skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The behaviour is extremely obvious and off-putting if you're not good at it and you're forcing it.
Or if you start doing it when you're halfway through life lived as a stingy bitter asshole (by no fault of your own necessarily, you just grew up in poverty with people made of same cloth), your attempts most likely will feel awkward and unnatural.

Since the person has practiced these strategies since early childhood, he would do these things naturally and flawlessly.
You wouldn't be able to tell if it's genuine or not, because he has ALWAYS done this, you wouldn't know a different version of this person, or catch them being anything but, because they always have bought the first drink, have always been nice and a good conversationalist (which 90% of the time means, shut up and attentively listen to other person and 10% of time asking questions to make the other person open up about their passions and interests), and would always remember everyone they meet by their first name
regardless of their statute or position.

The behavior becomes a genuine, well oiled habit, a natural. You can only catch a "fake" if it's situational and your behaviour completely changes depending on who you interact with or well... if you tell people on the internet about it.

Social relations and human behavior is transactional regardless if you're aware of it or not.
People really do like to bury their head in the sand and pretend that it isn't though and that there's some sort of special magical fairy dust going on in social relations.
You can get @cccccccccccccccccccc.cc email on https://tempr.email/en/, press "agent" icon and paste this domain name.
Rust is just a popular ML like OCaml only it has a more sane package manager and a more imperative style than OCaml's recursive style.
Just leave comments for the most embarrassing pieces.

// really not the way to do this, but it works

// ideally, we'd do xyz, but this is good enough
No. But if the tax man came and the winner said that he shouldn't have to pay because he was simply better at picking lotto numbers than all the hungry chumps out there, we'd recognize it to be a farce.
> Something that struck me was that to teach at the elementary or high school level you need specific degrees, but to teach at a university you don't

So, the thing about elementary and high school is that everyone goes to it, but only people who are good at studying go to university.

Given that the students are highly selected in the latter, you can get away with much worse instruction.
I'm a homeschool parent, and we wouldn't have it any other way for our family.

But one thing I've learned is that most homeschool parents are even worse than public school and the risk of permanently harming your child through neglect is dreadfully real.

Most of the flattering literature for unschooling is, as with the link, a case where the parents and child are naturally gifted and curious, and they credit whatever they ended up doing with the kid's relative success.

Even gifted and curious kids run into situations where some structured learning that won't be immediately rewarding needs to happen. There needs to be an adult paying attention and intervening, even in the best cases.

Every parent should have the right to homeschool. But from what I've seen, most parents should go ahead and trust American public schools, which are actually very competitive with the best in the world after adjusting for the familiar, stubborn demographic realities.
Whether it is 1-to-1 (friend instant-chat/emails friend) or 1-to-many (think movie) the message is a snapshot - however incomplete - of thoughts the sender wanted the recipient to have. Any layer added in that circumstance confuses the recipient: what was it the sender actually wanted me to think?

Using AI to make a longer message from a prompt causes the recipient wonder:

1. What was the prompt?

2. Why not send me the prompt instead of making me spend more time reading?

3. Why interject a layer of doubt? Because now I question if the AI got the intent correct and the facts correct. Are they trying to hide something?

Unless those were the thoughts the sender wanted the receiver to have, it seems like a failure. The problem is the future will entail every interaction starting with "Is this message from an AI?" before possibly running through the above thoughts or simply enjoying a "straight" message; which can be curly enough as is.

EDIT: clarity and final point.
I know some paytv satellite system hackers would read a TSOP flash chip by using a PLCC socket on a PCB that would fit upside down onto the MCU because the pins were easier to connect to. All of the flash pins went to the MCU, so this worked more conveniently.

Most of this knowledge has been lost (this was like 20 years ago), but wikipedia mentions the "sombrero de patel" (because it's like a PCB "hat" over the mainboard) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_decryption

Since they only needed to extract a small key, it had 1-2x Atmel 8515s to do the work (which were used for other paytv applications, so not hard for people to scrounge once they build the board).
> No matter how much it doesn't align with your passion, you will need to have a basic set of book smarts to hope to thrive in the world. If for no other reason than there will almost certainly be some aspect of that passion that touches on those missing rudimentary skills.

Are you suggesting the only way to get these skills is through formal schooling? That not going to school means it is impossible to learn what you need to thrive?

If schools started teaching babies to walk, would you assume that people would lose the ability to learn on their own? Keep in mind that our mass education system is only around a century old. People learned the “rudimentary skills” and much more on their own for most of human existence.

And your examples - not knowing history and knowing to not eat tide pods - are heavily associated with people who attend traditional schools!
If the happiness of the paying customer were the top priority of a university class, everyone in one should get a gold sticker and an A.

