skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I misunderstood. I thought you were arguing about all language models that are being used at a large scale but it seems that you are only upset about one instance of one of them (the google one). You can use the API for Claude or OpenAPI with a front-end to include your own system prompt or none at all. However I think you are confusing the 'system prompt' which is the extra instructions, with the 'instruction fine tuning' which is putting a layer on top of the base pre-trained model so that it understands instructions. There are layers of training and at least a language model with base training will only know how to complete text "one plus one is" would get "two. And some other math problems are" etc.

The models you encounter are going to be fine tuned, where they take the base and train it again on question and answer sets and chat conversations and also have a layer of 'alignment' where they have sets of questions like 'q: how do I be a giant meanie to nice people who don't deserve it' and answers 'a: you shouldn't do that because nice people don't deserve to be treated mean' etc. This is the layer that is the most difficult to get right because you need to have it but anything you choose is going to bias it in some way just by nature of the fact that everyone is biased. If we go forward in history or to a different place in the world we will find radically different viewpoints than we hold now, because most of them are cultural and arbitrary.
Depending on many aspects of your life in particular where your supporting family members are, it might be hard to "parent-smart" your kids out of your free time.
Maybe yes, provided you weren't the one paying for it. In all projects I've worked on the monthly cloud bill came out higher, then add on top the migration cost, and all for what? A flexibility 90% of those applications didn't need and won't use.
It seemed clear they were at end of life when they started selling them for next to nothing last year.

We really need legislation to unlock devices like this when they reach EOL, the hardware here is very simple and could easily be reused.
Congrats on the app!

If you want an example of an 'odd' case for your app, one thing I would never expect, is that my car dealer apparently recently titled my car in VA while I live in MD, although I bought the car six years ago (I discovered this when I tried renewing my MD tags and was told my car had been titled out of state). In effect, they have just stolen my car through sheer incompetence even though it's paid off and all the documentation show I owe it. Maryland MVA say there's nothing I can do until I get the dealer to sort it out. Needless to say trying to get through to anyone in their tags and title office, or getting a response from their manager has been difficult because I'm not buying a new car. So I think the app needs to call out bad dealers and those whose back office is incompetent (I'm never buying a car in Virginia again after this, no matter how cheap it is).
Wikipedia:

> NIST calls its draft standard Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM). However, at least for Kyber512, there are claims that NIST's security calculations were amiss.
Realistically how many people are going to bother reflashing their devices? This case is exceptional because it was EOLed so early, but for the typical phone that reaches EOL in 2 years I doubt more than 1% of people are going to make use of this ability.
ok but from that page I do not easily understand how much I'm gonna pay. on heroku I know I pay $5/month for eco dyno hours, and then potentially up to $5/month for each small database. here? how much would I pay for a sqlite discord bot and three django applications with their own postgres?
*cracking

Stealing devices is still theft.
This. Lenovo never quite managed to get their act together with the e-paper side of their 2-in-1.

- Maybe this is what's missing?

- ...maybe you could do you own 2-in-1?
And if you consider that they're based in France, it's probably an aspirated H, meaning that it's not pronounced at all...
Any connected device NEEDS continual updates in order to continue to be secure.

This is particularly true of internet connected devices, but is also true for IOT devices that only connect to the internet indirectly. Security holes get found, if you can't patch and update devices in the field then you are leaving your customers unprotected.
Making a 2d rigid-body physics engine is a really fun project. I made one myself in javascript before learning about linear algebra. And I dug deep into the maths to get it working. Despite months of work, I barely scratched the surface beyond the widely known basics.

Making a stable engine where objects don't compress into one another or jitter is a rabbit hole without a bottom that even the most math-heavy articles I could find rarely touched.

I used a series of old articles by Christ Hecker to understand the maths myself.
http://www.chrishecker.com/Rigid_Body_Dynamics
Micro-USB was legislated years ago when each phone had a different charger plug. Currently the standard is USB-C. I also suspect that the EU only mandates a charging & plug standard but it's up to the industry to choose one.
Doesn't sound like its an update that bricks them, thought the article is a bit confusing on that point. Sounds to me like they broke the API (or just blocked this particular User-Agent)
Block chain was easy to avoid. Yes the hysteria was the same, but the foundational and fundamental shifts in how the common person does something has changed for many. I've noticed with my own 'non techie' family members who have started using various integrations of LLM and less Google. An impact of something on society at large can usually be measured by how it is used by the youth of today. Chatgpt started by aiding kids in their assignments, but now many depend on it for answers to various non academic questions.

