skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It would have been a lot harder if advocates went around saying that the ozone layer is guaranteed to collapse unless we stop using refrigerators!

Correction: It would have been a lot harder if multinational companies went around saying that refrigerants are made of chlorine and carbon, which are an essential part of life, nobody knows how the level of ozone fluctuated in past centuries, and it's all a liberal conspiracy to prevent you from eating as much frozen meat every day as you freedom-loving citizen rightfully deserves.
> I think history is full of examples of people using god and religion as an explanation for far more prosaic things than is typical now

For many mediaeval philosophers, the primary thing God explained is "why does anything exist at all?" The existence of particular things had natural explanations, which could be studied by natural science – of course, much more primitive in those days, but they would not have had a problem with the latter developments in that field, just as contemporary philosophers who follow them don't either. Whereas, "why does anything exist at all?" is not a question that currently natural science has any consensus explanation for. Yes, it all starts with the Big Bang–but why the Big Bang? Did that happen for some known (or knowable) reason, an unknown reason, an unknowable reason, or no reason at all? At the ultra-speculative fringes of theoretical physics you will find attempts to answer it – e.g. Max Tegmark's ultimate ensemble theory – but that is far from being an established scientific consensus, and many question if it is really science at all, as opposed to philosophy masquerading as physics.

Another thing God explained for the mediaevals is "what is the ultimate source of rationality and ethics?" And those are questions for which I'd argue the natural sciences still don't have established answers, and quite possibly never will have established answers.

> Naively it seems like that has changed

I think there has been less change than you think there has been. Most people today have an overly simplistic model of what educated people one thousand or two thousand years ago believed. One encounters many people who anachronistically assume that mediaeval and ancient Christians had a similar worldview to 20th century American young earth creationists. Even before Christianity, Plato and Aristotle were much closer to today's "sophisticated theology" than the kind of "explanation for why a birds song is beautiful" you are talking about
It was also, on the theme that you mentioned, incredibly, unnecessarily horny.

And Sama leaned into that, tweeting "her" yesterday -> https://twitter.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666

I'm not trying to cancel anyone, it wasn't malicious, and it wasn't offensive. But it's definitely something, and not everyone's chill about it.

But it's not a problem because Google doesn't compete with OpenAI (IMO). Google competes with Microsoft which will add all the necessary polish to de-hornify the OpenAI stuff for the corporate customers.

Meanwhile the core OpenAI tech ultimately demos better and offers it's value proposition to a legion of startups better than Google.

In summary, if you're an engineer of building on top of a model, OpenAI seems better.

And if you're a CTO/CIO trying to pick a horse to sign an enterprise contract with, Google seems better.
Sure, there has always been that subset who is only in it for the money. The change I see is that what used to be a subset is now the dominant faction.

This matters because it affects what sorts of products come out of SV. These days, most of the products are about extracting maximal dollars from customers. In the old days, there was a genuine interest in making great products rather than products that prioritize maximize dollar extraction.

Also, the nature of the dev population has changed. These days, a very large percentage of SV devs chose that line of work specifically because it's lucrative. Before, a very large percentage of SV devs chose that line of work because they loved being devs.

At least, that's what the change looks like to me. I could be wrong. But one thing that is absolutely obvious is that SV today is very different than SV back when it was in peak form.
https://stegato.com/
We haven't benchmarked TimescaleDB, so I can't say. Results tend to vary heavily by workload, too.

What I can say is that the research at the heart of Materialize (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2517349.2522738) allows us to efficiently maintain computations that are more complex than what a lot of other IVM systems can handle.

Your best bet is to run your own benchmark of both systems using data that's representative of your workload. We offer a free seven day playground if you'd like to run such a benchmark: https://console.materialize.com/account/sign-up

We also have a community Slack where a number of Materialize employees hang out and answer questions: http://materialize.com/s/chat
NIST Finalizes Updated Guidelines for Protecting Sensitive Information
Do any of these instructions ever get followed every single time?
Sorry - was looking at an older version of the page and didn’t realize there were already a bunch of the same comment. My bad.

———

Will they though? Maybe some toy ones but the distribution of other browsers are largely built on chromium with a few on Firefox and one or two on WebKit.

Beyond that, there’s Arc that’s made a splash with the HN crowd but IIRC, it’s VC funded so a whole different set of concerns.

There will be other browsers but almost the entire browser market is essentially funded by Google.
Ok so the problem here is that they are sustainably selling cars at a competitive price point? Are we in favor of industry cartels now?
I have algos running that trade for me in personal accounts. Of course it's not the volume that the big shops are trading, but the whole "algo traders/market makers bad" thing is always a fun one to see.

Finding anomalies that develop into a mean reversion trading algorithm is actually one of the more fulfilling things I've done. Only a few other things in my life have matched the amount of grit and brainpower I've had to use to get something like this accomplished. A team or company stretching the limits of statistics and computer science to do the same seems like something worthwhile to me.