Alas, that sort of thing only happens in fairy tales and at Harvard.
Sure, tax evasion is bad! But even after taxes, they'll still be making a lot of money. Is your allegation that Zuckerberg or Musk has engaged in tax fraud? That's a totally different statement than insisting that by simple virtue of having amassed a lot of wealth, they must have deprived others of wealth.
I like the entire structure that they put up for their kids to learn and I think it would work for many children. However, I doubt it would work for many parents.

The author already pointed out that it worked because they both worked from home. To most this is an unimaginable luxury.

The parents didn't strictly supervise or guide the kid in this case but I strongly assume that they engaged if the kid had questions or just wanted to talk something through. They also apparently had specialized software and a 3d printer at hand or were ready to buy one without long preamble.

The kid's interests were rather easy to handle up until a pretty high level of skill. With writing games and building small stuff you can get very far without a large workshop, risky activity, rare or hard to buy supplies etc.

I'm not at all saying the public education system can hold a candle to the effectiveness of what was told in this article and we could definitely improve a gazillion things about it. I'm just saying that this kid a lot of lucky factors coming together for it to work out THAT well.
Yes, yes, more explorations in this direction.

For a couple of years now, I've had this half-articulated sense that the uncanny ability of sufficiently-advanced language models to back into convincing simulations of conscious thought entirely via predicting language tokens means something profound about the nature of language itself.

I'm sure there are much smarter people than I thinking about this (and probably quite a bit of background reading that would help; Chomsky, perhaps McLuhan?) but it feels like, in parallel to everything going on in the development of LLMs, there's also something big about us waiting there under the surface.
Getting into Haskell because I was bored and assumed doing Haskell would be far more interesting. And that code would be much better written in Haskell, almost perfect because it is math based.

Haskell is amazingly interesting but very hard. There are few companies using it and the one that did in my city got taken over and usual management shenanigans. I didn’t get a job with them.

Haskell meet ups went over my head and I couldn’t keep up. Didn’t have the time to play catch up with the talented people in this scene.

Realized writing software is an artform, no language necessary makes it better and more fun. Appreciate the common languages more like C# Python and Go.

Haskell has great ideas but there is value in designed language with language features over making everything in the higher type systems.

So in short humbled into realizing what makes good software is more than using clever languages.
the vast, vast majority of computers do not support the sse instruction set or indeed any of the i386 and amd64 instruction set at all, and the fraction of computers that do support them (other than through emulation) is continually shrinking

gpu instruction sets, arm, risc-v, avr, pic, 8051, fpga... of course, in many cases, these do have a built-in approximate reciprocal square root operation, but probably implemented with this algorithm
How does 'not' affect what we understand? Scientists find negation mitigates
'A team of scientists has now identified how our brains work to process phrases that include negation (i.e., 'not'), revealing that it mitigates rather than inverts meaning -- in other words, in our minds, negation merely reduces the temperature of our coffee and does not make it 'cold.' '
> Saying “AI writing lacks character” is like saying typewriters can’t produce an authentic letter, only a handwritten letter can be authentic.

You're making a flawed comparison there. It boils down to style.

Style is a personal thing, it comes from your word-choices and the rhythm of your writing, which results from how you feel, your education and interests, what audience you're trying to reach, your lived experience, whether there's a 3 year old trying to show you that he can eat a bug.

Now, of course, a hand-written letter has a greater expressive capacity: you have paper choices, ink or pencil or crayon, your hand-writing either natural or emphasised. A type-writer can't capture that, but the words you type are still a reflection of you.

AI makes few of these considerations, and is unable to convincingly emulate them.

Strongly recommend you read Don Watson's Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language for a good comparison of the bland paste we get fed by institutions (and AI) and robust writing from the heart meant to persuade or reflect feelings.
To filter people out from opportunities.
What was an acceptable answer to “derive maxwells equations”?
Our Big Max index shows how burger prices differ across borders
Genetic Cause of Intellectual Disability Affecting Thousands
The lack of these design elements in a solo project does not define crappy code. More often, it's due to a codebase being modified by multiple contributors, each wanting to get their work done quickly without paying attention to the overall context or considering others' work.
You explain concepts really well. Wish I had professors like you in college.
What if the psychoactive effects are the beneficial part of MDMA?
I wouldn't call AI a branch of math. It uses fairly basic mathematical building blocks and applies them at huge scale. Not sure there is much cross fertilisation back into pure mathematics.

Research in cryptography is much closer to the front of mathematics; mathematical finance (derivatives) used to be.
Thanks for clarifying that point. It's worth pointing out that the safety strategy doc[0] mentions that

>A key subset of safety categories Carbon should address are:

>[...]

