skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's the exact opposite to what happens with DCC in chemical labs. DCC reacts with amino groups in proteins, same as urushiol in poison {oak,ivy,sumac} and is a notorious sensitizer. It happens to some graduate students that they are unable to work in a lab any longer.
Oops, seems like I misremembered and it was actually jdupes.

The author is hosting the software somewhere else now, but this is the feature and issue I was referencing: https://web.archive.org/web/20210506130542/https://github.co...
Solipsism is incoherent because it's not radical skepticism. All of the critique of the external world also apply to belief in the primacy on internal experience. Any good solipsist should just accept the "evil demon" of descartes, embrace radical doubt, and say "I don't even know if I truly exist or not".

"I don't know if I'm a P zombie, and I don't know if I'm a replicant or not, Deckard!"
Myst's 1994 Windows release is pretty far into the CD-ROM era. I was playing Monkey Island with its great CD soundtrack in 92, and the talkie versions of Fate of Atlantis and King's Quest 6 in 93, for example.
Is it too late to join the class action lawsuit? I’m not too upset at the price I paid for it but I wouldn’t mind a refund.
So the trick is to somehow redirect all of the heat energy coming from cpus onto the storage, in bursts? :D
The diseconomy of scale follows thus:

The magnetic pressure (and hence density, at given beta and temperature) scales as B^2. The fusion power density scales as density squared, or as B^4. Now, the mass of the support structure scales as volume x B^2. So, power per support structure mass (and hence, per cost of that structure) scales as B^2.

However, fusion power density is limited by what the first wall can withstand. Therefore, a large reactor must reduce B (or, reduce beta) to stay within this limit. Reducing B reduces the power/support mass, and hence power/$ of support structure cost.

Fusion reactors require equipment outside the reactor as well, probably much more complex than in a fission reactor. Online tritium recovery, robotics equipment for internal maintenance, and space for first wall replacement (since known materials do not survive the life of the reactor, unlike structures in a fission reactor core.) If you look at ITER, there's a large volume around the core where robotic maintenance devices can slide on a track. The ARC concept required volume and machinery for lifting the entire top of the reactor and replacing the vacuum vessel (then disassembling the old, activated vessel.)
> It effectively geofences the development team.

Anyone tried to think a bit back and see where this comes from?
it's the EU laws that are demanding this. Since their laws are different (note: I'm not taking sides. I'm not saying there are better or worse, just stating they are as they are).
Developers just have to confirm.
I does not matter at all if it's apple or google or microsoft or whatever company is involved, the thing is multiple markets have different laws and developers have to follow suit.
I'm from central Italy and nobody believes this will be done, even beyond criminal infiltrations, it's just the kind of projects that get brought out every few years to distract from actually important things.

But who knows, MOSE seemed a pipe dream too.
I really want to see super conductor high voltage transmission lines and power delivery.

Would be the most game changing level of efficiency for our world we'd ever see.

I still think we're pretty dang close to it actually happening.
A better comparision would be WASP American with Indigenious people. People died to be Belorussian.
it has twice attempted to drive directly into a passing train

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Oddly reminiscent of this early Tesla fatal crash in 2018, where the driver previously complained about the car directing him into a highway barrier which eventually killed him:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/29/tesla-crash-victims-f...
Climate Change Is Making Allergies Worse
I recently found LosslessCut (https://github.com/mifi/lossless-cut) that is basically a GUI for ffmpeg, you can make simple edits without re-encoding the stream.
https://archive.ph/vyh9N
Addressing your first thought…anything that you would call “objective” can be “doubted” by ceding the tiny tiny possibility that you are a simulation or Boltzmann brain or brain in a vat. The evidence before you may not actually be representative of the “objective” reality.

The fact that there is experience at all, the contents of which may be “doubted”, cannot be doubted.

I’m not unequivocally claiming this but that’s the thrust of the argument.
I’m not commenting on this way or another, but if we went to UBI, what would the incentive be for me to work, presuming a basic income is suitable to raise my family on in safe, clean housing, and also presuming that the resources to implement a UBI will be extracted from people like me whose labor is more valuable?
As a follow on: One of my friends is a professional illustrator and was concerned about the impact of AI on their work.

As a demonstration I trained some models on their styles. They were worried right up until they saw the output. Yes, it looked superficially like their work, but the slightest glance showed it to be absolute crap. Anyone who would consider using the AI version of their work over commissioning the actual artist would absolutely get what they paid for.

However, they have found the models to be very useful in exploring concepts and compositions, becoming an essential part of their creative process.
I'm both an apple and openai fanboy. I love apple because great design, software and privacy. I think openai's rate of innovation is unbelievable. But a partnership makes me nervous.

