skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nice.
Saw the price and that threw me right into SharkTank pitches, “cost me $39.99 and I sell it for $199”.
Did a bunch of these for the Mac back in February, and have since rebuilt many for iOS to work exactly like that: https://taoofmac.com/space/notes/2024/02/22/1900
When I was younger, I worked for multiple startups and received stock in each one. How much is that stock worth now? $0. I no longer will put that much time and effort into something, unless I am the founder.
Here is a video on the operation of the sort of machine these type sets were intended for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7am-ysvGD3s (Inheritance Machining)
This is baseless fearmongering. This has been talked to death here and elsewhere. First this overestimates the capabilities of AI second it misses the historical precedent set by the creation of other GPTs throughout history. Yes some peoples lives were negatively influenced by the creation of the railroad or the printing press but that doesnt mean the downfall of society.

The problem of AI being concentrated in the hands of the powerful few is certainly a problem. Which is why its very clearly of the utmost importance that we stomp out AI doomerism now before they can convince congress to enact braindead laws limiting open source AI. Unfortunately Brandolini's law is in full effect and the meme of "The Terminator" and "The Matrix" are way too pervasive.
lean4 - programming language and theorem prover

https://lean-lang.org/

https://github.com/leanprover/lean4
Thank you for explaining. I totally agree with you about being supportive and the level of capability.

For me, both Copilot and ChatGPT are reasonably skilled junior programmers. They understand about 70% of what I'm looking for. I can correct them with one revised prompt and get them to the 80 to 90% range. At three prompts, I assume GPT/Co-Pilot is an idiot.

In both cases of non-bio and bio junior programmers, I always ask myself the question, how am I explaining it wrong? More often with bio junior programmers, I am explaining it wrong. With nonbio junior programs, it's still giving the wrong explanation, but in a different way.

The closest analogy to this experience is learning how to use speech recognition. You get to about the 95% recognition level by the system learning how you speak. You get to the 98, 99% recognition level by speaking the way the system hears
Patterns of data loading: Topics and broadcast
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/15999544/biohacking-finge...
Just an offtopic heads-up that emails in HN profiles aren't visible to other users, only to admins.

If anyone wants to share an email address with other users, it needs to go in the About box.
How do you ship them or dispose of them, and how much will that cost?
I find it a bit strange to make a blanket statement like that, dismissing an entire field of research as 'not a net positive'.
This is false, it is perfectly legal to give water to workers in the South (and in every other state).
Totally agree. I've had to put people on PIPs and also had to decide instead of a PIP just cut them. It's never fun, but these people were long time underperformers. I'm sure in some places they do PIPs as a formality, but I never seen that and I would never do that.
I second this. I took a large salary cut to be 1/2 of an engineering team at a seed stage startup for ~1.25%. After 2 years of pretty grueling work I left to go back to big tech for 3x the pay. I wouldn't call it a total waste of time in the sense that it made me a better engineer, but it certainly wasn't worth it financially. The company still exists and has had a relatively successful series A and "A extension" but I don't think my equity will ever be worth anything.

I really wouldn't recommend anyone work as an engineer at an early stage startup unless you're getting ~5% or more (this would be unprecedented) because the risk is barely less than the founders and the pay is generally terrible. Series B or later (growth stage) may be a sweet spot where the salaries are decent and there is still significant equity upside without the insane hours.
Off the top of my head:

- Minimal standardization of ways to cache pre-built artifacts for modules with binary/XS components (no widely adopted wheel equivalent).

- Extremely poor support in cpan-the-tool for multiple local::lib environments.

- Abject lack of standardization on how hermetic/isolated (or not) builds involving linking to native libraries/compiling code should be. Talking super simple stuff here: what path-related envs to inherit, when module build scripts should hardcode vs. use system-path-discoverable versions of common C toolchain components, stuff like that.

- Standardization on build tools ("backends" in Python parlance) is poor. Module::Build is "the future", but lots of stuff seems not to use it. ExtUtils::MakeMaker is ... not good, and alternatives seem to be all over the place in terms of supportedness (I've heard Dist::Zilla is good, never tried it; spent plenty of time with SWIG hassles though). This is a low bar, and Perl trips over it. To be fair, so does Python.

- No uninstallation support (because there's no standardized manifest format). Sure, cpanminus exists (mirroring the annoyance that is e.g. conda competing with pip in Python), and even then uninstallation is dicey.