>Data race safety protects against racing memory access: when a thread accesses (read or write) a memory location concurrently with a different writing thread and without synchronizing

But then later in the doc it says

>It's possible to modify the Rust model several ways in order to reduce the burden on C++ developers:

>Don't offer safety guarantees for data races, eliminating RefCell.

>[...]

>Overall, Carbon is making a compromise around safety in order to give a path for C++ to evolve. [...]

One could read this as saying that guaranteed safety against data races is not a goal. Perhaps this doc could be reworded? Maybe something like "Carbon does not see guaranteed safety against data races as strictly necessary to achieve its security goals but we still currently aim for a model that will prevent them."

[0] https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...
Considering Tesla doesn’t have offices in SF you’re going to have to explain that one.

Can you do it without absolving others, like the city, of their responsibility to make sure housing gets built?
Learning about auto-walk in an MMO after weeks of holding the up arrow key.
I think the lesson is: stop writing filler text. Who needs it? Who reads it?
Blog post about the approach here: https://sillycross.github.io/2023/05/12/2023-05-12/
What is science? Tech heavyweights brawl over definition
compiler engineers have been disappointing our 'surely no compiler would ever be so perverse as to do x' expectations for 25 years now, and it doesn't seem that they're likely to stop soon
This isn’t factually correct. The French colonial administration romanized their writing and enforced chữ Quốc ngữ.
That is a hard one. Best to report it I think.. but it is not clear cut in general.

There would be times when going against your employer by blowing the whistle or covering up is the more moral thing to do.

Deciding where that line is not simple and there is no guide.
It’s a historical artifact being presented in its original form. There’s no reason this code can’t be updated with a more modern bitwise int-float conversion. Do that if you want to use it.

Whether it is bad practice or not, people used to do this all the time, and so the compilers all tend to support type conversion via pointer and type punning via union. A lot of critical code in the real world would break if it suddenly didn’t work.

C++ bit-cast is brand new (C++20) and until now the suggestion in C++ was to use memcpy, and hope and pray it gets elided. That might be correct but boy is it ugly and gross.
So... I'm a paying customer for Hey since it launched. And frankly, if the experience of the Hey webapp is an example of the best of Hotwire, no fucking thanks. On a slow connection, it's bad. Maybe that's the developers not adding loading or error states. Maybe it's just a lot of complexity. Maybe it's bugs in Hey. I don't know, but it's not good.

In the face of medium-high latency, stuff behaves in an unpredictable/buggy way. Boxes open with no content. Links don't work like you'd hope. Lots of actions in quick succession don't abort in a way I'd find intuitive. It just feels off.

As bad as an SPA might be, this is a step away from UI feeling native and natural, in my opinion.
I think the problem is that people are supporting all of this.

Screwing the user is the trend in all industries now.
I hope that's right, but I don't really get it.

From a practical standpoint, when you run your tests with msan and asan (and if you have decent test coverage) I'm not convinced of the benefits of memory safety that eg rust provides

Supposing that it is worth it though, why not migrate to rust? I have a friend starting a startup / consultancy to do just that, and it makes more sense than using circle. Even carbon says "if you can use rust, use rust not carbon"
When you render a pixel on screen (of a diffuse object), to determine how brightly it's lit, you need to compute the angle between the normal at the point on the surface and the light source. Computing this angle requires normalizing one or more vectors, which is done by dividing by the magnitude, or the square root of the sum of the squares of the components.

So the lights in this case are any lights in the scene, typically represented as a point of origin and a brightness.
Yeah - sometimes things go wrong in unpredictable ways. But to say it’s been rewarding would be an understatement.
It sounds like you’re saying you knew the Top Gun Maverick shots were CGI because you know a lot about planes, not because the footage looks wrong.

Barbie was chroma keyed - they discuss it in the aforementioned YouTube videos.

And, yes,I know blue aliens don’t exist. But parts of that movie are composited mixtures of CGI and humans in body paint. The point is that you can’t distinguish the digital from the physical.

And, really, what about Brokeback Mountain?
Suppose there is a developed country with a population of over 300 million people. Suppose that about 40% of that country's population are between the ages of five and 35. So, let's say 120 million people.

Now let's just make up a number, say 240 people. Nah, let's go 2400 people. Let's say that is the number of people who are dumb enough to eat a Tide pod.

Now let's say we grossly overestimate the intelligence of this population so we bump the number of pod-eaters to 24000.

That represents 0.02% of the population between the ages of five and 35. Not 2%. 1/100th of 2%.

If just 1/4 of these people ended up in the ER in a single year, I would still consider that to be a significant portion of people.

If that is the number of people who failed chemistry class, I would not consider it to be a significant portion of people.