I just don't trust openai with the data on my phone. The board ousted their CEO. Their top scientists left. They clearly broke copyright laws to train their models.

I'm ok using their apps, but I worry that as they move fast and break things, they will do something with data that gives us all pause. I'd prefer that's not baked into my phone.
> Communication is about being understood.

> The subtext of "Academic content is usually in text, not video" is "I don't trust this because it's in video, not text". Now if you say that is not clear, sure

Indeed, relying on the implicit when the explicit is sufficient [0] does a disservice to one's readers, in whose ability and charity to comprehend my surface text, without presuming confounding subtextual meaning, I have every confidence.

[0] It is not always; some things can only be gestured at, not grasped.
Postgres Logical replication common issues
I realized this as I saw many of my favorite gaming Youtubers chase the algorithm and change their content to stay relevant. It all eventually converges on content that children would find entertaining. They're the biggest demographic spending the most time looking at ads. That's where following the algorithm leads.
Please don't let this line of thinking put you (the reader) off sharing tips. Here we now have a thread containing other information we may not have thought to ask anyone/thing about, discussion, history, etc.
Writing is the simplest of all. Really trivial actually. I create new styles almost every other day. See the latest entry on my blog for a style i created last week, and this video [1].

Different styles can be created by taking advantage of the context window.

1) Take some random style of a writer, a blogger, or even a website.

2) Generate some examples you may like, and annotate them, something like: Example Chapters.

3) Put the machine to describe the text of Example Chapters.

4) Select some keyword descriptions, and ask to imitate the writer's/blogger's style plus the keywords.

5) Generate some more examples, and delete the previous ones. Now it will start converging a lot better.

6) Ask the machine to use the Example Chapters as a reference, and DO NOT REPEAT examples. Do not repeat has to be written exactly like that.

7) Generate 1 or 2 chapters of your desired text, by generating 10 different drafts, and stitch them together by editing them a lot by hand. That's plenty difficult and time consuming.

8) As soon as you have 2 good pages of the text you like, delete the examples you do not need them anymore.

9) Ask the machine to continue the 2 Chapters it has written, but it doesn't actually need to continue something. Just ask to to write the story, but in the prompt it has to be asked to continue.

10) It is best the 2 Chapters of your story to have the same characters with exactly the same names as the story you want to write.

11) When you ask it to continue, obviously you continue using the same style of writer/blogger plus keywords.

It comes down to a lot of experimentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33FcIL6tFnY&pp=ygUNb3duIHN0e...
Well imagine you are X distance from the singularity, and time dilation is hugely slowing down time from an external observer. As blackholes approach each other, the distance between the singularity and the event horizon significantly decreases. They become kidney shaped before the blackholes merge.

The trick is can a blackhole approach quickly enough to catch you as you keep dropping as you past horizon. Normally I'd say no, but the time dilation significantly complicates things.
My takeaway is that as with many of the artists, they are reacting to the philosophical no mans land that cheap computer reproduction is putting them into...From TFA:

>As I’m contemplating this Cronenberg-like transformation of the image, I can’t help to be struck by the triviality of my own work. There’s something confronting in facing a computational doppelgänger, something akin to the uncanny valley. I’m surprised at how much this affects me, even though my whole schtick is to be reflexive and critical about style, what surprises me the most is that even though the output if “objectively” a failure1, I see myself in it. But maybe what I see in the generation, what I find actually disturbing, is the part of my work that has already been objectified and commodified, the parts of my style I spent years making digestible for clients, consistent for social media, and reproducible for easy production.

This feeling is not present in artists who are not commercial artists or otherwise produce VOLUMES of similar work - because it is functionally impossible

Why?

Again, as with picasso et al... they are performing the work of an artist. Namely it is a lifetime oeuvre - not a single period - that defines an artist.

This is my point, and you can disagree, most commercial artists are not producing art, they are designing propaganda for corporations. It takes artistic skill, but it's not what I would consider relevant for the author

The author sits at the intersection of capitalism and art - that you can produce designs for money repeatedly and so predictably as to be identically imitated is proof enough for me

Nobody can reproduce or copy my art because it's PHYSICAL and hanging on my (and many others' including our own jacquesm) wall. They can try, but forgeries are very hard to do.
I wonder if that's part of the reason for their algorithms to push the same videos to everyone, they're already cached at the edge so it costs them nothing?
This is not how it works with these plants. Prolonged, sustained exposure results in worse symptoms over time as your immune response increases in intensity. https://www.pbsnc.org/blogs/science/poison-ivy-and-its-pals-...
And D.
Crony capitalism is such an intellectual cop-out.

The people who say this garbage would never let any other ideology weasel its way out of the effects of their system in practice, but for some bizarre reason, the giga brains at Reason are allowed to get a pass and say that this is not true capitalism.

