skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I always pay in cash (although I live in Canada, and not in United States as described in the article), and always prefer to be paid in cash when possible. (In some cases, the payment is shared with someone else who wishes to use a credit card for whatever reason (usually points) and I will just pay the cash to that person instead; when paying by myself, I always prefer to use cash as much as possible.)

In the example in the article: You will need to find a reverse ATM, which charges a fee, and wastes power itself (and requires the use of a card; this card may be reusable though, but if not then that is another waste), and the possible theft is not reduced (someone may steal money from the ATM) but may even be increased (someone steals it on the way, someone steals the card, someone manages to reprogram the ATM, etc) and has other problems (e.g. the ATM stops working or has no card available).

From the other comments here, it seem some places will charge more for cash and some charge less for cash.

Fortunately, from the article, it seem some states had banned cashless retail, but I don't know what is the laws in Canada relating to such a thing.
That income tax then goes to build roads and educate their children, at least to some degree. The profits to visa and Mastercard go to the shareholders.
>My question - and I hope someone can address it in the discussion - how is it possible that we see such incredible investments in LLMs?

Opportunities like this happens once in 5-10 years when “the next big thing” are in the radar. Idea behind this investments is to bullshit it’s way to the Series B or IPO where original investors can exit. It is not about usefulness but about using momentum of the situation to extract money.
You're 110% right. Why would any company care about competition from it? Its years away from being real, then it can start trying to build name recognition like Firefox had to. And once all that's done...does it actually do anything different fundamentally that could lead to a qualitatively different experience, like Servo?

There's a certain set of topics that are beyond my ability to explain exactly why they have an aphrodisiac-like appeal to enough commentators that they can't be discussed.

It's dangerous because if you read the threads, all the signal you'd have is "these are important, noteworthy, well-known projects that even get funded!", and anyone making decisions about their own career based on that would be gravely mistaken.

So, you're left with impressions and no facts: you have no idea that its a web browser that you have to compile to use, most people talking about it aren't using it, even as a toy, even one-off.

The multiple engineers hired to help came from a one-off grant from pandemic-era Shopify that thought it was 10x'ing in size, & it was given for absolutely no reason, strategic or otherwise. That would fund, in actuality, roughly 1 engineer for a year, whereas it's lauded as funding that enabled hiring multiple engineers for the long-term.

I waited days to reply to you, because if I voiced anything remotely straightforward on the topic, it'd be downvoted to invisible, which would have just further reinforced the ideas in a reader, it'd look like I was making inaccurate claims.

* quick try: appeals to 'oh it wasn't that hard' we all meet somewhat regularly while programming. Then add the "I could build Dropbox in a weekend" effect. Then throw in "big tech companies suck", and "all web browsers suck", and you want this to succeed. Then throw in "man this guy sure has an awesome personal story, pulled himself up by his bootstraps and recovered!". Without any counter discussion, which is verboten because of the personal story, you're just getting absolutely bombarded with messaging that appeals to your common HN confirmation biases, you can do it, you can break bigco and fix the web/computers/etc.
https://joincircles.net/ - but it suffers the same scalability problems as every other application of blockchain.
That’s been my experience as well. But these minders are not cheap. They need to be smart enough to win the respect of their assigned WNs, charismatic enough to smooth everyone else’s ruffled feathers, patient, and have thick skins.

Definitely worth it for a Nobel Prize level intellect but I’m not sure how far below that the line is.
The Scorpion and the Frog: Interpretations and Takeaways
As he mentions in the article, LEGO does sell a kit already, set 42179. I find it unlikely they'll adopt his design when they already sell one of their own, even if his has improvements that he mentions.
I don't have more to say here other that I'm aware of the legal precedent being discussed here, read 2 cases, and in both the fact pattern cited in the decision involved specific instruction for the performer to mimic someone else's performance. That's all.
Now I don’t know if you’re just deliberately misreading my comments. At no point do I say “people don’t engage in dangerous behaviour,” I merely point out such behaviour is UNRELATED to the cost of healthcare. You’ve yet to show me any data that shows a link between affordable healthcare and moral hazard.