Now we can get into some areas that may be borderline unethical, like certain types of front running, but a blanketed statement isn't a fair thing to cast on the industry as a whole.
This research strikes me as hot garbage :/ In particular there are dozens of studies like this, which compare to AI with "humans" without adequately addressing sample bias:

Human participants (N = 151) were recruited via Prolific online data collection platform in exchange for monetary compensation of $8.00. Participants were limited to having a reported approval rating above 97%, were proficient English speakers, and were born/resided in the USA. Average total response time for completing the survey was 34.66 minutes.

Asking a bunch of random people to fill out tedious "creative" writing prompts for $15/hr is not a good way to measure humans. Baffling that the discussion didn't even mention this. But you see this all the time in AI research, and I am sure this headline will be repeated uncritically by many people.
I understand it as one pulse (shorter than a ms) each ms for 2 seconds.
And yet no matter how easy they make ChatGPT to interact with, I cannot use it due to accuracy. Great, now I can have a voice telling me information I have no way of knowing is correct rather than just having it given to me as text.
Not really. That rallying cry was subverted by crackers, but to hackers it means something very different.
>Something can be objectively bad without you noticing its failures. Consensus does not guide objectivity.

It tracks it much better than outlier opinion though.

>Fussy means to be overly caring about unimportant details. However, I would not call this issue unimportant.

A feature might be important, but the complains about the feature can still be for fussy things that don't matter (or just be wrong).

Like complaing about how hard it is to use a trackpad instead of a mouse, and how Apple should fix this "somehow" on its laptops.
absolutely. it's a matter of perspective. thinking that you and only you have the "moral" high road, just leads to oppression. good and bad are relative to who's making the judgement
I would define that as especially extradition-free.
I haven't managed to successfully export my custom ViT model yet, but I've not had an issue accessing the export methods in torch 2.3 within the nvcr.io/nvidia/pytorch:24.02-py3 container.

I may have some more time to debug my trace tonight (i.e. remove conditionals from model + make sure everything is on CPU) and will update if I have any new insights.

```
from torch.export import export
...
example_args = (dummy_input)
exported_program = export(model, args=example_args)
```

Links:
- torch.export docs: https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/export.html#serialization
- Using 24.02 container: https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/pytorch-rele...
>There is an international trend to move from explicit consent (opt-in) to presumed consent (opt-out) policies for deceased organ retrieval: Chile (2010), Finland (2010), Greece (2013), Uruguay (2013), Wales (2015), Colombia (2016), Iceland (2019), the Netherlands (2020), England (2020), Scotland (2021), and the province of Nova Scotia in Canada (2021) have implemented opt-out policies. Switzerland is presently considering it, and Australia, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Romania, and several states in the USA had been discussing this as well.[0]

[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.27.21262033v...
If I didn’t know any better, I’d presume Firefox is waiting for Google to get in real bad trouble with the FTC so it has to sign a deal to promote other browsers or something. I would not hold my breath.
Google Maps Platform Graduates React Integration Library to 1.0
Yes, but the point still remains. Most are inspired but once in a while you get The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Velvet Underground and so on.

I guess we can use that to define when we achieve AGI. You mumble an input prompt and get a new Rolling Stones, U2 or Queen, a new Gabriel García Márquez or James Joyce.

Currently if it's not in the Dataset then...404 Creativity Not Found
In other news: current random number generators are more creative than humans on number-picking tasks! [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40359736
Five Surprises in MySQL 8.4 LTS
We have a whole bunch of automation built around VMWare Fusion for creating and deploying macOS VMs (for CI testing). The VMs aren't long-lived, but the code using VMWare Fusion certainly is and it's a nontrivial project to migrate to a different virtualization system. Thankfully for us we were already planning to do that migration before the acquisition.
An older method is to eat a couple of tablespoons of butter 30 min before the first drink. Works quite well to reduce the effects of alcohol.
All we know is that supposedly, Intel didn't document these instructions because it would have made translation to 8086 code more difficult.

I don't entirely buy this explanation though. The overflow flag could have easily used the same bit on both, and the X5 flag behaviour could at least have been documented for INC/DEC, were it clearly "makes sense" from a high-level viewpoint, and would have been no trouble to implement the same way on the 8086.

And if 8080 compatibility was such an important goal, then why design the memory addressing on the 8086 so that it's impossible to translate LDAX/STAX and XTHL into single instructions?

