skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
EU law is case driven, and besides the text of cases you also need to know the books interpreting them, general legal principles that might be applicable and hermeneutic traditions.

They are clearly a long way from a tool that can compete with a human lawyer.
I think as the industry moves from a post-pay model, to a pre-pay/real-time model, this antagonistic relationship between providers and payers should slowly improve. Definately not a silver bullet though.
It does not. And not only is this particular letter signed by many active contributors, the issues far predate this one letter (with this one demand), and many well-known contributors have been involved in speaking out against the current situation.

You're not going to understand complex governance issues and their history from a read of a single article or letter. Consequently, you probably should refrain from drawing conclusions that way.
Lap belts existed well before that
Yes, that's why I used the 'incomplete' keyword. Of course you can only pass around pointers and references to incomplete classes (although there might be ways around that).

Base classes almost work, but you either need all your functions to be virtual or you need to play nasty casts in your member functions.

re std fwds, typically the forwarding is needed when specializing traits while metaprogramming.
I do agree it's reasonable to not want this kind of use.

> it is in fact your purview to "ideologically police" the uses your work is applied to

But this seems like a fantasy to me and directly at odds with the realities of open source.

The reality is that open source code is used for a myriad of purposes that I would consider myself ideologically opposed to. But this is ultimately the cost and tradeoff of open source in the system we currently have. Similar to the argument for free speech, in which we tolerate the fact that people have the right to say truly awful things because we deem that an acceptable tradeoff and better than censorship.

You may also be right that this is a matter that is not yet settled, and I'd be interested in a serious discussion about what some kind of workable solution might look like, but I don't see how what's happening in the Nix community right now moves anyone towards that, and if people are truly this principled, the Nix project itself should be the least of everyone's worries.
The only way to measure developer productivity without causing a revolt
I mean it never really took off an VS Code is a great replacement. It's not clear if Atom would've gone anywhere even if MS didn't buy Github.
We don't know how to make safe AI systems, so we should be more cavalier and anything-goes than if we did? Madness.
Maybe the move is to call your credit card concierge service and have them argue with your insurance company for you.
The goal is to have a deterministic representation of a process that can be traversed in order to accomplish a task.

There's a lot of literature around process mining, e.g.:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_mining

- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266596382...

- https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06035
> Nix Flakes looking like the real source of the schism in the Nix community.

No. In the talks about the fork because of the real issue of MIC sponsorship there was disagreement about whether flakes should be the default among those against MIC sponsorship.

They are both issues, but the most pressing one causing large contributors to leave is the MIC sponsorship issue. The flakes/no-flakes issue existed before and wasn't causing large contributors to leave.
Let me translate GNU for you
"The only limitation is that you are not allowed to make the software less free/libre aka you are not allowed to add "limitations".

GNU developers give you some software, you can do whatever you want except making it less free.

the only people that will complain are developers that would like to remove soem of the user freedoms , because this devs want to make money or because they want more freedom for themselves and not for the users.
Aren't there countries using AI for military target selection, right now?
Well. I'm not spending $600 on a Xbox + tax, another $100 game pass just to get online play.

And if they want to snap up game studios, they need to start branching out
I would say that it’s getting better at answering those questions. I have a list of difficult legal research questions that I worked on at work and gemeni pro and claude opus are definitely way better than 3 and 3.5 and 4.

I believe it will eventually get there and give good advice.
Kind of difficult if all you know is a cloud Kafka and have no idea that RabbitMQ exists or how to use it.

I went to a lunch and learn where a young engineer was demoing some Kafka-based solution that was spun up in AWS.

I asked about some of the functionality in comparison with RabbitMQ. Deer in the headlights.
The idea that something with greater cognitive capabilities than us might be dangerous to us occurs to many people: sci-fi writers in large numbers to be sure, but also Alan Turing and a large fraction of currently-living senior AI researchers.

What really gets me concerned is the quality of the writing on the subject of how can we design an AI so that it will not want to hurt us (just as we design bridges so that we know from first principles they won't fall down). Most leaders of AI labs have by now written about the topic, but the writings are shockingly bad: everyone has some explanation as to why the AI will turn out to be safe, but there are dozens of orthogonal explanations, some very simplistic, none of which I want to bet my life on or the lives of my younger relatives.

Those who do write well about the topic, particularly Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, say that it is probably not currently within the capabilities of any living human or group of humans to design an AI to be safe (to humans) the way we design bridges to be safe, and that our best hope is the hope that over the next centuries humankind will become cognitively capable enough to do and that in the meantime people stop trying to create AIs that might turn out to be dangerously capable -- which (because outside of actually doing the training run, we have no way of predicting the effects on capability of the next architectural improvement or the next increase in computing resources devoted to training) basically means stopping all AI research now worldwide and for good measure stopping progress in GPU technology.

