skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think that's true, careful engineers like microservices/SOA because deploying a small fix doesn't necessitate testing and deploying everything else too, service outage is limited, and rollbacks easier. Careful engineers always test everything they are going to deploy - and I don't mean just running the unit test suite. Careful engineers also appreciate when internal implementation details aren't exposed to the rest of the system, interactions are monitored and audited, interfaces are strictly defined and enforced, and services are not bound to run on a single machine - security boundaries and contexts, reduction of attack surface.

I also don't think he's arguing for carefulness at all - he's saying that if it wasn't for the free money, engineers would be forced to move faster and break more things to make quick cash. Understandable from business investor perspective, but has nothing to do with careful engineering. He's basically saying "you're so careful I am not making my money, fuck all that and deliver already".
I used to have the same opinion for many years.

Then generative AI became good. Good enough for me to use it as a daily assistant. So good it scared me and led me to rethink my position.

I have missed one crucial thing: Big enough changes in quantity do lead new qualities as well.

Training models with insane amounts of data was the necessary step to finally make the qualitative leap into developing models that were practical for mainstream use.

One of the big things holding back AI research has always been trying to be too clever. This article sums it up perfectly:

> The biggest lesson that can be read from 70 years of AI research is that general methods that leverage computation are ultimately the most effective, and by a large margin.
http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
> I’m not against coal or nuclear

It's $CURRENT_YEAR, we can safely be against coal.
Well they sound like good ideas to somebody but often bad ideas to me oO
This came up yesterday[1] but if you'd like to know more, Kathy Kleiman's "Proving Ground: The Untold Story of the Six Women Who Programmed the World's First Modern Computer" includes the point of view of Jean Bartik along with the other ENIAC programmers. https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/kathy-kleiman/provi...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40317375
Why can’t this be the default for submitted articles?

HN should wrap all of these articles in an archive link.
I guess there may be an element of slowly boiling the frog in that the west was nervous about getting into a nuclear war with Russia which is understandable. But I think there should be an understanding that invading basically democratic countries is unacceptable and we'll make it a pain for the Russians until they rethink.

I heard an interesting idea to blockade their oil by hitting empty tankers sailing into Russia to pick up oil. That would create a major headache for them without actually killing many people.
The slip is that they aren’t developing AI for the betterment of human kind, just to better sell to you —- so you keep buying more crap. At least that was my hot take.
I've used systemd-sysext's to add system level software to my Steam Deck withough having to unseal the root partition. It's slightly annoying in that that I have to rebuild the ext's every time the system updates, but otherwise they work great.
Is it thought that "the creators of capitalism" didn't think through what would happen "late stage" and we are dealing with a "never before in history" mutation of that?
According to Paul Graham, successful startups (weighted by eventual market cap) are ideas that:

1) Sound bad

2) But are actually good.

So by selecting on ideas that sound good on first glance, you're already selecting for startups that won't comprise the majority of the success mass.
I'm talking about robotaxis. There is no safety data available for vision-only robotaxis. It's a hypothetical system that we are speculating about.

If Tesla had one that's safer than humans, then yes they should be allowed to deploy it. My argument was that they're making it harder for themselves to exceed that safety threshold by insisting on vision only.
Google isn’t a work program. It is set up to make money and return money to investors either via capital gains (buybacks) or income (dividends). The fact that they laid people off means they felt they could accomplish this mission better without those people.

These facts are irrefutable and confusing them for your own desire for how the world should work is a waste of time. If you don’t like this setup, then don’t work for Google or other companies prone to mass layoffs. Start your own business. Work for government. There are plenty of ways to avoid layoff risk. But you won’t get paid Google salaries.
Closing line was "I'm glad this book was written."
Why would people consider using it over "regular WireGuard setup with opensshd somewhere"?
Midwest prices are nowhere near California prices. Not even moderately close. The only place that might be remotely true is Chicago.
How much energy was spent on the training run though? It's all the energy spent through the lifetime of trillions of organisms.
There is a list of supporting tooling under the official LSP site, but it's not very descriptive: https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/impleme...
Then vote for government that doesn’t allow companies to grow to government scale. Western antitrust regulations are not being enforced properly and it is to everyone’s detriment.
The difference is that you’re comparing a few vocal leftist people on the internet to the actual elected representatives of the right.

When you look at who is actually elected by the left wing of America, they are very moderate. That’s because that’s who “the left” actually is outside of Twitter. Meanwhile “the right” elects people like Trump, because that’s who they are.