On the contrary, your only examples come from within a system famed for being the opposite.
Apple has rejected UTM SE from the iOS and third party App Stores
The 'digital marketing' and 'mobile app' spam is, in my experience, mostly sent via 'retail' outlook/gmail/aol/yahoo/hotmail.com accounts, and mostly by actual people pasting the address list into the BCC field.

These are not that easy to filter due to the risk of false positives, but in general, a sender with a From: header matching '.*\d{1,}@(outlook|gmail|aol|yahoo|hotmail)\.com`, no To: header matching the actual recipient, and a number of keywords in the message text can be safely rejected as bizdev/SEO spam.

The big-brand spam is actually pretty easy to filter, as there are always 'tells' in the message structure. Even just requiring a match between From: display names and domains yields pretty good results, especially if you normalize the display name to eliminate homoglyphs and nearly-similar spellings.
I just "git push" using nixos-rebuild
Right, the "Did Steve jobs make the iPhone?" conundrum.
AT&T syntax for x86-64 introduces tons of nonstandard instruction names that you will never find in the official manuals. WTF are: movabs, cqto, filds, and ljmp?

I also don't understand why x86 syntax has to be mutilated when special syntax is supported for other architectures. It's somehow OK for ARM64 to have [x1, w9, sxtw #2] or [x3, #32]! and 68K to have (%a2,%d1.l8), but x86-64 can't have [%rcx + %rdx4].

Reading x86-64 disassembly in AT&T syntax is just painful.
because 10 gigabit per second networking is 204 times slower than the hbm2 memory-to-cpu interface, which is 2048 gigabits per second. that means that some computations over the whole dataset will be 204 times faster, running in a few hundred milliseconds instead of a few minutes. your question implies that no such computations exist, or at least could be of interest, but that's self-evidently false

that's assuming the data is in ram, but even a single nvme flash drive can reach 60 gigabits per second

(disclaimer, i've never used kdb, just numpy, pandas, glsl, etc.)
thank you, that makes sense in terms of efficiency! I am not familiar with the subject, but aren't the amount of radio frequencies available rather limited?
MASM was also excessively wordy in many other areas. The amount you had to write to introduce a new segment or access something from another segment was ridiculous. I guess they probably improved that in later releases after TASM showed you didn't need any of that nonsense (and just had .TEXT and .DATA instead).
Yes and no. Film photography is an important artistic tool and still has applications in industry and science. Just like we don't say we don't need colour pencils or oil paints anymore now that we have iPads, we should not be ditching film photography. It is possible for it to exist and thrive. Look at the market for film simulations for digital cameras. There is no market for digital sensor simulations.
Apple hardware with Linux software would be the sweetspot for me. Asahi exists but I think it still has many gaps (e.g. no external displays), I would prefer it over MacOS. Linux over Parallels is also quite usable though, and I still use a Lenovo as my second device when I'm fed up with the MacBook. It's also great software of course, Linux just feels more like a poweruser operating system to me, and KDE is in my opinion way better than the MacOS window manager.
Wait, people regularly just don’t hear it?
How so? I'm curious if you could expound on that. I'm open to a more nuanced explanation.
A case study in this:

"Normal person," 2002: "you use the Internet? How weird and anti-social!"

Same person, 2012: addicted to Internet in public, oblivious to people around them

Interesting how the social acceptability changed so drastically in ten years time. It's almost as if it is completely arbitrary and based on political (e.g. relative) observations. And not a hint of incongruity is felt between the former and latter opinions.
I would love to move our .dev domain away from SquareSpace. The problem is that SquareSpace (aka Google) are the only registrar that allow .dev TLDs. Luckilly that domain isn't production and won't impact us (much) if it goes down.
With life, home, auto insurance you already bought in on one side of the outcome (life, property value) - you are trying to minimize your loss.

