skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Maybe this post wasn't the right one for your comment, hence the downvotes.

But I find it intriguing. Do you mean architecting software to allow LLMs to be able to modify and extend it? Having more of the overall picture in one place (shallow monoliths) and lots of helper funtions and modules to keep code length down? Ie, optimising for the input and output context windows?
LLNL Researchers Develop Breakthrough Microcapacitors
I got a Max in the 14” notebook, yeah, but not 3999€ for me at least.
I'd avoid straps or belts until you're at least around ~400lb so you develop your grip and core strength. If you think you need a belt, you could try lifting with a trap (hex bar). That's what I switched to recently and it's more comfortable as someone tall and turning 40.
Agreed - their books were/are inspiring. I think we need books more than ever for iOS and macOS since Apple's documentation doesn't seem to be as good as it used to be.
Pre-release versions are created to test new updates on bunch of different hardware setups (OS/GPUs) before releasing more broadly (and making new versions the default for the Linux/macOS/Windows installers – those pull from the 'latest' release).

There are a good number of folks that test the pre-releases as well (thank you!) especially if there's a bug fix or new feature they are waiting for. "Watch"ing the repo on GitHub will send emails/notifications of new pre-release versions
Show HN: We made a small and cheap network switch
Hello, we're Max and Byran from MUREX Robotics, a high school robotics team from Exeter, New Hampshire. We are super proud to have made this open source piece of technology! It is only 6.9 dollars (actually!) from JLCPCB :) I hope you like it.

You can find us at byran@mrx.ee and max@mrx.ee as well if you have any questions.

We will be putting a small run of these boards for sale somewhere (we have <25 units of stock), probably for $10+shipping. Let us know if you're interested in more!

Board files for everything we make is here:
https://github.com/murexrobotics/electrical-2024
"A French court has ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to poison their DNS resolvers to prevent circumvention of blocking measures, targeting around 117 pirate sports streaming domains."

Most if not all of these domains probably use Cloudflare as their authoritative DNS servers because they are using Cloudflare CDN. Why not just ask Cloudflare to "poison" those RRs. No need to issue orders to a selection of cache operators.
As long as the protocol is easy to detect and block.

If whatever technology that is being used is so intertwined into the base of all use cases (including totally legal) and legal vs. illegal is practically indistinguishable at scale, then decentralization cannot be blocked without physically blocking all the legal use cases too: sure they can "cut cables" but it will have much more greater consequences as they have just cut cables connecting all the legal activity too.
What? The entire point of the comment you’re replying to is that the LLM isn’t designing the system. That’s why it’s being discussed in the first place. LLMs certainly currently play a PART in the ongoing development of myriad projects, as made evident by Copilot’s popularity to say the least. That doesn’t mean that an LLM can do everything a software developer can, or whatever other moving goalpost arguments people tend to use. They simply play a part. It doesn’t seem outside of the realm of reason for a particularly ‘innovative’ large-scale software shop to at least consider taking LLMs into account in their architecture.
I built a replica of Chebyshev's calculating machine, using parts from the Actobotix robot building system. Exceedingly simple mechanism, which ingeniously removes the need for any carry mechanism.

The only problem is that the digits showing the results are not in a nice, straight line. The second digit rotates 10x slower than the first digit, the third digit rotates 10x slower than the second digit, etc.... after a while, it becomes difficult to sus out what digits the resulting number actually has.

After dorking around with it for a few months, it struck me, that I could make the problem go away if I used a signed-digit positional number system, viz, instead of having the digits 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9, I used digits -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. Signed-digit number systems take a bit of getting used to, but the advantage is that they represent negative numbers as naturally as they do positive numbers. No need to use complement arithmetic. Cf. Knuth’s favorite base, balanced ternary—just for base 10, not base 3.

The digits still are unaligned, but it was clear and unambiguous what the result was. What's more, you could annotate the dials such that you could read off the 10's complement result if you wanted to---which meant that for positive numbers, you didn't even have to learn signed-digit arithmetic, you just got the result you'd be expecting to get.

In other words, Chebychev came within INCHES of realizing that he had invented the world's first--perhaps still the only for base 10–calculating machine which could natively handle negative numbers, with no need for complement arithmetic.

I consider this my small revenge on Chebychev....when I was taking advanced probability theory, every time I saw the name "Chebychev" I groaned...because I knew I was in for weeks of trying to understand an absolutely impenetrable theorem, proving an unbelievable formula...which was infinitely
useful :-(

Still, it's a shame he didn't make that jump--his calculating machine has none of the finicky components a carry mechanism does, so its parts are cheap to manufacture and its dead-simple to assemble. The 1870's could have been like the 1970's, when pocket calculators became affordable enough for everybody to buy them.
Might be the most ever , at least for power generation https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electrici...