Eliezer has been full-time employed for over 20 years to work on the issue (and Nate has been for about 15 years) and they've had enough funding to employ at least a dozen researchers and researcher-apprentices over that time to bounce ideas off of in the office.
It won't stifle anything. It will take about 2 months for all AI companies to abandon California. Forcing them out of SF will make their social lives worse but lower their costs 80%. The end result is that they will spend less time drinking $17 espresso, more time working, and will be able to hire more engineers. AI research accelerates dramatically.
Yeah. Dolstra is responding to a letter that criticized his views, which isn't what the letter is. The letter's concern is that Dolstra is seriously harming the Nix project by forcing all decisions to go through himself, relitigating decisions that don't go his way, driving away good contributors, and generally causing friction and discord that impede communication and render decisionmaking ineffective. Those are pretty dang outcome-oriented criticisms. The letter spends like half of its length explaining how the Anduril thing and the Foundation are concretely harming the Nix project and how conflicts of interest are contributing to the problem. The least objective thing you can point to is the complaint about the Foundation having terrible minority representation, and even that has quite a bit of real-world support. It's the least ideologically-policing open letter I've seen in a long time.
So getting 8,064 of them for $3,085 - 38 cents per CPU - is great value for money!
I agree. I also found this both interesting and strange at first, but ultimately very helpful.
Some people seem not to like it (most don't care), but nothing else gets special treatment in language (one doesn't refer to people of different races using different pronouns for example - there are special titles like sir/lord/reverend, but I try to avoid those too), and I think it's good to challenge people's assumptions around this kind of thing.
This has been the message for all these layoffs - thousands of people. How many low performers did Google hire? Where's the accountability at the leadership level for this failure?
I don't suppose either of you have any content blockers installed in Safari? Someone on Reddit has mentioned that disabling content blockers fixed the globe not loading
"People don't read"
should be tattooed on the back of every designer's hand.

Of course, they won't read it before they design something that requires deep engagement through reading.
Seems implause that a Russian speaker will drop a soft spot in the word витязи. I would definitely search for somebody who is named VITaly and whose last name starts with AZI.
> so it gets rid of all the operational and scaling problems you have with a typical tiered storage Kafka setup

Do these operational and scaling problems include AWS's managed services? MSK, Kinesis Data Streams?

At small scale, why wouldn't someone go with one of those? And at large scale, where's the Total Cost of Ownership comparison to show that it's worth it to ditch Kafka's local disks for a model built on object storage?
Test it how? What makes it fail? The ability to tell people how to make a bomb? Being able to say what (few) good things Hitler accomplished for Germany? Giving medical advice? Where’s the line?
Isn't the winning bid the actual market value, by definition?
Yawn, I see you're a troll.
I claim "many" building materials, not "all". There is a world of difference between those two claims! In fact, if you read a little bit further than where you quoted, I even mention one building material that is cheaper than solar panels.
Thanks, this is a good summary and is very much appreciated.

If we assume that an Oyster card for children doesn't make much sense for a tourist, I found no option where the child is cheaper than the adult.

Admittedly, most often the difference between contactless for the adult and the pay-as-you-go Oyster card is negligible. Still it is a bit disappointing.
if claiming something is bogus, then provide evidence of your claim. otherwise your claim holds less weight than the one you oppose.
Yeah but most people don't just pick their insurance.
The name is not borrowed from Dokku, is taken from Docker, since when i was trying to buy the domain Dockploy.com was not available I just removed 1 char lol
Making up dubious connections to wrongthink is a bad thing.
Maybe this is an upside to the looming AI-taking-jobs issue.

I bet a ton of these bureaucratic approve/deny/request-more-information workflows in current EMR systems will be replaced by AI in a few years, putting the people out of work.

Once AI eats their jobs, less resistance to changing the system.
I'm thinking of this kind of declaration in C:

typedef struct foo Foo;

extern Foo* foo_create();

extern const char* foo_getStringOrSomething(Foo* foo);

That's a fully opaque type, and it's reasonably efficient. The one thing you can't do store a Foo on the stack, because you don't know its internal size and layout. So it's always a heap pointer, but there's only one level of indirection.

In idiomatic C++ I think you'd have something like:

class Foo {

struct impl;

std::unique_ptr<impl> _impl;

std::string getStringOrSomething();

}

If I have a pointer to a Foo, that's two pointer indirections to get to the opaque _impl. So, okay, I can store my Foo on the stack and then I'm back to one pointer. But if I want shared access from multiple places, I use shared_ptr<Foo>, and then I'm back to two indirections again.

The idiomatic C++ way to avoid those indirections is to declare the implementation inline, but it make it private so it's still opaque. But then you get the exploding compile times that people are complaining about on this thread.