Whereas Block chain was not part of an average 5th grader's daily computer usage.
> I'm still not sure what they were actually doing with "3 from 2 is 9, carry the one." You could mentally change the 2 to a 12 and subtract three

> you could also take the tens complement of the number being subtracted and add it to the number you're subtracting from

> Or simply memorize a subtraction table, the same way people memorize a multiplication table

Well, you can't take the ten's complement of the number being subtracted, because it's infinitely large. One obvious difference between subtracting 3 and adding ...99999999999999999999999999999997 is that it's possible to write "3".

You definitely can memorize a subtraction table, and that's the approach being taken in all cases you've mentioned so far. Including the new math approach; indexing your table entry under "12" and "3" is not a different approach from indexing the same entry under "2" and "3". As with "borrowing" versus "carrying", it is a purely cosmetic difference, where you have the same literal object with a slightly different name.

That's the reason the textbook wants you to do the same problem in a different numerical base; the author is making an attempt to force the student to solve the problem from first principles instead of relying on a memorized algorithm. This doesn't work unless the student cares about the material. But note that the author recognizes, as you seem not to, that regardless of how much theoretical background you provide for why the subtraction algorithm works, the student won't pay any attention to it unless they have to. And the algorithm itself hasn't changed - what's changed is the inclusion of the followup problem "same numbers, base 8".

Tom Lehrer implies that this approach to pedagogy is misguided; under the old system, students learned to produce correct solutions to subtraction problems and didn't know why their approach worked, whereas under the new system, we asked tricky questions that successfully revealed that the students didn't know why the approach they were being taught worked, and therefore couldn't apply it to problems of the kind that never come up. He is correct that this is pointless; we already knew that the students didn't know why the math worked.

> These might not seem like big differences to you, but they're big enough that Lehrer, and apparently others, felt that people couldn't understand it when one was used rather than the other.

As I just said, Lehrer knew that people couldn't understand it either way. The contrast is between "getting the right answer" and "understanding what you're doing"; there is no implication that people who learned the old approach understood what they were doing. But they got better marks than the new math students, because they weren't graded on whether they understood.

I am aware of one other contemporary record of societal struggles with "new math"; it came up a fair amount in Peanuts. The only example given was the problem "write the 'new math' sentence for 'three is less than five'", and the correct answer was "3 < 5".
> but a real solution would be let consumers decide inputs/outputs.

When trillion-dollar companies consider a serial connector to be a proprietary and DRM-enabled apparatus I think the "real solution" is precluded by entirely unnecessary corporate greed.
The honest explanation is that they lost so much money on the idea that they grimace at spending even another hour of developer time on them.

They don't care about waste, they don't care about the consumers, all decisions boil down to profit.
Node.js End of Life
There is also a transflective lcd portable monitor: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/radiant-world-s-first-tra...

Video from MyDeepGuide: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NXLwc0eJZsw
site down https://github.com/lowlighter/matcha
I think the courts are much better suited to resolving this kind of issue, because it's very product and advertising specific. Courts could easily rule that e.g. Spotify breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or possibly civil fraud, or something else, by failing to prominently disclose the minimum number of years / bricking the devices too soon.

A judicial solution would be much more measured and flexible.

Unfortunately, lawyers and courts have a undeservedly bad reputation which is often created by poor legislation which is beset by political motives and disadvantaged by having to draft prospective rules that can apply to a broad set of differing circumstances.

Edit: Why don't court do this more? Often because of terrible, over-reaching legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40452281
When IoT means InOperable Technology! :-)
Incidents like these decrease confidence in the medical establishment, which only has a net-negative effect.

Look at the rise of the Anti-Vax movement for example. While a lot of it is disinfo driven, a lot of it is because of distrust of Medicine due to bad past experiences.

For example, low elderly vaccination rates in China during Covid among those who lived during the Cultural Revolution due to latent distrust [0], low polio vaccination rates plus attacks on public healthworkers in Khyber Pakhtunkwa in Pakistan because US and Pakistani intelligence posed as vaccination workers to get Bin Laden's children's DNA confirmation leading to mistrust of vaccine workers [1], and the various tidbits of modern vaccine disinfo today in the west leveraging past examples like Tuskegee Experiments.

Medicine has progressed a lot, but choosing to go fast and break things clearly has a tangible impact on trust of medicine as a whole.

There's no point innovating if most people won't use it or distrust it.

[0] - https://www.economist.com/china/2022/04/02/why-so-many-elder...

[1] - https://firstdraftnews.org/long-form-article/first-draft-cas...
I can't wait to listen to this. So much.

I am a big fan of WebAssembly, and believe that it has a chance to become a foundational piece of most IT in the coming 1-2 decades.
" Everything is deeply intertwingled. In an important sense there are no "subjects" at all; there is only all knowledge, since the cross-connections among the myriad topics of this world simply cannot be divided up neatly."