Here’s hoping!
Compilers can remove the memset if they can show it is overwritten prior to use (though C and C++ UB could technically make it possible to skip padding they don’t), or it isn’t used (in which case we go back to non-zero’d memory again which in this scenario we’re trying to avoid).

There are various _s variants of memset, etc that require the compiler to perform the operations even if it “proves” the data cannot be read.

And finally modern hardware has mechanisms to say “this is now zero” and not actually zero the memory and instead just tell the MMU that the region is now zero (which removes the cpu time and cache impact of accessing the memory directly).

On macOS and iOS I believe all memory is now zero’d on free and I think malloc ostensibly therefore guarantees zero’d memory (the problem I think is whether calloc tries to rely on that behavior, because then calloc can produce non-zero memory courtesy of a buffer overrun/UaF after free has ostensibly zero’d memory)
People should definitely be more aware of Llamacpp, but I don't want to undersell the value that Ollama adds here.

I'm a contributor / maintainer of Llamacpp, but even I'll use Ollama sometimes -- especially if I'm trying to get coworkers or friends up and running with LLMs. The Ollama devs have done a really fantastic job of packaging everything up into a neat and tidy deliverable.

Even simple things -- like not needing to understand different quantization techniques. What's the difference between Q4_k and Q5_1 and -- what the heck do I want? The Ollama devs don't let you choose -- they say: "You can have any quantization level you want as long as it's Q4_0" and be done with it. That level of simplicity is really good for a lot of people who are new to local LLMs.
Because then every commit from now on has a ton of formatting changes that make it harder to see what was actually changed.
If you do it that way, then what should be a 1-line BUILD file change turns into something that changes every line. It distracts from the actual purpose of the future change. Many directories aren't touched for long periods of time. A few months from now someone tries to make a 1-line change and is unpleasantly surprised they have to deal with tons of seemingly spurious formatting changes. Not good.

Putting the time of submitting the changes on a small team (mostly me, with approvals from Rob and help from Laurent) was absolutely the right tradeoff. It avoided the "unfunded mandate" and tech debt of making everyone else deal with it.

Update: I found the FAQ we wrote back then. It was very short. These were the last two questions:

Q: Who will update all the existing BUILD files?

A: We will. There are nearly 200,000 of them, and we’ll take care of that. We’re sending CLs out now. If you want to do it yourself, that’s fine: see go/buildifiernow for a tool that can help.

Q: You’re creating a lot more work for me.

A: We are creating significant amounts of work for ourselves, including reformatting all 193,000 BUILD files in google3. For the rest of the engineers in the company, we intend to make the transition as smooth as possible, with integration in Eclipse, Emacs, and Vim, as well as tools like Rosie and GenJsDeps. It is an explicit goal not to create significant work for other engineers. If, as we roll this out, you find that we’ve created noticeable work in your workflow, please let us know so that we can address that.
This looks like such a non issue to be honest. Government branches should have technical and legal capabilities to block domestic and foreign hosts. Legitimate foreign service providers, should either comply with local government, cease operations in that country, or be prepared for war.
My best suggestion is use axoltol to tune, convert to HF format with llama.cpp, and serve with Ollama.
Approval voting with multi member districts.
It’s only cheap if the land is free, transmission costs are free, and your power needs are intermittent. None of those are true in reality.

The “solar is the cheapest form of energy” is a marketing gimmick. If it were true free market forces would already gone 100% solar because the purpose of energy companies is to make money.
> One answers is that this case isn't actually a bad law.

It's censoring DNS. That's a bad precedent. The technical capacity to do it shouldn't exist because otherwise it will be used for every other form of censorship, and deprive democratic countries of any moral or technical authority to object when authoritarian countries want to do it.

It will also be ineffective, leading for calls to make it effective, but the only way to do that is totalitarianism. There is no good that comes from setting out on that road.

> The other answer is that you really don't want big corporations to be ignoring laws they don't like, because odds are pretty good that your list of bad laws doesn't match theirs.

Ignoring the law doesn't get them out of paying the penalty, but penalties are meant to be sane, not some Hollywood accounting nonsense where one person watching one illicit stream of a sporting event causes the event organizers six billion dollars in damages. Then if Cloudflare wants to say "yeah, we're not doing that" and just pay the $100,000 dollar fine, it's clear that they're standing on principle -- they're paying $100,000 in exchange for ostensibly nothing -- and there is nothing wrong with that. The purpose of the penalty is to deter the underlying wrongdoing, not to deter civil disobedience. Anyone should be able to say "I am going to suffer the consequences of this because my principles are worth more than the fine" without having some authoritarians ratchet up the penalty to infinity.

> Countries have sovereignty.

Democratic countries have checks and balances. One of the checks and balances is that if you pass a law people don't respect, they don't respect it. Then you have to choose between punishing not the evildoers, but the principled idealists -- or repealing the law.
I think the main point is that it's trivial for people to circumvent the DNS level block by simply finding new DNS servers (in this case something other than local ISPs, Google, CF etc... still many out there) by asking others or simple googling here and there, and in extreme cases, at a physical level as in the article.
Please tell me about how you once asked ChatGPT to write something for you, saw a mistake in its output, and immediately made your mind up.

