate modes of transportation. Maybe it's not necessarily a whimsical romanticism for trains, but it's certainly something well short of any actual necessity that's deserving of public subsidy.
Anything can be relatively easy if you've either already succeeded the first time based on sheer determination and/or you've successfully done other harder things that were at least as abstract as having a successful career. This article is not about the moment you make a decision, because that's as easy as it's set up to be based on all of the previous dice rolls of your life, but about the likelihood that you'll be able to bounce back from rolling snake eyes on what seemed like a sure thing at a time when time itself was cheap.

If determination alone qualified as the criteria for succeeding in a career change, then that means whatever situation you're in already has prepared you perfectly for a marginally different path forward, or the risk involved is relatively trivial. Imo, this article isn't pessimistic enough, but it doesn't mean one can't be inspired by rare anomalies, it's just that you'd be naive to believe an arbitrary person can replicate those results merely by trying hard. It doesn't work for a primary career, and it won't work for a secondary career, there are many more factors involved.