The type of capture by regulation outlined in the article is the direct result of a political landscape that prioritizes corporate power over government power. There is nothing "crony" about it; it's just capitalism.

P.S. This is not pro or anti-capitalist; it's anti-shitty argument.
I think one reason to add characters and streams is so you can implement read and print, the R and the P in a Lisp REPL. The original Lisp assumes s-expressions are given, but provides no mechanism for creating them out of characters read from keyboard or printed to screen. Bel is taking the same axiomatic approach of the original Lisp but to a more realistic system.

Similarly, ccc exists so onerr can exist, which exists so saferead can exist, which exists so the REPL can show errors on screen.

That hangs together for me. But I still don't understand the distinction you're making between representing as lists vs being lists.
For what it's worth, I think that the problem lies in the solution feeling "obvious" and people being a little lazy - I don't think the problem lies with inability.

I also think that if A then B is unambiguous, the counter that languages are different doesn't really fit with what I think I observe in the wild. For the full house, I also fail to see how that means I must accept that your example statement is obviously true.
My wild guess is that adjusting the shape before each step is not worth the speed hit. Uniform structures make GPUs go brrrrr
For the streaming factor specifically, I can at least offer something resembling an answer: Google. In the early 2000s they bought up a bunch of dark fiber and peered with all the major US ISPs, and they were able to do this because no ISP wants to be the one that blocks or degrades Google. As a result they were able to host video streaming on their network without immediately being shut down by Comcast and co. Instead they had to go after Netflix.

Google has a lot of custom encoding silicon, too, AFAIK.

Storage is the biggest question of the three. Linus Sebastian specifically called this out when YouTube started really pushing to make the non-Premium experience dreadful. There isn't really some secret special sauce you can buy or make for storage. Literally everything is being stored with the same hard drives, SSDs, discs, or tapes you can just go out and buy. The only specialization you can do is build or buy equipment to handle extreme numbers of them. Google does buy these in bulk, so they probably get a discount on storage, but it's not something that would make storage costs just go away.
BRICS+ have been "working on" a new reserve currency for years. It's not going to happen. Russia, India, and China have diametrically opposed interests and can't agree on anything specific. South Africa is an economic basket case on the verge of becoming a failed state so their opinion no longer even counts.
All I can say is I have both and I use both most days. In addition to work-issued Windows laptops, so I have a reasonable and very regular comparison. And the comparative experience is exactly as I described. Always. Every time.

> you have to deal with all the small slowdown from constant swapping

That just doesn't happen. As I responded to another post, though, I don't do Docker or LLMs on the M1 otherwise you'd probably be right.

> Unless you stick to a very small amounts of apps and very small amounts of tabs at the same time

It's really common to have approaching 50+ tabs open at once. And using Word is often accompanied by VS Code, Excel, Affinity Designer, DotNet, Python, and others due to the nature of what I'm doing. No slowdown.

> maybe you are emotionally attached

I am emotionally attached to the device. Though as a long-time Mac, Windows, and Linux user I'm neither blinkered nor tribal - the attachment is driven by the experience and not the other way around.

> maybe the various advantages of the Mac make you ignore the serious limitations that come with it

There are indeed limitations. 8GB is too small. The fact that for what I do it has no impact doesn't mean I don't see that.

> you can deal with the 8GB Apple Silicon devices you are very likely to be well served by a much cheaper device anyway (like half as cheap)

I already have better Windows laptops than that, and I know that going for a Windows laptop that's half as cheap as the entry level Air would be nothing like as nice because the more expensive ones already aren't (the Lenovo was dearer than the Air).

---

To conclude, you have to use the right tool for the job. If the nature of the task intrinsically needs lots of RAM then 8GB is not good enough. But when it is enough it runs rings around equivalent (and often 'better') Windows machines.
I think humanity is afraid of being alone.
Shameless plug for my scrabble-adjacent word game https://markmywordsgame.com .

Think Scrabble on a hexagonal board, with territory capture mechanics.
yea op (the person you're responding to) is wearing a tinfoil hat. source i work for AMD (formerly xilinx). there are about a billion reasons it isn't true (starting with we'd charge you more money for the IP instead of hiding it) and ending with ultrascales are sold to DoD and there's very little room for shenanigans there.
It’s ludicrous to say this in the era of AI.
Can someone here help me unpack social impact financing or what is also called a social loan in the context of this article.

Social impact financing is a range of approaches that help fund social causes by bringing new financial products beyond just giving donations and hoping for the best.

A social loan essentially provides a low interest loan to say a social enterprise that explicitly seeks to produce a measurable social outcome in addition to meeting basic financial obligations.