If the 8086 ModR/M worked similar to how it did later in 32-bit mode (only without SIB), all of these 8080 and 8085 instructions would have had an equivalent:

LDAX -> MOV AL,[CX] (etc.)
XTHL -> XCHG BX,[SP]
LDSI -> LEA DX,[SP+n]
LHLX -> MOV BX,[DX]

Dropping conditional call/return was probably the right decision (even though they could be very useful on occasion!), but the absence of conditional jumps with full 16-bit offset was IMO a mistake. If you don't believe that, maybe try writing a compiler (generating 8086 machine code directly) that doesn't emit the most stupid 5 byte code for every forward jump. It's possible of course, but not easy. Opcodes 60h-6fh were right there!
It's neither up nor down. Journalists are paid to punch. Period. That's their reason for existing. The fourth estate is supposed to keep us informed.
Anyone here have experience with extracting image embeddings out of these models? All the image emb. models I tried so far were quite bad for my use cases, and I feel that hidden representations of models like these might be much better.
Indeed! There was even a book on the topic I read years ago. Lead poisoning seemed quite conclusive even back then. https://www.amazon.com/Beethovens-Hair-Extraordinary-Histori...
Seeing my pin as one of the least common ... guess I need to change my pin because they're about to be some of the most common...
> On a character level this should be trivial.

Characters are not the semantic components of words—these are syllables. Generally speaking, anyway. I've got to imagine this approach would yield higher quality results than the roman alphabet. I'm curious if this could be tested by just looking at how LLMs handle English vs Chinese.
I upgraded my llm-gemini plugin to provide CLI access to Gemini Flash:

pipx install llm # or brew install llm
llm install llm-gemini --upgrade
llm keys set gemini
# paste API key here
llm -m gemini-1.5-flash-latest 'a short poem about otters'

https://github.com/simonw/llm-gemini/releases/tag/0.1a4
My uninformed suspicion is that this is not a language or a script but a timekeeping or calendar system of some kind.
Baseline Integration with RUM Archive and RUMvision
An elaborate Agatha Christie style whodunit, with a series of plot-twists and alibis which can be chopped off the end of the piece to modify who is the most likely suspect
I've change my PIN codes to use the least used ones now. Nobody can guess them so I am very secure.
What's the chance that these limericks are now in the training set? As others mention, it'd be interesting to come up with a way to synthesize something sufficiently interesting so it always evades training fit.
Well for me it linked to a Google Form to join a waitlist lol, so I'm not exactly pumped
It's been 15 years since Google first demoed self driving Prius, and nearly 20 since DARPA Grand Challenge.

All that came to be are small scale testing in couple US cities, and steering wheel stabilization mini computers for mid-to-premium range cars that aren't that better than craft-built implementations from back then.
I was wondering if its related to data gathering for ai
[dupe]

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40306374

Some previous discussions on the 2012 source of the data (http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/september32012/index.html)

2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17670173

2013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5124024

2012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535417
Bandlimited means limited in the frequency domain, not the spatial domain.

(Also, video is actually worse - only 16-235. Good thing there's HDR now.)
If we start picking the least popular pin codes they'll stop being the least popular. What a tragedy
> Silicon Valley was once the domain of nerds and introverts trying to build a better future.

Silicon Valley used to be "Defense Valley" because it built weapons systems for the DOD long before the web came around. It was never the domain of nerds and introverts trying to build a better future, it has always been evil and done evil for the sake of capitalism.
It would be hard to detect if the other party didn’t know what to look for, but easy if they did.

If you combined your hidden image with a one-time-pad it should be indistinguishable from noise, right? And noise would be expected in a lossily compressed image. I wonder if anyone has done that. It seems like we’d probably never know unless they told us!
Maybe. I would like them to do a market research on what % of their customers would pay $17 for a Caesar salad for their lettuce to come from a local farm and what % would prefer to pay $17 for a tasty salad curated by a chef, but with not all ingredients sourced locally. And once they have that info, I'd like them to decide which one of the two they are from a mission perspective. Nothing wrong with being either, as long as the expectations are set.
The next step in research was using mice, where a mouse named Lucy who had been genetically modified to have ALS was given both treatments.

Her sister did not receive the treatment and died, whereas Lucy lived through experimentation and according to Strong was "doing fine".

One team's research has progressed to publishing a paper. I'm a little distressed CTV would broadcast so little as a Potential Cure. Even if there's a non-zero chance of being right.

I lost a friend to ALS. He let me keep an office in his home and I saw the day to day. It is a truly rough road.

He certainly didn't appreciate the over-amplified hope that invariably follows these horrific disorders.
> Google is large enough to not care about small opportunities. It ends up focusing on bigger opportunities

that result in shittier products overall. For example, just a few months ago they cut 17 features from Google Assistant because they couldn't monetize them, sorry, because these were "small opportunities": https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/11/google-is-removing-17-unde...

> all are excellent examples of Google's long term commitment to the product and constantly making things better and keeping them relevant for the market.

And here's a long list of excellent examples of Google killing products right and left because small opportunities or something: https://killedbygoogle.com/

And don't get me started on the whole Hangouts/Meet/Alo/Duo/whatever fiasco

> Sure it has shut down many small products but that is because they were unlikely to turn into bigger opportunities.