- Uninstallation troubles hint at the larger issue: CPAN packages are, if you zoom out far enough, shell/perl scripts that perform arbitrary system modifications. As jsiracusa used to say when we worked together, "they're file sprayers, not packages". If you want anything more predictable (or less dangerous) than that, you're out of luck unless you follow a very narrow path which many packages and deployment environments may not be compatible with.

- TMTOWTDI doesn't help here; even simple pure-perl modules have piss poor consistency re: how they install, so answering questions like "what will installation of Some::Module make available" is harder than it needs to be because maintainers are by turns over-clever and using dated methodologies for packaging their code.

- For reproducibility, cpan-the-tool's stance on lockfiles and hashes seems to be "what the fuck is a lockfile?". Given poor CPAN-wide compliance with Semver or equivalent conventions, that makes builds that need to happen in different environments (e.g. local, docker, CI, production) needlessly complicated.

- MacOS support for many common libraries with XS/native components is very poor even by Python's (nightmarishly bad until c. 2019, when tools matured even though the advent of ARM macs made it feel like they didn't) standard.

I sincerely hope that stuff has improved in the Perl community since I last tangled with CPAN issues on the regular (around 5.18/5.20). But given the increasing number of lonely tumbleweeds drifting around CPAN and the Perl community's tendencies in general, I won't hold my breath.
That's a more interesting question, and history behind the answer, than you might expect.

The Texas Railroad Commission was founded in the 1880s during a progressive political movement there against monopolistic businesses, largely railroads.

Its remit extended to more general monopoly regulation first to oil pipelines in 1917, perhaps reasonable as another transportation-related activity, then oil and gas production in 1919. It took on natural gas delivery in 1920, bus lines in 1927, and trucking in 1929.

In the 1930s, as the East Texas Oil Boom developed, the TRC along with the US Department of Interior effectively became part of the structure which managed US, and by extension, global oil markets until the early 1970s, when the US no longer had surplus oil production. In the 1930s, the TRC and the Texas Rangers literally seized wellhead production by force of arms in order to curtail wildly surplus production which was both tanking (so to speak) oil prices (hitting a low of $0.03 per barrel) and premature oilfield depletion through excessive extraction.

(Oilfield extraction at the time largely relied in the inherent gas pressure of the fields, resulting in early drilling producing "gushers" where oil could spout hundreds of feet into the air. Like poking many holes into a balloon or bottle, excessive drilling reduced that pressure, and could often leave much oil unrecovered within formations. Limiting drilling and extraction reduced individual operators' yields but increased the overall field yield. Other countries, particularly those with nationalised oil operations such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, etc., effectively arrived at similar trends.)

There are also principles of resource recovery which were either established or enshrined by the TRC, notably "Rule of Capture", a whole 'nother discussion. And the (unrelated) issue of regulatory capture, in which a government regulatory agency overseeing an industry tends to over time answer to rather than govern over that industry.

Wikipedia of course has a good general overview: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzWlrARDVbQ>

Daniel Yergin's epic history of the oil industry The Prize discusses the TRC in the context of the East Texas Oil Boom in chapter 13, which makes for fascinating reading, not only about the oil industry but about the actual realities rather than the theoretical operations of "free markets" and natural resource extraction.

And for those interested in a deep dive, several books, including David Prindle's Petroleum Politics and the Texas Railroad Commission (1984) <https://openlibrary.org/works/OL9371845W/Petroleum_Politics_...>, Mark A Miller's Oils & Gas and the Texas Railroad Commission (2015) <https://openlibrary.org/works/OL24732694W/Oil_Gas_and_the_Te...>, and William R. Childs's The Texas Railroad Commission (2005) <https://openlibrary.org/works/OL5476040W/The_Texas_Railroad_...>.
So they get grants to work on these tools rather than to work on math, seems like a very special situation then and a very special math department and therefore not a good picture for how helpful it is to math departments in general.
> The tin-foil hat can be traced back to 1927, first spotted by Business Insider roughly a decade ago, in a short story titled “The Tissue-Culture King.” It’s a strange short story written by Julian Huxley, whose brother Alduous was a prolific writer and author of Brave New World. It was Julian, however, who was possibly the first to mention wrapping your cranium in foil.

I absolutely guarantee that this isn't the origin of the term "tinfoil hat" or of people accusing people that they want to discount as "wearing a tinfoil hat." What happened was a writer came across an early mention in fiction of somebody using a metal shield to fend off mind control rays that no one read and that inspired no one, and they thought they might be able to build an article around it. Using a metal shield to fend off a charge is obvious, although when it comes to a Faraday cage around your head, your neck is a problem.