An example is a social housing trust that exists to provide more disability housing.

My question is what’s the dynamic with the various players?
I can see on one end is a “social investor” who is willing to provide/invest capital for a below market earning rate (in exchange for knowing the social outcomes are occurring).

And at the other is the social enterprise obtaining the funds.
But what’s the dynamic in the middle?

I’m trying to access these sorts of funds so trying to understand better the impact / neutrality or otherwise of various parties involved in manufacturing a fairly niche social loan product.
Yes, it seems uncontroversial to say you will eventually die if you don't eat food... And it seems uncontroversial to say that eating higher quality food will help you live longer. Quality food deserves your hard-earned cash too.

The relationship between health and software is less tenuous than it may seem. We spend so much of our time using software — it can have a significant effect on our health. See studies that explore social media use and its relation to depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, etc.

Big food and big software are similar in that they are cheaper to mass produce, more effective to advertise at scale. As such many people are trapped into assuming there are no alternatives. You may never develop an understanding of what it is you're being fed.
Bandwidth/Transport costs for live streaming, especially in group conference call scenarios (where N streams needs to be broadcasted to N-1 participants) become prohibitively expensive after about 8 or so participants unless you can offload those bandwidth requirements to other places (e.g., like in a peer-to-peer architecture).

How Zoom manages to do this in a client-server fashion and is still financially solvent is also a question I've had for a while, but like others say, discounts on the transport and peering arrangements will be a key part in making those economics work, as compression and storage are relatively solved problems here.
Suggesting people forego blood pressure treatment is a pretty dubious suggestion. We have a whole lot of data that it reduces mortality and morbidity.
On yearly basis, in 2023 it was #6

See page 83 of

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JHNwYFeNqfE2K6u08vk2-_ujhrY...
Black-box concurrent data structures for NUMA architectures [pdf]
Object of "cometary origin" soars over Spain and Portugal
This is the correct answer. Caches in local PoPs https://cloud.google.com/cdn/docs/locations
Delta Emulator changes logo after Adobe legal threat
You can give LLMs DRuGS though!

https://github.com/EGjoni/DRUGS
Not to necessarily feed into fear mongering, but: an explosion only needs pressure. A can of compressed air can explode. And residual heat from the reaction helps, too. So the question is whether there's enough hot gas under pressure to push past the volume of the reaction chamber...
I would imagine it's an unintended side effect of the "people recently watched this so it's relevant" part of the algorithm.
> That was quite literally, translated from weaseltongue, "we will pull out of the EU because we don't like the law"

No, that's you that is.

You're choosing to see the worst possible version, and putting your words in his mouth, and then telling everyone else to ignore what he actually said and listen to you instead.

> "Oh the law demands the exact things I'm grandstanding about? Oops, we might pull out because somehow we can break the law".

"The law, Altman said, was “not inherently flawed,” but he went on to say that “the subtle details here really matter.”"

But, apparently, you don't want to accept that he might mean what he says and say what he means. The conspiracy version where he's an evil villain whose mask you can pull off in order to show your cleverness is so much more fun and exciting, perhaps?

Or I perhaps I putting words into your mouth in order to demonstrate why this is annoying? :D

(Or perhaps I'm still sore about the time someone did that exact thing to me, on this site, repeatedly, with regards to Palestine).

> Open? In name only.

Published research, published weights for some of their models, and…

> Safety? Trust us our best people are on it, can't verify or audit their work though.

… and published a 100 page document about that work explaining with examples why it would be a bad idea to publish the weights of the better models.

(But those who know what's up about the superalignment thing… are all (paraphrased) like "it's days like this I wish I wasn't under an NDA", so that will be interesting to watch when it actually gets published and is not just wishful thinking on the basis of people making the worst-possible takes like a horror film keeping the monster off-screen).

> Government regulation? Oh, we might not comply.

They literally said the exact opposite of that. In my quote. Which I gave you. Which you chose to interpret in the worst possible light, despite (or perhaps, given human psychology, because) I indicated how annoying this is.

You know what? For all I know every evil that's been attributed to the guy is 100% true. But none of the public statements you're relying on actually demonstrate that. Perhaps someone will break an NDA and we'll see something deserving of all this drama, but the evidence isn't there yet.

So far, everything is extremely straightforward and simple, it doesn't need 5D chess or mind-games or whatever, just a bunch of nerds being nerds and speaking like nerds with nerdy caveats and nerdy caution and nerdy excitement — you know, like this site.
Wasn't there something in the Bible about moneylenders and a temple or something?
More popular works are more likely to be enjoyable to more people. There is no really objective measure of quality for any creative work, and taste doesn't scale, so publishers bias for popularity as it's one of the few things they can understand.