The C approach is a nice balance between convenience, compilation speed and runtime performance. But you can't do this in idiomatic C++! It's an OO approach, but C++'s classes and templates don't help you implement it. C++ gives you RAII, which is very nice and a big advantage over C, but in other respects it just gets in the way.

Edit to add: now I look at this, Foo::getStringOrSomething() will always be called with a pointer (Foo&) so it will always need a double-dereference to access the impl. Unless, again, you inline the definition so the compiler has enough information to flatten that indirection.

I don't see how that pImpl approach can ever be as performant as the basic C approach. Am I missing something?
This is only an opinion you can hold if you view the US as exclusively a pious organization that can do no wrong. It's completely bizarre that anyone would use the treatment of the Uyghurs as the beacon of immorality for the chinese, while the US currently bombs more muslims with the efficiency that the CCP could ever dream of.

If the China is evil for suppressing all social media for the purpose of spreading propoganda, what do you call what the US is doing with TikTok. Why does the TikTok ban suddenly have so much support when they were the only platform to not explicitly mute pro-palestine voices? With your standard, couldn't the US also be considered a dystopia?

I view banning of TikTok as dangerous, especially considering the political climate. Is my "freedom of choice" really freedom if my only choices are thouse controlled US hegemonic powers? If it was instead China that ruled world, and Douyin, WeChat and Weibo were used world wide, would it seem that China is the "free" society, and that America in banning TikTok was the autocratic one? You could even imagine them using Trump as "proof" of dysfunction in our system.
This is the kind of pro tip I love seeing on HN. It's a shame that the tech field moves so fast and info gets outdated constantly, but at least for now, this helps.
I really don't see the problem with accepting sponsorship money from Anduril. Rejecting it just results in less improvements and exposure for Nix.

They're going to continue to use Nix either way, and in the same way that the community can fork Nix because they're unhappy with the sponsorship, so can Anduril - and their fork might just be private.

Defence companies and all sorts of other companies that people might disagree with heavily use open source projects.
Witch hunt detected. Turning care knob straight to zero. Maybe I’ll tune back in if there’s a change in the wind.
That's because you don't understand it.
A hair over 17% of the US GDP is spent on health care. That's the highest among peer nations.
Why would I want to read some AI-generated slop? It's no different to spam, other than techbros being okay shoving it everywhere and anywhere it doesn't belong.
I was blocked from the Sass repository
Since the Sass project has became political which is a shame, I was pointing out that they violate their own community guidelines, which resulted at them blocking me, marking my PR as spam and blocking me from contributing to the Sass project. I'm kinda ashamed for this, this is unfortunate that they don't even explain, just going the easy way and blocking
> They should be quick to pick up the rule.

"If we go to the clothesline, the nice guy will give us something on the perch".
I see it on every page as well
the term you’re looking for is “license agreement”
It sounds like maybe the open source ecosystem isn't for you, actually.

You don't get to dictate how others work, sorry.
Ooh very interesting, thanks! I did have a little model of the ISS in place of the yellow dot originally but I ran into some issues with it. Would be very interesting to get that fixed up and rendering accurately too
How do you know? If we can agree something about AI, it is that we are ignorant about AI.

We were similarly ignorant about recombinant DNA, so Asilomar was very cautious about it. Now we know more, we are less cautious. I still think it was good to be cautious and not to dismiss recombinant DNA concerns as "science fiction".
> It’s way better than any basic cable TV show had any right to be

Don't do FX like that.

They had a juggernaut lineup of great shows at the time (which is why The Americans kind of got pushed to a backburner).
What's your exit strategy? Can you make some money by selling ads or aggregating user's data?
I was being sincere. I think it's reasonable to expect a governing board to be at least partially representative of the users & contributors of the project. It seems extremely presumptuous at best to tell people their lives & experiences are not relevant to the work they do, and that they are wrong to want people with similar experiences acting in leadership.

So no, I still can't see slander. What is obvious to you is not apparent to me at all so please walk me through it.
I'm curious how bad the build times were; minutes, tens of minutes, hours? I didn't see any absolute times in the post, just percentages.
It depends on how big the model is. They are using a little LLM to help correct text and that would be dreadful if it took a server round trip.
Llama.cpp is the valuable bit here, and Ollama is only good for end user convenience. It saves you 20 minutes of googling and futzing with the million and one llama.cpp wrappers available for every language, lets you set up things to load on startup, but if you're building something for scale or backend, neither llama.cpp or ollama are coming along for the ride. At best it'll live through a proof of concept stage, but as soon as you start caring about performance it's getting discarded.