"Tinfoil hat" is an accusation. Find the first person recorded accusing someone else of wearing a tinfoil hat. Find out of the reference confused people, or if it seemed familiar to people. If it confused people, try to find whether he/she was asked to explain it. If it was familiar to people, look for other contemporaneous mentions and try again.
Why do you think the SSO is linked to the zero terminator? I always thought it was due to the cost of allocations (and deallocations!) combined with the fact that most strings are actually pretty small.
Spilo has, in my experience, been poorly maintained for a while. There has been some slow progress, but it doesn’t seem to be anyone’s priority right now (happy to be corrected).

I was running my own Spilo builds for a while, which was hit-and-miss. For my new (Kubernetes bare metal) cluster deployment I’ve moved over to Stackgres. I also evaluated CNPG (promising, but still early-ish days), as well as one other IIRC.

I found Stackgres to work most reliably. And it solves the biggest pain with Spilo, which is building an image with the required PG extensions. Stakgres instead has its own repository of extensions that it can install from, which is a huge help.
There's no way around trusting your hardware vendor (and often the software they ship it with as well; at least the OS is usually closed source and not user-installable, at least in the case of smart cards, which are arguably just HSMs in a different form factor).

Traditionally, the industry has been addressing this via audits and commercial agreements.
You posted basically the same thing I posted right before I did, and I completely agree with it.

It's not like we will ever get to a point where we say "all the potential work that could happen is done!". There's always more work to do, as human resources get freed up they get reallocated to other tasks.

It's sort of like Gustafson's Law [1]; it's easy to see all the work we have right now as automate-able and therefore assume "there won't be any jobs", but I think that's making an incorrect assumption that the number of jobs is a fixed size, and I just flatly think this is not true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafson%27s_law
They never will, since it's also one of Swift's greatest strengths. What they may, eventually, do is dedicate the resources to minimize the negative aspects of the system while documenting clear ways to mitigate the biggest issues. Unfortunately Apple's dev tools org is chronically under resourced, which means improvements to the inference system and its diagnostics come and go as engineers are allowed to work on it. Occasionally it will improve, only to then regress as more features are added to the language, and then the cycle continues.
I‘m willing to bet money against the core statement of that article. Cut off date +20years. General terms to be negotiated.

I see this as an instance of jevrons law. AI will overall induce more demand for work because knowledge work can be leveraged with ai and thus it becomes more productive.
Problem with FMLA is you don't get full salary. It's half I believe. So you have to make a choice between working and getting paid, or not working and getting much less.
This is not a fixable flaw.
Solving these constraints efficiently can definitely get you a Turing award, it's
basically the SAT problem.

And without this type system, swift is just Objective C in a prettier syntax, so Apple has to bite the bullet and bear with it.
Crypto? I'm _shocked_.
> The government had seen promising results in its experiments to control human emotions via radio-wave emissions

There's no mention of this in the Wikipedia article.
>chronically under resourced

This is very true, Apple sees compiler jobs as a cost center.
No, the narrative here is that things used to be fast and idiot JS devs have made everything bloated and slow.
For “net” positive you have to consider the broader downsides.

Energy consumption, for example. Or change in incentives for producing original writing. Etc etc.

I don’t think we fully comprehend the negatives yet (or, to be fair, the positives)
With all due respect,

When AI becomes good enough to code web apps and other simple applications, the people who will be decrying AI will be all of the web devs out of work.

Notto mention, all of the creative and entertainment industry jobs that will be destroyed permanently.

It's coming whether people want to accept it or not and we're going to reach a point where new roles will not be ready to absorb the loss.
Yeah, it didn't used to be that big of a divide. Nowadays it seems like analytic philosophers are doing endless retreads, and continental ones are also doing endless retreads, but with more confusing sentence structure.

From a 10,000 foot view, I think nailing down a more "objective" understanding of dialectics (idealist, material, whatever) is a promising direction to ameliorate this meta-problem. People arguing in journals is pretty much a dialectic problem, so understanding that can go a long way to understanding issues beyond that.
>I don’t see why the programmer wouldn’t just be the AI’s overseer,

We need orders of magnitude fewer AI overseers than we need humans to do the work of the AI. This will flip society on its head.
Flutter is open-source though, are you actually worried about Google dropping it and the community being unable to support it?

For context, Killed By Google lists AngularJS, which received updates through 2021, about 5 years after Angular (v2) was released. Polymer is another open-source framework, killed in 2021, and it's still in 'maintenance mode'.
Can we just ... not use this word anymore? Taboo Gaslighting?

> among S.E.O. experts, this “reinforces an already long-held belief that Google’s public representatives regularly lie, mislead, and omit key information.