FWIW your Israel example is not a right-left issue. It’s one of the few hot topics that cannot be divided on red/blue lines. There are lots of Zionists and non-Zionists on both sides, for all sorts of different and often wacky reasons.
It's also possible that a reasonably homogenous atmospheric pressure does not promote sustained plate tectonics over geologic time scales. Since Venus has no oceans this could be why it has no plate tectonics currently.
interesting perspective. i agree with you, i need to work on how i handle the workplace.

through 15 years i have only had 2 managers. we meet maybe once every 2 months and have sit-downs every half-year/9 months for talking about goals, salary adjustment purposes or if i want to attend a conference or course or such.

i am very easy to handle for managers in that i rarely need 1:1s or have many requirements. i am also hardly ever sick, it's been a few years since i took sick leave or a mental health day.
> We need to finance original research, alternative research and think of working on an actual theory of intelligence.

> We need a Galileo and Kepler of AI. Maybe they already exist but are being marginalized by the current establishment?

The problem with "theories of intelligence" is that they need to yield results. You can come up with whatever brilliant theory you like but at the end of the day you need to produce a tool, a model, a result, something that does something.

And that's exactly what "theories of intelligence" have failed to do. Your argument is like Chomsky whining in the NYT about machine learning. What did Chomsky's linguistics actually do? What did they enable us to build? The answer is probably not "nothing" -- it's more like "not much". Meanwhile, machine learning gave us a tool that can translate from one language to another reasonably well and didn't stop there.

Theory isn't useless but we have plenty of it. There's so much borderline useless theory about language and intelligence in academia and it has produced so little tangible value. We absolutely do not need more of it.
Many are based on the SICP metacircular evaluator. Write that in your language of choice then you can bootstrap into scheme from there. Also see the 1986 MIT lecture videos by the authors, to get the spirit of the thing.
One can enable the Power Pivot addin, add the data into a semantic model and define a DAX measure for the median on it.
Interesting to note that I can still type colon-paren today and have it converted, but usually to an emoji instead of the forum smiley gif. On Discord, GitHub, etc
The Myth of Loss: Bitboys
While probably a bit overkill for writing a Lisp, Robert Nystrom’s Crafting Interpreters [0] is a really fantastic book on the topic.

[0] https://craftinginterpreters.com/contents.html
Capitalism evolved. That’s like saying “did the first settler of Chicago not think through the future problem of crime?”
This is how I write my compilers. Indeed, it's how I write all my software.
I don't get why anyone would be upset at the CEO earning $200M/year, when the founders are worth $100,000M each.
https://sicp.sourceacademy.org/chapters/4.html

This inlines the diffs between the original SICP and the new one that is implemented in Javascript too.
HN comment sentiment analysis across 24h?
I wonder if there is a measurable change in sentiment expressed in HN comments across the day cycles due to difference in audience.

Since HN articles fluctuate quickly, Americans might experience a different HN than Europeans.

I wonder if anyone can run or already ran an analysis on this.
Something they don’t really touch on is the massive layoffs from big tech, I’m sure many of those people were happy to take a paycheck but once that dried up they went back to building their own company based on whatever idea they had that was too small for Google/facebook/etc.
Because people don’t understand what capitalism is, only what it was. The most ironical part is that the ones who predicted what is going on are the communists.
The core samples do not show continuous grooves, that claim has been thoroughly debunked. With visuals.
I’m not really sure how you would be able to write an interpreter without a parser, since you need to know what the user is trying to do. For a more complete tutorial there is Make-A-Lisp (mal) [0] that has steps for making a lisp in various (including JavaScript) and has a process guide [1] to get started.

[0] https://github.com/kanaka/mal

[1] https://github.com/kanaka/mal/blob/master/process/guide.md
But earthquakes and plate tectonics are not the same thing
Sam Altman has in the past talked about gatekeeping AI compute to focus on important problems: things like solving for vaccines or intense science or even just things that will fundamentally improve humans day to day vs asking it dumb questions that could be found with a google search.
I definitely trust Consumer Reports more than whoever these randos are, particularly because it was pretty easy to see the pro-Tesla bias from the beginning even without being familiar with their other content. And I would think anyone would have alarm bells going off given the unbelievable 44 interventions to zero interventions result.
This probably is the case when you only expect money as a direct return on your investment. The proportions probably would be different (I have no idea what would they actually be though) if we considered other things you get in return. E.g. development of your personality, social connections you make etc. You still have to do some work to convert these into money and happiness though.

I even believe educational institutions like colleges and universities are a waste of time if all you want is new knowledge you can apply - most of it already is available online either for free or for much less than what tuition actually costs. A university/college is a tool for social integration (through getting your knowledge formally recognized and through meeting new resourceful people) and the art of using this tool right is another skill most of the people lack and don't even know of.
I'd say go for it - There is an API link at the bottom of the page.
JavaBadAbstractFactoryObjectFactoryException
So you agree with the distortion. Thanks.

