skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
With many of these types of standards (FMC and Syzygy) it becomes helpful to include some form of memory on the peripheral cards. With Syzygy it is required in order to store some helpful data about the card (product name, manufacturer) along with supported voltage ranges for an adjustable voltage rail from the carrier board. FMC used standard off the shelf I2C eeproms for this task, with some pins on the FMC connector used to indicate the address for the particular slot that the peripheral was attached to on the motherboard. We wanted to lose as few pins as possible for address lines on Syzygy, so we opted to instead use a microcontroller with an ADC for our peripheral flash memory. There was a single pin used to indicate the peripheral address. This pin had a fixed resistor to a power rail on the peripheral and the carrier would have a port-specific resistor to ground on the same pin. By reading the voltage across these resistors we defined 16 addresses with just a single pin. IIRC the microcontrollers we selected were almost the same cost as the I2C flash we would have used in their place!

It was a pretty neat hack.

Placing small microcontrollers on the peripherals also opened up other functions like using them for basic power supply sequencing.
There's for sure some minor tuning of the positional weights for the first move to be done, but I've looked at the scores of tutor mode for an example that matches the one shown (for a corner and middle equivalent) and the model agrees with me that top middle is superior by 1 p.p.

On average for boards where both positions don't appear in the same board over a few samples, the corner was rated an average of 1 p.p. higher but it's not apples to apples when its across different boards as the scores bake in the weight of first movers advantage. I can't be arsed to test this particular board in the example with manual code.

There's no such thing as an unbeatable strategy. My point is not that the greedy solution is superior at playing the game. My point is that it will perform with very nearly perfect play with more than 1000 times few calculations. With tuning it could very likely achieve provably perfect play.

You could similarly use the logic of this greedy strategy to simply remove obviously incorrect spaces of the dynamic equation to get globally optimal answer with probably > 95% fewer calculations on average.

This kind of greedy vs. slow but globally optimal solutions are super common in real world problems.
Different kinds of experiences, but highly correlated.
The assertion was "good code is rarely read."

good code ⇒ rarely read

In that context, "often-read code" does not tell us anything about code quality. And often-read code that's not bad is not a defeater.
That is a good point.

Although, if we suppose intelligence can’t even be defined, then I don’t see how the question is even meaningful in the first place.

We could I guess look at cognitive type tasks one by one, pick ones for which there is some sort of objective grading that can be done, and then ask if there’s any proof that a machine couldn’t do it better. But my gut says that machines should have a huge advantage in tasks where there’s an objective score.

Anyway the satire falls a bit flat if we don’t suppose intelligence is a thing like size that can be easily defined.
Question from a layman on processor arch: how much better is Arm (SoC design, instruction set etc) compared to RISC-V?
This would make a great title for the next Untitled Goose Game
Someone at DARPA is a fan of Ann Leckie's novels
You don't even need AI for that. Try a bunch of different recipes and iterate on it. I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Why Biden and Trump?

I mean, I'd understand Obama and Trump, but Biden?

How can someone so bland polarize a country?
This reminded me of an old essay: "Isn't it Outrageous?" by Tim Kreider [0]:

> Outrage is like a lot of other things that feel good but over time devour us from the inside out. And it’s even more insidious than most vices because we don’t even consciously acknowledge that it’s a pleasure. We prefer think of it as a disagreeable but fundamentally healthy involuntary reaction to negative stimuli thrust upon us by the world we live in, like pain or nausea, rather than admit that it’s a shameful kick we eagerly indulge again and again.

Note that Kreider's essay is from 2009: it's not like this dynamic is new!

[0] https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...
This continues to be true when you study more abstract math. e.g. "group" is an interface, and "a group" is any type with an operation that implements the 3 required properties/methods. Likewise with vector space, ring, metric space, category, etc. Math is full of interfaces as a "design pattern".

(Interfaces in math are more like type classes and not inheritance in programming. e.g. the same set/type can be a group in more than one way.)
Plenty, but I'd need to know more about your use case to give useful feedback. Feel free to email me, I love talking about this stuff.
The batteries in those scooters that burned up are lithium-ion, though, whereas the battery in a UPS will probably be something else.
Maybe we already have done it, unintentionally. Maybe my KitcheAid mixer is conscious, but without means to communicate.

> My KitchenAid has no mouth and it must scream
No, I saw this video come out after the backlash. I assumed MKBHD was jumping on the hype.
The level of debugging involved, all the way to the wallswitch in this was frankly impressive. I doubt most people would have dived that deep into an analog issue.
> It’s a world scale Stockholm syndrome.