With a football match you are not staked to either side - gambling event happen everyday around you and have no effect on you.
Sure, no different than Google employees now, right? You add detectors and consequences. We're not breaking any new ground here are we?
> Careful, in C++ `abs(x) = y` is equally likely to put y into abs(x).

I know, if it returned something it could write into, it would. .__. https://godbolt.org/z/7h6YMqbEW

> Jokes about C++ aside, many DSPs with their own assembly languages have chosen to learn from C and higher level languages. The following style of syntax is not uncommon for DSPs (I am not using a specific one, but an abstract style), where writing assembly is expected:

> R1 = R2 + R3 R5 = R1 * R3 R4 = POPCOUNT(R1) R3 = [R0] <- loads data at pointer in R0 into R3

That's really cool to know, my exposure to assembly is mostly limited to a little bit disassembly for all kinds of reasons (so mostly x86 reading) or 1 instance of inline assembly. Most of the other instances I worked with SSE intrinsics instead, so my knowledge is very limited.

This thread was extremly interesting to read.
The approx is very interesting, but how good is it? Of course with interval arithmetic you can easily get proven bounds, but they are only rarely optimal, can you do better? What if you can mathematically prove the bounds, but the type check fails?

And to be honest, I pretty much fail to see the point (although that might be ignorance on my part), even the motivation seems incredibly weak. Sure, implementing numerical algorithms is hard, but finding out that you wrote "-" instead of "+", is one of the easiest things in the world to spot. In almost every situation it is impossible not to notice as your algorithm will give extremely inaccurate answers, which is something even the most novice of programmers could write a test for. And even if that weren't the case writing a good test suit to test numerical algorithms for standard functions seems far simpler.
Who is this post intended for?

Nobody builds their own browser engines. And I mean nobody. I didn’t get the feeling that he wrote this for pet projects either.

Andreas over at Ladybird is probably the only one (and Servo?) who is really doing it the way that this post describes.

Still, the last couple of paragraphs made me think that this is more of a reflection of his own time over at Mozilla: could have / would have.
I know, I'm saying they implementation they ended up with is terrible.
Nonsense.

I have 4-5 several fixed IPv4 addresses and they're inexpensive compared to the hassle of using IPv6.
Can you please share some sources on this?

I was thinking about this when I saw that UAE only has du and e& which both don't provide the best customer service to formulate it nicely and prices which they could not ask for if they had to compete with their EU counterparts.
> What are the c-suite execs and specifically CTOs seeing that is worth adoption and investment? These are very smart people.

> I, as a laymen on the periphery of this phenomenon, am acutely aware that LLMs are not useful in applications requiring accuracy.

They are not useful in isolation. They can be very useful as part of a larger process, especially if they particular way that you're using them has a low error rate. (And given a particular task you can in fact measure the error rate, or how often the generated bullshit happens by chance to (not) be true.)

Most processes that involve steps done by humans have built-in pieces to catch and correct errors, because humans also make errors. If the error rate of the LLM component is lower than the error rate of the human it's replacing, you're fine. If it's higher but the cost of catching and fixing the extra errors is lower than the cost of the replaced human, you're still fine. (The person who you just sent the way of the buggy whip manufactures might be less fine, but that's Somebody Else's Problem.)
I'm sorry for your loss. Shit.

> Emfamil samples...

Insult to injury. They're all just ghouls. Profitting from other people's pain.

> what list they used

Who watches the watchers? Nobody.

We had an instance of Lexis/Nexus' (formerly Seisent) demographic database to play with. Most people just can't wrap their heads around how bad things were in the mid-aughts. I was called a "sweaty paranoid kook" by our local paper for simply describing how things worked (no opinion or predictions).

Oh well. Maybe society has started to recognize what's happened.

Thanks for reading my rant. Peace.
You mean unstable?
Ruby methods can have both positional and keyword arguments, so, in this case, the `has_many` method takes the symbol `:players` as an argument and takes a keyword argument called `dependent:` which is being passed the symbol `:destroy_async`. Where a symbol in Ruby is an immutable identifier.