Yes. This happens. Because the alternative is these "experts" destroy the whole Internet. I would far rather have zero S.E.O. "experts" than zero Google.
From their press release:

"The project features a 345 MW sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system. The storage technology can boost the system’s output to 500 MW of power when needed, which is equivalent to the energy required to power around 400,000 homes. The energy storage capability allows the plant to integrate seamlessly with renewable resources and is the only advanced reactor design with this unique feature."

Getting all the permits and passing all the reviews without running out of money, etc, is really difficult in these projects. I hope they make it.
This is when you immediately liquidate your stock position, instead of taking a loan using it as a collateral, which would likely cost you 10%-15% in interest, not 30%.
I think game companies could totally solve this problem a different way, but their incentives are not aligned to do so. Of course anti-cheat that backdoors a bunch of people's computers is good for the company. They get anticheat and a backdoor that could be valuable for selling data later, or preventing piracy too, or responding to subpoenas and being a hero that caught a terrorist. I dunno. Surveillance and control is popular for a reason. It's not because it's necessary for everything it's billed as necessary for. That's a sales pitch

Also, I guess you're not reading my post history very carefully when deciding it's a good ad hominem attack to use, because just this week I had a heated argument about some culture war shit and the nature of governments and ended up realizing I was being an asshole and making assumptions about someone, and apologized for it. I get that I'm pretty belligerent, especially on topics like how we live in an orwellian dystopia of surveillance and a majority of people in my trade seem to range from complicit to actively advocating for its necessity, but it really sounds like you're responding emotionally to my verbosity and tone and using this to try to discredit me instead of having anything substantive to say about the topic at hand. It is exactly an ad hominem attack, no more, no less

Here, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position and you are only using ad hominem and appeals to authority. My fundamental claim is that anticheat mechanisms for multiplayer games are possible without client-side control, wherever they are possible at all. So far, in opposing this claim, you have not given any justification whatsoever, opting instead to claim this is obvious and well-known and thus requires no justification. I made the only good faith argument either of us have made in this whole thread right at the beginning, the post you initially responded to, and you refuse to engage with it in any sense. Every reply you've made is argument to incredulity, ad hominem, or naked appeal to the authority of your supposed expertise, the consensus of the games industry, etc. I would love to engage in good faith with substantive arguments. You are doing neither.

"You think all the smart people in the games industry are wrong?" is just another appeal to authority. I don't think they're stupid, I think they have no incentive to value the privacy and autonomy of their userbase and look for other solutions
>If Plato's point is that knowledge can only be derived through direct experience

Its not. Its that poets corrupt.
ah, I missed that, ty for the pointer!
One could argue that anything that anything that makes the development process itself more efficient, as opposed to the compiling, is worth it since programmers themselves ain’t getting any faster anytime soon, but timing out after more than 40 seconds on a state-of-the-art CPU because of a handful of lines is just ridiculous.
AI is a tool, like all tools it multiplies force, the question is, what's on the other side of the multiplier?

It's not even a net destructive tool like a gun.
I see how you took that from my comment, I do not want to imply that all news outlets are the same level of bad. That would be an impossible position to defend even if I believed it, the Daily Mail exists. It's that even the cream of the crop isn't helping you be meaningfully informed and this article is a perfect case-study of it. Having read neither of these articles, the original or the retraction, would be the ideal state.
Oh that looks interesting! Thanks for the recommendation, I will give it a look.
Because that’s the racket! They can’t pay you top dollar because they’re a lean startup, so they make up for it by adding “equity” to remuneration. But that equity is in the form of options which you have to buy with your not-top-dollar salary, so it’s unlikely you will. Then you leave the company before an event and those options expire after a month or so, going back into the pool for another engineer to do the same. The house always wins!
They're not a subset no, but the two aren't mutually exclusive.

They can get options, they can get equity, they can get nothing (beyond salary).

Options are common probably because it gives (the company) more or easier control over what happens when.
Akshually, spice, combined with genetic engineering like Paul's, is merely a nootropic which allows an overclocking of brainpower to the point where one knows how to shine light on the holographic universe's underlying 2D plane, changing qubits so as to effect 3D spacetime curvature allowing FTL travel (navigators) as well as how to code inject brains by adding certain inflections to your words (the voice) as well as calculate the branching paths of reality and probabilities thereof (seeing the future). No magic involved.

Shields though? No fucking idea. Okay, nevermind; it's soft sci-fi.
Another fun part of having capped oil wells all over the place is that they can seep hydrogen sulfide gas. It can permanently disable you or even kill you.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/tox...