There are a lot of those these days.
This outcome couldn't have been more obvious.
That looks pretty nice - my youngest lost interest once the stories started, and I think that was partly because the stories weren't particularly engaging. But overall I was extremely impressed with the pedagogy, it was so easy it felt like cheating!

Now I need to figure out a fun way to do spelling, since both of the kids like to write but English is really tricky to spell.
To the extent one hates those who behave badly, it’s probably normal to dislike those who celebrate bad behavior.
The data capture could, but the part where you ask AI a humanised query and it will search your data for you couldnt.
I’m not GP, but here’s two articles I’ve found that have been extremely informative.

https://borretti.me/article/effective-spaced-repetition

https://gwern.net/spaced-repetition
Ah, so it is just another word for negligence? Is that a feature people are championing?
> For me it's a better experience because I've been using it so long and have a good idea of what it can and can't handle.

How would you know that, though? That's the reason why at this point I can't see myself ever using that kind of a feature. The added stress of the unpredictability would make the experience miserable.
> Imagine not just reading a bed time story

Instead of trying to imagine that I'm just gonna have chatGPT tell me what it would be like.
You:

- assert without evidence

- rationalize

This does not refute my point in the slightest: calling someone a 'ghoul' is pejorative, even if one finds their platform unattractive.
> unlike answering a question from a coworker, "moving off the keyboard, grabbing the mouse, figuring out where the cursor is," then moving the cursor are all "perceptual" tasks that most people can do without disturbing the "cognitive" tasks involved in programming or communication

I explained why $50 million spent measuring how long it takes to do a task isn't measuring the right thing, and therefore doesn't support the claim that users are wrong. You're telling me your opinion, which of course you're entitled to have, but that doesn't fix the flawed claims of the research.

> Are you surprised that 80% of Emacs users use graphical Emacs?

No.

> users who like to always keep their hands on the keyboard are much more vocal than users who alternate frequently between keyboard and a pointing device

This has no relevance to my comment, which is that the research didn't measure what it needed to measure, and therefore one should not conclude that users have been proven wrong.
You mean rewind.ai
Biden isn’t polarizing for who he is, but because he is seen as an usurper sitting in the rightful
King’s throne.
I'm most excited about getentropy().
> WTF are you even talking about? How does intelligence have levels, in your opinion,

Having previously met humans, I have noticed using my intelligence that the intelligence of other humans differs, and exists on a set of spectra.

It seems reasonable to me that the range from the least intelligent human to the most intelligent human does not completely cover the range of possible intelligence, just as the range of body temperatures from the coldest (living) human to the warmest (living) human does not define an absolute range for temperature.

I'm very confused as to what you find difficult with this concept. Do you believe all humans are equally intelligent, or do you believe that humans encompass the entire range of possibility for intelligence?
I really appreciate that! I had a lot of fun working on it. Thank you!
But to be fair, Trump's supporters hated everyone else first. That's their whole shtick.
The most important screen, the top of the landing page, has meaningless marketing blabs on it, but the question I need answered is, "why would I use this over ChatGPT/Google Gemini/etc?"
Your question was why to use this over PCIe. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question but as Syzygy is a connector standard, your question must have been about the connector. I think colloquially the "PCIe connector" refers to the finger and slot standard.

As for why to use single end low speed I/O, I guess it's about perspective. For some, an FPGA is something that sits on a PCIe bus or network. For a lot of people, it's a lot more than that. Something that talks to countless chips that maybe need spi, i2c, uart, or something custom.

For example, think about all those 1 wire LED strips and how it easy it would be to do that in HDL compared to the other approaches. Being and to work easily with bits vs bytes has huge advantages for custom interfaces. Another example: one time a group I was working with wanted to talk to battery management modules. Each one had a uart and they had to get daisy chained together, complicating things a lot. An FPGA with more than a few uarts is trivial and could've talked to each one independently. Even the highest end micros have maybe at most 20. You could fit 16 on 1 of these connectors. The UART block from Xilinx is on the order of 100 flops. You could have literally hundreds of uarts. Not that I have seen a need for that, but who knows, maybe someone does.

Getting rambley but another option is for test devices. Let's say you have a device that has a low speed interface and you want to test a lot of them at a time. You could use a bunch of multiplexors and time division control logic, or slap down an FPGA and do them all at once.
You don't drag the body, you shoot him while he is in his car. Then you lock the doors, shut them, and leave.
Yes. That was my thought when I first heard it: they're announcing an announcement.

I wish I had a cult that would let me get away with stuff like this.
Half expected this link to go elsewhere…
I think “low speed” is quite a relative term here. PCIe serdes lanes are for very high data rate communication (> 1gbps per lane). This is the realm of the Syzygy XCVR standard.