I agree with what you said also, to a certain extent. But then we go down the path of: is there anyone with enforced antitrust on their manifesto? Considering the overwhelming lobby influence of 'government scale companies', will there ever be? I'll suggest: no.
Not just meeting potential spouses. Having studied psychology has helped my romantic relationships in odd and intangible ways. For 1, talking to women I didn't know was easier because while they couldn't relate to my programming interest, they could relate to my psychology interest. For 2, it was just easier to find someone given that you were in an environment were 80% of your students were female (me being male).

But what also really helped was knowledge on anxious/avoidant attachment styles or how intuition is works (I read a lot about Kahneman's research papers - not his pop science books). By understanding how intuition works, I was able to train it through meditation (I could get the academic sources but this would become a lecture). When I got a stronger intuition I could relate better to people in general that use their intuition as their default mode (something I never did as a kid).

Psychology also has helped me with some mental health issues long after I graduated from it. I was surprised because I wasn't that interested in the mental health aspect when I was studying it (I liked neuroscience and statistics). I recognize mental issues with myself early so I can start acting on it early as well.

This is the tip of the iceberg. My point is: I never expected these benefits. But they are very very real. Moreover, for some these benefits do not pan out this way. A friend of my also studied psychology and would've loved to have a girlfriend at the time but it didn't work out for him. In my case, it helped that I was a bit socially bold. I was socially insecure as well but it doesn't matter that one is insecure when they are socially bold (I can say that with hindsight, haha).
We shouldn't just be looking for under trained tokens. Tokens are effectively the first layer of the network, but we should also be looking for training data imbalances at every weight at every other layer of the network.

When we find them, it might be best to delete weights with hardly any data flowing through them (which might make the model smaller or help generalisation).
> Imagine, when Pres and John applied for an EDVAC patent, they found that ambitious duo of Johnny and Herman had already applied. When confronted with this duplicity, von Neumann said he did it to ensure that the EDVAC patent would be in the public domain and not be used for commercial purposes. You bet.

This was good for the development of computers, that there was no initial patent thicket/fight. See early aviation history for a contrast.

I'd doubt too that von Neumann was burning to steal credit for the stored-program concept. He'd already gained a world-class reputation by his earlier work, and I haven't heard of anything else similar from him. (BTW I did read on /r/math the other day someone saying that an early paper from von Neumann got held up by Birkhoff as editor of the journal, iirc, who proceeded to publish a stronger result first using vN's idea. So it's not like you never hear about unscrupulous conduct from mathematicians.)
Everything you've described all happens in many other languages today. Python is personally one of my more prominent nemeses, as the ML bubble marches forward; I can't even tell you how many venvs I've got with various binaries for Nvidia interfaces along for the ride. The .NET family still has that terrible library installer for older solutions that lingers like a bad odor.

And let's not forget the joy that is Python's many, many esoteric values due to rampant signature changes in dependency hell. Whoops! That library that just got accidentally updated renamed a critical function 2 layers deep in the 70+ transitive dependency hierarchy, and threw an error; too bad it didn't manifest before you spent 10 hours of processing time.
Or maybe the speed of light is a barrier that cannot be passed and therefore nobody is really that interested in going much further than their local solar system.
One thing is the leave shouldn’t be “all at once or lose it” but a bucket that can be drained over time. The mother can use it very early and the father later which provides the best experience for everyone.
I know someone who was a great EE and quit at about 30 to become a park ranger. He was even better at that and is still doing it 30 years later and he couldn't be happier. He always had a bohemian & ecological mindset so it didn't seem like a surprise when he made the shift.
Or better yet, work for companies like Google and do the absolute bare minimum to get paid and promoted. Cold hard self interest works both ways.

If Google’s trajectory is any indication, that’s what their workers are doing anyway.
What about UFO
I like the element of randomness. I hate knowing that every time I lose it isn't because they were better than me, it's because I didn't try hard enough. I play games to have fun, not to push myself to the limit every time. What precipitated my mostly giving up multiplayer was when I noticed I was forming my habits around winning and it was working. If my room lighting was good, if I drank coffee before a match, if I played during the right hours of the day, I won. When I started avoiding using the bathroom because having to pee made me more alert, I knew it wasn't worth it anymore. I like games, not sports.
But the layoff letter wasn't empathetic enough!*

*got 12 weeks severance at $7k/week
Obviously good ideas are ones that a large company department will also easily get funding for. That increases the competition a lot.
If you were serious, you would be capable of making much better arguments, and be able to address the ones I made, instead of doubling down on your praise and water carrying of Win32's and PHP's mediocrity and insecurity, and defense of Rasmus's arrogant and negligent carelessness.