Microsoft isn't going to pay for something that amounts to a useful setup script wrapped around an inefficient convenience library intended for people to be able to run AI on consumer hardware. There's no exploitable value proposition, whereas building their own closed source AI systems that are tightly coupled to the Windows ecosystem and favor cloud services allows them to extract maximum rent.
How is this claim supported:

> Simultaneously, this group, still upset about the failure of RFC 98, is using the myth of fascism combined with an abusive extension of the paradox of tolerance (originally formulated by Karl Popper with a very different intent) to portray their opponents as bad-faith actors, or even as outright evil. They themselves, of course, do everything they can to appear justified in exercising power with absolutely no accountability, and with a clear sense of their own privileged entitlement to do so
The problem for Xbox is that PS5 has exclusive games, so from the consumer standpoint if you can get the Xbox games on PS5, but can’t get the important PS5 games on Xbox, then why would you buy the Xbox?

Buying an Xbox means no Final Fantasy or Gran Turismo, etc.
Sure, but that's an orthogonal point to the one OP made isn't it? Contributing to open source projects is incompatible with not wanting someone else to use your work based on ideological differences. Perhaps contributors don't think about this until they're faced with a situation that makes them uncomfortable and I sympathize with that and maybe we should start adding disclosures that say "your work may be used by entities you do not want using your work".
Yeah but if that's your metric, the only cool thing is leather jackets, motorcycles, and a rejection of authority.
"Note from Jeremy: This is my personal submission to the authors of bill SB-1047. It’s not an official Answer.AI statement."

Then why post on answer.ai?
They mean the financial penalties should be like the financial penalties of getting a speeding ticket, not that they should have financial penalties for misdiagnosis "like governments have for misissuing speeding tickets".

So, there should be misdiagnosis tickets.
Bet.

When we look at the increased demand due to population growth, electric vehicles, crypto and AI, I am going to disbelieve this goal until I see it. I would go as far as to bet we see a higher amount in MW produced from coal, but perhaps a smaller percentage. It takes like 20 years to build a nuclear power plant in the US. Maybe if we somehow fix our endemic construction issues and are able to put up a couple nuke plants a year for the next decade we will reach it. Or at best we just replace coal with natural gas, and in which case who cares, our CO2 production is still going up?
So if I try to access Twitter/X in mainland China, what will happen?

Given that, would you say that Twitter/X is banned in mainland China?

I don't see how the ban being the result of its noncompliance with local laws doesn't mean it isn't banned.
> Ironic considering that the sole reason I ever BlueBoxed was due to computers.

Same. The reason I was interested in phone technology back in the mid 1980s is because I wanted to connect to long distance BBSes using my Commodore 64 and long distance phone calls were prohibitively expensive for a teenager (or almost anyone really) back then.

This eventually lead to X.25 networks and ARPANet and early Internet usage and my career as a software developer.
> A course for the editor curious
Missed opportunity to use ”vi-curious"
> Trigger happy regulation for a field that hasn't even come into full swing.

Of little concern in the US legal system. Might be problematic in the EU perhaps, but in the United States the courts have consistently been tremendously deferential to the interests of small and large businesses vs consumers.
My issue with American programmers and technologists who get rich is that it goes to their head and suddenly they think they're an intellectual on a wide range of subjects. It happened to me but I grew out of it when I got old. Marc Andreeson is no different. Have you ever really listened to Peter Theil in an interview? He's all over the map, saying things that sound profound but when you think about it actually make no sense at all. He's great at some things, but he's not great at everything. Same with Andreeson. At least he's not as bad as Musk in this regard.
Thanks! The pond is next to a house and there is tree cover, which I think deters herons. But the Charles River is just a few hundred yards away, and the herons are very active there in the shallows and swampy coves.

Our main problem is racoons. At night they come to fish with their claws in the shallow areas of the pond.
I'm a free software advocate, but I'm not a free software zealot. I think nonrestrictive terms of use is the only way to remain ethical. However I'm also a pragmatist and understand the value and use of non-free software. Zealots famously allow for no such exceptions.

Another example There are a number of "rust zealots" who believe it's a moral imperative to rewrite all software in rust, and any who disagrees is immoral and acting in bad faith. Similarly the number of people who are rust zealots are a small fraction of those who like and advocate for rust.
Of course there are other lifeforms out there, it's statistically implausible for it to be otherwise. What's also implausible is that, given the impossible vastness and hostility of interstellar space, that any will ever manage to contact us, specifically. Fortunately, we've got lots of crazy lifeforms here on Earth to keep us occupied, if we can take a moment to stop extincting them as fast as we possibly can.
Because defense contractors typically think what they are doing is purely good and could in no way be thought of as being bad. A form of “reality-distortion field”.
One of the comediennes on Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me delightfully pronounced tortoise TOR-toys. Apparently she'd never heard it spoken aloud before.
I have reviewed the CCC but I can't find the language of "species of water". Where did you find that?