-- Theodor Holm Nelson

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertwingularity )
Teams on the desktop has improved with their "v2" client. It's not the world's fastest piece of software, but I find it to not be embarrassingly slow now (on a reasonably specced machine).

One as to hope that the same perfomance lens will now be turned on the mobile apps.
You can host your own git repos too, if you want.
It sounded like a dystopia until that last paragraph where nobody has to work a shitty job.
Node 16 Deprecation on GitHub
Distributed LLM Inference with Llama.cpp
EVs (and heat pumps) do not require renewable grids to be more efficient than ICE cars (and gas boilers)

They are sufficiently more efficient (roughly 4x) than even adding the 60% inefficiency of gas turbines and electricity transmission, charging losses etc. do not destroy their inherent efficiency advantage.
It's possible that our next generation advances will be made inside, for example, bioengineering. I'm not super well versed on the topic so this is very speculative, but I've read a lot of cool stuff about DNA-based data storage solutions, and the thought now comes to me that may be that maybe lab-grown brains could achieve some interesting tasks.
> The only way to reverse this, would be to invoke protectionism (or have a war, which will do that, anyway). That isn't very popular, with this crowd.

Because we know that protectionism with people like those you explained at the top

> If you can get an extra lambo in your garage, by firing all your factory employees, and move your manufacturing to China, well...what do you think will happen?

does not guarantee better products/outcomes. Those who would use basically slave labor offshore for profits, will also do other nasty things for profits at home as well. Not a fan of dichotomy like these.

I want cheap Chinese electric cars here in the US.
This is so real. I have this exact problem... but I think I'm just buying a? refurbished MacBook Air M2 13"
Scrum is a developer empowerment tool that turned into a micromanagememt tool. A stupendous own goal for the software development community.
Forgive me, but it feels like a lot of contradictions, assumptions (not in evidence), and hand-waving with this and your other comments in this thread.

You've said 'severe churn is 80-100% NRR' in one message, but in another that 'severe churn' would involve only a difference from 13.4b down to 12.8 - 13.0b (vmware / broadcom revenue).

You've said that it's foolish to have two hypervisors in play in an org, because then you're doubling up on SMEs for hypervisor infrastructure.

Computershare's revenue last FY was 3.2b -- and as per TFA they were running 24,000 VMware VMs (one can only speculate on the Nutanix VM count) -- so it seems reasonable that they'd have sufficient baseload of SMEs to split across two technologies without sending the company under. Given their YoY revenue increase from the previous year, it evidently wasn't a constraint.

You've said that multi-cloud is different (more acceptable / forgivable) to multi-hypervisor for three reasons:

a) different billing mechanisms
b) migration is baked into cloud services
c) cloud budgets come under R&D rather than finance / IT

I don't know if (a) and (c) are the same thing worded differently, but I'd vigorously dispute that on-prem has only one billing method, that migration from one SaaS provider to another is 'better built into the industry' (all the players make it monumentally difficult to migrate off their platform), and with (c) I'd once again murmur 'facts not in evidence', especially in the context of TFA (Computershare)

You have not addressed that multi-cloud has the same two problems you accuse multi-hypervisor of suffering - a requirement for multiple sets of differently skilled SMEs, and 2x contract negotiations.
Yeah it'd be interesting to have a full analog floppy reader/writer for data recovery. Might as well make it fast enough to read early hard drives (at least through early IDE) too.

Probably could stuff quite a bit more data using today's methods on a disk, too, even though in the scheme of things it'd be pretty pointless... but why should that stop someone? ;)
It's surprising to me that people see examples like this and somehow still think, "well, it's one bad apple. One bad decision from one company" rather than a systematic problem with incentive structures.

Capitalism, and particularly capitalism that emphasizes profit, warps incentives away from building things for people.

And we have other functioning models! Open source is about as close to anarchist theory in practice as there is, for example. "Wellbeing for all" isn't some pipe dream we could never achieve, FOSS is built on the principle of "I'll build it, use it if you like. Help me if you can."
Does he eat a rock everyday?
that's simply because we live in societies that punish anger, instead of treating it like we treat any other emotion.

"You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger."

bu also: "You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished for making other people angry too."

EDIT: proof is if I say anger is normal, it's not good or bad it's just part of what we are, it's simply that our societies that are based on the fiction of the merciful god - especially in the US - have decided to treat it like a bug in the system, there are some fluctuations in the votes that this comment receives.

If I said the same thing about sadness or fear or joy or surprise, nobody would have found it controversial.