So a method like this would be defined as something like:

def has_many(model_name, dependent:)
puts model_name.to_s
puts dependent.to_s
end

Which you could then call as:

has_many(:players, dependent: :destroy_async)

or

has_many :players, dependent: :destroy_async

Since you don't need to put parenthesis around method arguments in ruby.
I have a similar setup, using snare to handle the webhook endpoint: https://github.com/softdevteam/snare

GitHub will call the webhook after a push to main and a successful test suite run. Snare runs a shell script on my server to git pull, build, deploy, and call a cronitor.io hook for monitoring deploy success.

I've been pretty happy with how relatively simple it is and how well it works.
It’s clearly written it’s an idea. I don’t know what you’re implying here.
There is a ton wrong with this comment:

1. Sure, you can call what the FDIC did with respect to SVB an exception, but it wasn't without precedent, and there was a defined process for dealing with situations that could lead to "systemic disruption". That's very different from some sort of bailout for Synapse, where the FDIC never had a relationship with them in the first place. Furthermore, while it's fine to argue about moral hazard with the SVB bailout, no taxpayer funds were used here, and my understanding is that nearly all (if not all) of the money to make depositors whole came from a forced sale of SVB assets. Any balance came from FDIC insurance premiums from other banks.

2. "But I don’t think Synapse customers were SV startups owned by VCs" - that part is just wrong. Lots of Synapse's customers, i.e. the companies who purchased access to Synapse's APIs, most definitely were startups with big VC investors.
The Uber-wealthy families who control much of the food system
Strict SPF enforcement will get rid of most of the random-IP spam. Then, you'll identify a few hosting providers that actually get SPF right, but are very easy to block based on rDNS or name servers. And then it's really mostly Amazon/Google/Microsoft and assorted transactional/list SaaSes...
Yes, but even though there were some advanced compilers back then, particularly for Fortran, there were also really dumb compilers for C and Pascal in the 1980s that didn't do any of that, and just did local register allocation statement by statement (storing to the stack after every statement), which is probably more like what they were used to.
I never claimed that there is a link between affordable healthcare and moral hazard. I argued only with two of your assertions which I have found to be unfortunately untrue, in my experience with the U.S. healthcare industry.
This has really made insurance click for me because while I understand it intuitively, I wanted a more scientific foundation to understand its value.

I think a great illustration is an extreme case. If I have a house and just enough income to cover all my needs and wants (including retirement savings), then depending on my attitude an extra $1000 per year might have no effect at all - I have nothing I want to spend it on and nothing to save for.

But losing my home would still be devastating. So the utility value of the $1000 per year for the rest of my life is low or none, but the utility value of the previously earned money I would lose from losing my house is high.
The way to do it is to make a C-like language that has types and operators that map easily onto the 6502 architecture.

After all, C was designed to map onto the PDP-11 architecture - things like postincrement.
I wonder, with tools like ChatGPT available, how much more time before society feels they don't need to put up with the weird nerd any longer?

I'm something of a weird nerd myself, and though I haven't tried it, I'm sure ChatGPT could spit out some of the most complicated code I've written and make it look easy.
Most people don’t need to write their own OS or compiler. Knowing the details of how things work is apart of getting to gaining expertise
It’s probably being employed to detect bots, scrapers, and users behind VPNs.
And attorneys!
> We've got people bolting on a dozen other solutions to make LLMs work, theres probably tens of millions of LOC now written to make LLMs functional in apps, so much for reducing engineering jobs.

To be fair, in my niche at least I can get a better result by querying ChatGPT4 than StackOverflow. When you take into account that the replies are often mistaken, outdated etc., it becomes just another tool to use form time to time when you need it.
As of this comment, 97% of California grid demand is being served by low carbon sources per ElectricityMaps. We are on the right track.
Except when it is, which was the actual point here (or maybe stating it more directly). Or maybe it's the other way around (see, e.g. uncle Rick); either way, there seems to be some correlation there.