The lower speed Syzygy standard, while not operating at these speeds, is capable of much higher rates than a typical microcontroller. There are many peripherals with I/O requirements beyond a simple LED or SPI device, but below that of a PCIe or other high rate transceiver such has:

- moderate to high end ADCs and DACs (LVDS and parallel)

- image sensors (LVDS, parallel, and HiSPI)

- various networking PHYs

The lower end syzygy connector has pinouts to support LVDS differential pairs, which can easily achieve hundreds of Mbps data rates.
My parents taught me to read at age 2 and the more I read the more I wanted to read. By the time I got to kindergarten, I had already read more than all the other kids. It inculcated the love of reading in me which paid dividends throughout my life.

It helped me greatly as an adult. Most of my peers in the tech industry haven’t read a book since high school (because their upbringing didn’t emphasize reading). But reading books and believing you can actually learn things from them helps you enter fields outside of what you went to school for. I taught myself stuff from books. I learned from books how to navigate corporate culture (High Output Management), how business actually works (the Halo Effect, Hard Things), how charisma actually works (How to Win Friends), templates for doing things I’m not good at (Difficult Conversations, Getting to Yes) etc.

Arguably you can learn all these things by reading articles and by watching YouTube.

But books are special. Granted most books today have a lot of fluff but at least for the parts that are useful, books slow me down and help me absorb at a better pace.

Similar to the idea of bioavailability of nutrients, books to me are more “bio available” in that they’re the same nutrients, but are better and more deeply absorbed.
Maybe it's just hypocritical though the framing originally is ironic. Indeed it's their declared mission, but that would be like if the Nazi's mission statement was "for the betterment of the Jews."
Hate is transpartisan. It's largely recognition that someone else has values inimical to your own. That makes the impulse to hate fairly symmetrical.

IMHO if you understand Nazi values and don't hate them, you're hate-deficient. So the total amount of hate someone carries around is a bad proxy for the quality of their values. It may be a better proxy for moral awareness or sensitivity.
I've had a similar one and find it extremely helpful for both parties. It should get more common!
Reading the last paragraph makes me think this article was written by AI. No logical connection, just free association.
The long-lived projects I've seen have some code that mostly works that doesn't have any tests and is hard to grok. Nobody touches it because 1) any change might break something unexpected and 2) if you touch it, you might end up owning it.

I wouldn't call that good code but it's often too good to spend time replacing.
Agreed, JAX is specialized for GPU computation -- I'd really like similar capabilities with more permissive constructs, maybe even co-effect tagging of pieces of code (which part goes on GPU, which part goes on CPU), etc.

I've thought about extending JAX with custom primitives and a custom lowering process to support constructs which work on CPU (but don't work on GPU) -- but if I did that, and wanted a nice programmable substrate -- I'd need to define my own version of abstract tracing (because necessarily, permissive CPU constructs might imply array type permissiveness like dynamic shapes, etc).

You start heading towards something that looks like Julia -- the problem (for my work) with Julia is that it doesn't support composable transformations like JAX does.

Julia + JAX might be offered as a solution -- but it's quite unsatisfying to me.
> Are you just being overawed by IQ tests, which are notorious for measuring only ability to pass IQ tests?

People like to say things like this, but nothing could be further than the truth. There is a vast literature showing that IQ predicts things like job performance, school performance, income and wealth [1]. IQ is highly persistent across time for fixed individuals. Yes, "intelligence" is not a precisely defined concept, but that doesn't mean that it isn't real. A lot of useful concepts have some vagueness about, even "height" to take the example parodied in the OP.

And "super intelligence" is admittedly even vaguer, it just means sufficiently smarter than humans. If you do have a problem with that presentation just think of specific capabilities a "super intelligence" would be expected to have. For instance, the ability to attain super-human performance in a game (e.g., chess or go) that it had never seen before. The ability to produce fully functional highly complex software from a natural language spec in instants. The ability to outperform any human at any white-collar job without being specifically trained for it.

Are you confident that a machine with all those capabilities are impossible?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_c...
"This originates from China "
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40659511
I remember that incident.

I think there's a difference between compiling and installing a buggy software and developing the whole infrastructure yourself on top of the operating system that you solely develop and build.

But that's me.
That sounds like the most totalitarian thing in the world.

Imagine I’m considering marrying someone. Do I really not have an interest in knowing their past misdeeds?

A better way is to have strict rules on what you can take into account for certain types of decisions: renting a house, hiring an employee, offering an insurance policy.

But there is no right have the world forget your misdeeds.
I think the last sample needs a `fba.reset()` call in between requests.

BTW, I used zig a lot recently and the opaque allocator system is great. You can create weird wrappers and stuff.