Doubling down on your arguments is like bragging about shooting your puppy the face and claiming you stared down Kim Jong-il, instead of just admitting you made a mistake. It doesn't save face as much as you'd like to imagine, or lend any credibility to your self-aggrandizing claims of seriousness and professionalism. You must be fun to work with. /s
People recommend tracing garbage collection because it performs better than atomic reference counting, even though reference counting is much simpler.

Now, suppose I were designing a language where data is always owned by at most one thread. I can skip making the ref counter an atomic variable, and with some help of the language do reference counting at compile time: would I still benefit from the complexity of a tracing GC if my goal is performance and predictable latency?

I want to have automatic memory management for both kernel and apps. Creating a concurrent tracing GC that walks the entire user and kernel space sounds incredibly more complicated than just inc/dec'ing a counter and freeing if it reaches zero (again, assuming only one thread can access a single object)

I know that I would have to add language support for weak pointers or forbid cyclic references altogether, but I wonder if the dislike for reference counting only exists because it doesn't work well for data that's shared across threads.

EDIT: thanks all, you have brought excellent arguments and you have convinced me. In fact, in this actor-based OS I am working on, GC+arena based allocation per actor might be the most performing approach. GC collection can happen in the scheduler between messages (so becomes virtually pauseless), and when an actor terminates, just reclaim the entire arena.
This is what I hate about supporting Java apps. Why are the errors so indecipherable and rarely well documented?
No, the slip is that Mark subconsciously equates customers and products, hence he said "sell their competitors' customers" instead of "sell their competitors' products".
Its an internal US issue that has external consequences (ie. Chaos in the Middle east)
Yup.

About two months into this job, they offered me a promotion since "you would be perfect for this position." I looked at the schedules of the people who also had that job and they were booked solid all week. It was pretty obvious to me that it would be basically 40+ hours/week of meetings and tons of stress for pretty much the same pay. The bonuses were probably higher, but nothing about it was worthwhile. Yeah, I like money but you'd probably have to double my salary for me to even think about it.

Had two successive managers suggest the job to me. After about a year, the newest one finally took the hint and left me alone.
In Argentina, it is well proven that economic programs not based on austerity always fail. For 24 years, the country has not attempted a path of austerity, always trying to spend more than it has and accumulating debt to very high levels. Two debt defaults later, it is evident that another path must be attempted.
Your statements are only as good as your assertion that you know “how the Russians roll”. Great. Can you support that?
Can you provide an example of an object where this can be felt? I’ve touched hundreds of painted electrical enclosures on energized transformers, panels, switchgear, etc and have never noticed this.
This business thinking is not a law of nature, it's a choice. Putting investors as the most important cohort of all the people involved in a business (workers, society, and investors) is a relatively new invention from the 80s after Jack Welch's tenure at GE.

So talking about it is important, we don't need to have business causing damages just to please investors. Even more when said investors in a public company have not contributed to the bottom line of a business, they bought some papers expecting that those papers would yield them some value, they haven't participated in the business to actually create the value they expect. They haven't directly funded the business for product research and/or expansion.

This way of thinking has been disseminated as being "The Truth" of business while... It actually isn't, returning money to investors used to come only after taking care of your workers and after providing a benefit to society, training workers used to be a thing so your company could keep its edge in the long-term.

The way you believe business should be is completely taken over by the financialisation of everything, businesses should be returning value to investors because they provide value to society, because they employ and train good people, not to just suck out the most value possible in the short term.

Discussing this is necessary, Google isn't a jobs program but it also doesn't need to be a purely return-to-investors machine, a business is much more than that, reducing it to that point is what gave the USA what Boeing has become, I don't think you would like more of that.
What industries are less prone to layoffs? I thought cybersecurity was one of them, then my buddy got snagged during a recent layoff cycle.
It has nothing to do with "socially acceptable", I think the parent was simply talking about even having the option of doing it.

Very easy to be an aspiring author/painter/singer/etc when you have a partner to pick up the bills with a "real job".
> do the absolute bare minimum to get paid and promoted

The minimum is actually a lot, because at companies like that individual performance is monitored closely and other people are going to be working very hard.
Prediction of Live Bulb Weight for Field Vegetables Using Regression and ML
or have an option to submit and display unpaywalled links at the top.

I guess though its probably not best for longevity of the site to be seen as a place that encourages this sort of thing.