Translation: because they couldn't find ways to monetize the last cent out of them

---

Edit: don't forget: The absolute vast majority of Google's money comes from selling ads. There's nothing else it is capable of doing at any significant scale. The only reason it doesn't "chase small opportunities" is because Google doesn't know how. There are a few smaller cash cows that it can keep chugging along, but they are dwarfed by the single driving force that mars everything at Google: the need to sell more and more ads and monetize the shit out of everything.
Bryan Caplan on Abolishing Zoning and Slashing Regulations
Unfortunately as always waiting list, Google will never learn.
3,5,7 line up on the diagonal, leaving 2 as the only other prime. So people using physical patters are likely to choose them. Not to mention any mathematically inclined person may also choose all primes.
or the chinese cars will be so cheap that the tariffs won't matter?
The article says it's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogham

>The vast majority of the inscriptions consist of personal names.
There's an awful lot of 'coming soon' with Google at the moment, isn't there?
Why Isn't Google's "Generative AI Search" Copyright Theft?
I know that a lot of content on the web is rehashed itself, but many creators actually review products themselves, speak from first hard experience, research, etc.

The original knowledge has to come from someone human.

How can Google promote its "1 trillion facts" database of scrapped content and just use it to show answers to searchers alongside ads.

Seems like they are doing this without regard for much anything else because OpenAI is a new entrant and about to threaten their search empire?
> In fact, they already did.

In terms of software that's actually been released Google is still at best in third place when it comes to AI products.

I don't care what they can demo, I care what they've shipped. So far the only thing they've shipped for Veo is a waitlist.
Funny/stupid anecdote: a bunch of my kids' friends have the same phone unlock PIN as me because I set my son's new phone PIN the same as mine so he would also be able to unlock my phone if necessary.

When his friends started getting phones as well, they copied his. This has migrated through some of the friends' siblings as well.
Julia has it it's called code_native http://www.jlhub.com/julia/manual/en/function/code_native
News will never stop being published, if nothing else by people who were there in the moment on social media

Knowledge will still be published through papers

People will still write blogs and share ideas for free (As they do on substack which can already paywalled)

IG, TikTok, and YouTube will still be lucrative for creators (live or robot), so how-to videos will continue to exist.

I don't see content going anywhere. Maybe the "10 best restaurants in dallas" but that's fine with me.
It's still pretending. Sometimes it works out for us, but don't forget that as soon as they feel that they'll make more money by polluting more or exploiting workers more they'll do those things.

Be cautious about putting your faith in an image spun by PR campaigns and advertisers. Corporations have shown time and again that they're perfectly happy to lie, greenwash, and spend huge amounts of money to keep up their PR appearances while not always living up the that image. If we're interested in results, we need better transparency and accountability than what we have. Too often what we get is just a comforting fantasy.
I'm guessing it's still the IDE of choice of game devs.
In embedded, you often need message queues.

A common way to implement these is to have an array of messages, sized for the worst case scenario and use this as the message pool.

You keep the unused messages in a single linked "free-list", and keep the used messages in a double linked queue or fifo structure.

That way you get O(1) allocation, de-allocation, enqueue and dequeue operations for your message queue.

Another example for this paradigm are job queues. You might have several actuators or sensors connected to a single interface and want to talk to them. The high level "business" logic enqueues such jobs and an interrupt driven logic works on these jobs in the background, aka interrupts.

And because you only move some pointers around for each of these operations it is perfectly fine to do so in interrupt handlers.

What you really want to avoid is to move kilobytes of data around. That quickly leads to missing other interrupts in time.
Very nice.

Possibly a key to jump to next/previous empty square, w/b or n/p?
The models didn't exist when their training data was collected.

But... that's not really an excuse any more. Model vendors should understand now that the most natural thing in the world is for people to ask models directly about their own abilities and architecture.

I think models should have a final layer of fine-tuning or even system prompting to help them answer these kinds of questions in a useful way.
I used to think that binary compatibility benefits proprietary applications, but I'm not so sure anymore. From a commercial perspective, when we break binary compatibility (not that we want to), it's an opportunity for selling more stuff.

Many distributions do periodic mass rebuilds anyway and do not need that much long-term ABI compatibility. Binary compatibility seems mostly for people who compile their own software, but have not automated that and therefore couldn't keep up with updates if there wasn't ABI compatibility.
Your comment resonates with my experience -- often an idea devoid of substance will materialize from the ground up, and have 10^7 USD poured into it, all because an exec said one day "hey, it would be cool if we had a product that did insert-superficially-cool-gimmick-here" (said product might already exist, or have terrible !/$ or require massive patience to bring any returns, but it's all irrelevant, because an influential individual suggested it).

If you're willing to share some anecdotes, I'd love to read and commiserate.