The portion of people who don't know history very well is much higher than 1/100th of 2%. The portion of people who would be willing to, oh say, burn downtown to the ground if their favorite candidate trips is incredibly small. But it is significant enough to be scary even at the municipal level.
So we should put a bug in the room and if the painter whistles a tune while working, sanction them for slacking off?
It's strange how these things change context though over time.

I would be actually delighted and touched to receive a genuinely type-written letter since I know that actually owning and maintaining and using such archaic equipment is an effort far in excess of hand writing a letter.

Yes, it loses the expressiveness of actual hand writing, but I'd be happy that people were still using the cantankerous things.
Nothing? Something happens in the brain (and body) which is depression, at a lower level of abstraction.

The world outside of the brain "causes" depression.

Sometimes things inside the brain or body (ideas, beliefs, emotions) cause the certain things to happen in the outside world (actions or inaction).

Sometimes these form a cycle: undesired life circumstances cause the brain to become depressive, which causes inaction, which prevents the circumstances from changing.

Sometimes nature/nurture/nutrition play a part in those internal ideas/beliefs/emotions, causing certain people to tend to get in depressive states more than others.

I'm certain 95% of depressions is this, but don't bother coming after me for the last 5%, keep it to yourself.
> But one thing I've learned is that most homeschool parents are even worse than public school and the risk of permanently harming your child through neglect is dreadfully real.

Right. Here in the UK it is an unusual thing but I think the majority of homeschoolers who are not doing so for reasons of child ill health or significant neurodiversity are, unfortunately, irresponsible or ignorant.

I am not saying that I believe it is impossible for a child to be homeschooled well, especially by well-to-do parents who can hire tutors, but what I find is that those parents usually believe one or more other extremely outlying thing —- antivax, sovereign citizen, fear of radio frequencies, or extreme religion —- that is a kind of intellectual abuse, and is at odds with the kind of basic pedagogical commitment that is needed to make education work. Kids mostly cannot learn effectively from people who do not spend time thinking about the business of teaching.

Some of the “homeschooling circles” around majority wealthy towns like the one I live in are just unbelievably silly people who are raising admittedly charming, polite, but borderline uneducated children who will have to rely on their parents’ networking skills to get anywhere in life and who are in for a shock at which doors do not open for them.
i think that the story is loaded with about 80% superfluous context and 20% story.

op worked at us airforce base managing access control to global intel systems. he delegated authorisation check to jr. jr told op they checked out, however, jr had not adhered to latest security protocol that required cross checking request against request database, relying instead only on physical credentials. op granted access however asked that an officer watch the civilians’ access directly.

a week later it turns out the civilians were conducting pen testing for the systems and op had to debrief how they gained access.
Isn’t it cool how this could have been written like a decade ago and you probably wouldn’t be able to tell?
If there are light element impurities in the uranium, or if the uranium is in a compound with light elements, there will be neutrons produced by (alpha,n) reactions on some of the light isotopes.
https://lu.ma/
Fantastic job on the 2D plots stretched out over time in 3D. That's really hard to pull off. How were they made?
I'm not sure why more of those didn't use wire-wrap, it's super fast and is really reliable. I've seen some bell terminals that were wirewrap but punchdown was more common in my experience.
Loki 3.0.0
> I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires.

This seems to imply that a reduction in inequality would not reduce homelessness. I don't follow the reasoning here, and I'm not aware of evidence for this reasoning. I can probably find evidence that affluent countries with stronger social safety nets and less inequality have less homelessness.

If that meaning wasn't intended, then it must be implying that billionaires like Musk are linearly motivated by money -- that is, the more money they can make for themselves, the harder they will work to provide value.

Or maybe you are implying that the potential of unlimited riches will attract the best talent?

> There is no reason to believe that one person being insanely well off makes someone else worse off.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that. Wealthy people don't just sit on their wealth -- they use it. To buy power. To have an outsized influence on government and the lives of other people. To employ financial advisors that let them enjoy the benefits of citizenship while evading or minimizing the taxes they pay. To lobby for tax laws that favor people who live off of wealth (assets, stock, etc) rather than income. To buy citizenship in other countries and evade international sanctions. To destroy, directly or indirectly through their influence, resources that are finite or very difficult to replace, like fossil fuels, rain forests, clean air.

Did Putin make his wealth without harming others?

I'll riff a bit here, too: even if the super-rich don't hurt anyone by becoming super-rich, you have to wonder if they wouldn't be better off just being kinda rich. Having billions seems like a very isolating experience. Would you still find it easy to trust other people? Would you have an outsized opinion of your abilities and importance? And what about your children, would they be valuable, upstanding members of society? Would they even be able to take care of themselves? Would they see themselves as intrinsically better than poor people?