I imagine that every asshole genius will have plenty of sharp edges in their behavior that they could round off very easily, making it a near-free win for their relationships (and overall success in life). Beyond that, however, it feels likely to me that making them focus - intellectually, emotionally, or both - on being more socially acceptable, eats directly into the focus they have for the things they're genius at, and disproportionally so.
Again I consider the terms synonyms.

The solitons/defects belong to the poisson equation for newtonian gravity. I called that a gravitational field equation, since it models gravity as a field.

You called it a scalar field model because it's a scalar field. Your contention is that the gravitational field equations typically refer to Einstein's field equations. I grant that, but also consider poisson's equation as a gravitational field equation. They're both classical field theories for gravity.

Again it's seeming like a bit of a case of potato/potato, rather than advancing the conversation. I'd like you to accommodate me a little better please, and hold off on nitpicking unless it leads to constructive synthesis.

Are you okay with the clarified terminology and my request?

If so, see my other response one layer up, where I asked about problem with the s term in their modified shell solution. We actually have some nits to pick there! I hope to see you there in the other thread!
I mean, anything with root access can very easily use libevdev to get all keystrokes as well as mouse positions. (It's maybe 10 lines of code to do that).

So, don't run stuff as root. If it needs root access, run it in a virtual machine (personally I use qubes os for this).
Wow, I’ve never heard this sort of urban elitism before! Is it common?
My understanding is that beneficiary trumps a will, and definitely trumps the default when there is no will.

What would be the point of a beneficiary if it gets ignored even without a will?
And I mean nobody.

One such project has pretty regular HN chonkthreads, including last week.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Yeah. Realistically I think the best course of action is just assume you’re already using a library that can exfiltrate data.

This requires allowlisting egress traffic and possibly even architecting things to prevent any one library from seeing too many things. This approach can be a big pain though and could be difficult to implement practically.
British Nuclear Warning System
You can do that in the git push by having a separate "stable" branch and linking deployment to it.
> Pardon the vague question, but KDB is very much institutional knowledge hidden from the outside world.

This answers the question for me: unless you are sure the performance lives up to your expectations AND it gives you a competitive advantage (which can be easily lost with the human in the loop), don't even think of it. Get the next best tech that's easy to use, and well documented, and remove the human in the loop to gain the edge.
From my experience working on managing roles for 5 years, the most critical part is to be honest and transparent. Especially in terms of expectations. Be clear. talk to them, ask right questions,bring them to the state where they realize and agree with the reality. The rest is simple.
They made a voice model from Scarlett Johansson recordings and hoped she would change her mind maybe.
>Why is it so difficult for languages in these families to integrate with other editors?

..because of the Lisp syntax i.e. parentheses soup, which is hostile to normal, textual editing, and requires advanced structural editing instead.

They are other options than EMACS for that, though. The article mentions DrRacket, you yourself figured out that you can configure a vim-style editor to do it.

But one way or the other, you either love it or hate it. Smalltalk has the same issue, the language was not designed to work with a regular text editor, you are expected to use an object-oriented, mouse-based GUI to work on a live "image", as opposed to editing static text.

Such peculiarities are a major hurdle to adoption, but ultimately an essential aspect of the development philosophies of these languages.
Oops, my bad. I was stuck in Intel land.

The option I linked is even listed under the x86-specific options...
> My question - and I hope someone can address it in the discussion - how is it possible that we see such incredible investments in LLMs?

LLMs are going to revolutionize the way the government, your employer and advertisers will spy on you.

That's a pretty high value right there
https://archive.ph/vUQm4

https://web.archive.org/web/20180730152634/https://www.post-...
> “Generational wealth” is generally a myth. The second and third generations burn through any inheritance and sprint back to middle class rather quickly.

Ref? That was definitely not my impression from listening to "Capital in the 21st Century".