Even though sadness kills a lot of people every year (and fear makes people angry, many angry people are simply scared).
Apple News is another way to access this article without paying for a full WSJ subscription.
Thanks for this, never knew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_of_Venice
Get the math co-processor! It'll rip.
Tell me you’re not a parent without telling me you’re not a parent.
> "Some of the funniest example of Google's AI Overview failing come, ironically enough, when the system doesn't realize a source online was trying to be funny. An AI answer that suggested using "1/8 cup of non-toxic glue" to stop cheese from sliding off pizza can be traced back to someone who was obviously trying to troll an ongoing thread. "

The AI isn't wrong. People are finally learning here what computer programming is: You didn't specify if the pizza is meant for human consumption or not.
Iain Banks's "Against A Dark Background"?
Scumsoft Software and Elmo Pug, the fat dude that walked around whipping the programmers. Scumsoft Software was of course Sierra On-Line, and Elmo Pug was Ken Williams. They did get away with it, Ken Williams approved :D
Yes, I have been following Pepys (17th century) and the dates confused me a lot until I got the hang of it.
You are saying you can reduce e waste by whole integer percent with a simple bit of legislation? That's a clear win.
I just want to echo this experience and sentiment. I absolutely adore my 2020 13” M1 mbp, for all the reasons you list. I do ML workloads and Linux builds and I’m starting to think they forgot to put fans in mine because I’ve never heard them! Despite the annoying limitation of 1 external screen, it’s up there with my 2007 13” mb (rest in peace) as being the best laptop I’ve ever owned.
I think if the process was made easy, it would save quite a bit more than 1% of these devices from the landfill, assuming you have enough power users to build a community. Plenty of people flash their chromebooks to MrChromebox UEFI to give them a new life, because it's easy enough for mere mortals, and because Google doesn't lock them down.

I believe if given the tools, people would gladly donate their time to make something fun with it. Heck, that's what I do in my spare time. But it's impossible if everything is completely locked down, as if a music streaming box contains nuclear launch codes that must be protected at all costs.
100% agree.

In almost all cloud deployment, whether transparently or not, you'll have a hypervisor/VM underneath for hardware-level/strong isolation reasons. Using wasm on top of that stack only for isolation purposes might not be the best use of it. Having said that, if wasm is useful for other reasons (e.g., you need to run wasm blobs on behalf of your users/customers), then my (admittedly biased) view is that you should run these in an extremely specialized VM, that has the ability to run the blob and little else.

If you do this, it is entirely possible to have a VM that can run wasm and still only consume a few MBs and cold start/scale to 0 in milliseconds. On kraft.cloud we do this (eg, https://docs.kraft.cloud/guides/wazero/ , wazero, 20ms cold start).
If it was created from ScarJo's voice to sound like her, then it was done badly, because it lacks her voice's most distinctive feature and sounds more like Rashida Jones than it does ScarJo.
So many people flocking to defend a corporation based on bad audio samples and ignorance of first-hand reports. This whole OpenAI/SJ issue can be solved in the courts. The people saying "it does not sound like her at all" just sound rediculous and the entire thing just reminds me that HN isn't some place "better than the rest of the internet." It just has more people that think because they are smart in one area it applies to everything else.
We should start with the question I posed, as this is the crux of the issue here, and without it, everything else here is moot. I will endeavor to set it out as clearly as I can.

As you put great weight on the 'hard problem' being an insurmountable one for (and only for) materialism, I am sure you are well aware of the seminal importance, for that premise, of what has become known as the 'Knowledge Argument' from Frank Jackson's paper "Epiphenomenal Qualia", and in particular, a thought experiment from that paper which goes by several names (such as 'Mary the Neuroscientist'), and which was called, by the philosopher Philip Goff, "the greatest argument against materialism."

This argument has several antecedents, including C. D. Broad's argument that chemistry cannot tell us what ammonia smells like, and, as I mentioned in my previous post, Russells aphorism "it is obvious that a man who can see knows things that a blind man cannot know; but a blind man can know the whole of physics." All these arguments are doing essentially the same thing: pumping the intuition that knowing what it is like to see colors (or have any other phenomenal experience) is not something that could ever be learned by studying the physical sciences (I say they pump the intuition because it is not actually an established fact that the premise is correct, but to be clear, I think it is, at least for human consciousness.)

There is a certain amount of indirection at work here, in specifying only the physical sciences. We get an equally valid question by substituting other academic disciplines for the physical sciences, and in particular, of course, any philosophy of mind: they do not get a pass on this by being anti-materialist, and certainly any philosophy - such as idealism - which is premised first and foremost on the reality and significance of the hard problem, will have to confront this question (among many others) before it can be regarded as the solution to this problem and as providing an explanation of consciousness.

Your reply is apparently that in this respect, idealism is no different than materialism - it will not enable Russell's blind man to know what it is like to see - from which it follows that the knowledge argument cannot be used by idealists against materialism. I am interested in learning, then, what you - and, by extension, idealists - regard as convincing arguments for there being a hard problem for materialism, specifically.