For example, the standard library json parser will parse json, deserialize a type that you requested (say, a struct). But it needs to allocate stuff. So it creates an arena for that specific operation and returns a wrapper that has a `deinit` method. Calling it deinits the arena so you essentially free everything in your graph of structs, arrays etc. And since it receives an upstream allocator for the arena, you could pass in any allocator. A fixed stack allocator if you wish to use stack space, another arena, maybe jemalloc wrapper. A test allocator that checks for memory leaks.. Whatever.
I don't run javascript by default using NoScript, and something amusing happened on this website because of it.

The link for the site points to a notion.site address, but attempting to go to this address without javascript enabled (for that domain) forces a redirect to a notion.so domain. Attempting to visit just the basic notion.site address also does this same redirection.

What this ends up causing is that I don't have an easy way to use NoScript to temporarily turn on javascript for the notion.site domain, because it never loads. So much for reading this article.
A mildly interesting note that this paper was submitted as part of SIGBOVIK (http://www.sigbovik.org/), a collection of similarly funny papers.
This is great! I found these videos helpful, too: https://youtu.be/Tl1uZ7FBwFQ

Does anyone know of a good explanation of HWAddress Sanitizer internals?
> itself not very well defined, but let's use IQ

IQ has an issue that is inessential to the task at hand, which is how it is based on a population distribution. It doesn’t make sense for large values (unless there is a really large population satisfying properties that aren’t satisfied).

> I doubt that too. The limit for LLMs for example is more human produced training data (a hard limit) than compute.

Are you familiar with what AIXI is?

When I said “arbitrarily large”, it wasn’t for laziness reasons that I didn’t give an amount that is plausibly achievable. AIXI is kind of goofy. The full version of AIXI is uncomputable (it uses a halting oracle), which is why I referred to the computable approximations to it.

AIXI doesn’t exactly need you to give it a training set, just put it in an environment where you give it a way to select actions, and give it a sensory input signal, and a reward signal.

Then, assuming that the environment it is in is computable (which, recall, AIXI itself is not), its long-run behavior will maximize the expected (time discounted) future reward signal.

There’s a sense in which it is asymptotically optimal across computable environments (... though some have argued that this sense relies on a distribution over environments based on the enumeration of computable functions, and that this might make this property kinda trivial. Still, I’m fairly confident that it would be quite effective. I think this triviality issue is mostly a difficulty of having the right definition.)

(Though, if it was possible to implement practically, you would want to make darn sure that the most effective way for it to make its reward signal high would be for it to do good things and not either bad things or to crack open whatever system is setting the reward signal in order for it to set it itself.)

(How it works: AIXI basically enumerates through all possible computable environments, assigning initial probability to each according to the length of the program, and updating the probabilities based on the probability of that environment providing it with the sequence of perceptions and reward signals it has received so far when the agent takes the sequence of actions it has taken so far. It evaluates the expected values of discounted future reward of different combinations of future actions based on its current assigned probability of each of the environments under consideration, and selects its next action to maximize this. I think the maximum length of programs that it considers as possible environments increases over time or something, so that it doesn’t have to consider infinitely many at any particular step.)
Software Projects: Sink or Swim – Why the Owner Matters Most
Recently launched a platform which aggregates the best card offers across platforms in India. It's a pain to search for these offers, so we decided to do the heavy lifting and put them all into once place, so users can actually use them instead of wasting hours and never fully utilizing the benefits available to them on their cards.
Nothing of value was lost, Buldak is pure spiciness and nothing else really despite whatever taste is written on the package.
The same can happen with C malloc/free too.
OtterTune shuts down, cites failed acquisition by a "PE Postgres" company
177 thumbs up on the issue and 0 replies from the maintainer in those 2 months.

"concerning"
Trump, with his love of fossil fuels and his deletion of environmental protection policies, is most definitely not going to make America great unless you take America to mean only the top 0.1% and all his friends. For everyone else, it'll become a toxic hellhole. If you enjoy gasoline, methane, PFAS, and carcinogens in your tap water, by all means vote for him.
So, according to the author, if I write an ugly script that works very well and offers such a clean and intuitive API, that nobody needs to actually peruse the nightmare hiding within, this is good code. But only for as long as the specs don't change, or no one needs to modify my script. At which point, my good code can become bad code, by virtue of it being unintelligible.

So basically, code can be both good and bad. It just requires that someone opens the box? Schrödinger's code.

I think I'll stick with my own definition, thank you.

Good code: works as expected, strives to be secure, strives to be bug-free, is reasonably efficient for the context it aims to be used in, is concerned with maintainability (this is where readability comes into play).
Obviously not?
Looks like they've switched from the PostgreSQL license to something called the MulanPSL-2.0 license. Looks like it's an adaptation of the PostgreSQL license, but that's from my non-expert eyes looking over it. :)