I’ve been writing code professionally for a decade. I’ve led the development of production-grade systems. I understand architecture. I’m no idiot. I use Copilot. It’s regularly helpful. and saves time. Do you have a counter-argument that doesn’t involve some sort of thinly veiled “but you’re an idiot and I’m just a better developer than you”?

I don’t by any means think that a current generation LLM can do everything that a software developer can. Far from it. But that’s not what we are talking about.
While I don't disagree with you (and tend to be more of an AI skeptic than enthusiast, especially when it comes to being used for programming), this does weaken the earlier assertion that AI was brought up in response to; "things that have changed in architecture since 2010" is a lot more narrow if you rule out anything that's only come about in the past couple of years by definition due to not having been around long enough to prove longevity.
I find your comment misleadingly pessimistic. It makes more sense to compare ROIs directly (or equivalently, payoff periods) rather than subtracting them and finding a residual payoff period. Just annualize everything (depreciation, inflation) and see which one has a higher ROI.

1. You need to take into account depreciation of the value of the panels. They degrade in performance and eventually will be worthless after about 30 years.

2. You need to take into account inflation against the CD roi (or conversely the /appreciating/ value of the dollar value of the energy produced by the panels). The post-inflation value of the bank CD is going to be about 2% per year. Inflation does not need to be corrected for the solar power option because it produces energy instead of dollars.

(1000/y-8000/30y)/$8000 = 733/8000 = 9.1% depreciation-adjusted ROI from solar panels

5.5% - 3.3% inflation = 2.2% inflation-adjusted ROI from bank CDs.

So solar panels are about a 4x better investment than bank CDs, contrary to your comment where they are somewhat comparable.
It's not IT. It's the "potentially unwanted software" installers they download. There's no way to distinguish a user installing an unsigned addon vs some malware doing so.
It’s only logical a truly clueless man creates a cluelessly designed language.

Sorry but there’s a difference between “a bad man had some clever ideas” and “a stupid man had some clever ideas”. The latter is extraordinarily rare.
That spy team sounds fun to be on. Any advice/reading recommendations to built such a team?
I think that falls under "no".
Please don't FUD.
It's saturday night, in spring, it's really beautiful out. Another year alive. It gives me joy and reminds me to ease off a bit.

In unrelated news, OP was suggesting no 100K file CL, and a presubmit. They were not disputing what the article said. They were suggesting sharding out the initial formatting change to 100K individual CLs.
Good architecture reduces cost of achieving quality.
Are animals conscious? New research
Somebody does it once and now we all have to handle it forever!
> I like that the article calls the ANE the "Apple Apple Neural Engine".

Even better, they say "Apple introduced the..."

I'm pretty sure that makes it Apple's Apple Apple Neural Engine.
Over engineering is the result when you focus too much on “future” needs.
On point.

Do you think its possible to simpify architectures for most if not all involved? If so, how?
This response is entirely tribalist and ignores the differences between LLMs and ‘blockchain’ as actual technologies. To be blunt, I find it hard to professionally respect anyone that buys into these culture wars to the point where it completely overtakes their ability to objectively evaluate technologies. This isn’t me saying that anyone that has written off LLMs is an idiot. But to equate these two technologies in this context makes absolutely no sense to me just from a logical perspective. I.e. not involving a value judgment toward either blockchain or LLMs.
The only reason you’re invoking blockchain here is because the blockchain and LLM fads are often compared / equated in these conversations. Nobody has suggested that blockchain technology be used to assist with the development of software in the way that LLMs are. It simply doesn’t make sense. These are two entirely separate technologies setting out to solve two entirely orthogonal problems. The argument is completely nonsensical.
> rightsholders can demand “all proportionate measures likely to prevent or put an end to this infringement, against any person likely to contribute to remedying it.”

Rightsholder: "Let's see, life insurance payouts are €1M and we are losing at least €50M to these sites, so..."
There is really no point randomising at all, any cycles you spend on it are a total waste - one of the most important properties of a good hash algorithm is that a one bit change in the input should result in an output that's completely unrelated to the previous.

Your random number generator is pretty much equivalent to feeding a counter into SHA256, so using it as input is pretty much equivalent to hashing a counter twice. There's no point!
My notes say it was 193k at the start. The final dashboard when we stopped said "216,626 / 216,890 = 99.8%; 264 to go".

The other correction I would make is that this post does not mention Nilton Volpato, who had written an earlier Buildifier and graciously accepted replacing his implementation with a new one and then taking over ownership for that new implementation as well. (Eventually ownership moved to Laurent's team.)

It looks like it was just under 2,000 commits. We did pretty extensive testing, by having Blaze load a BUILD file and its transitive closure and then dump that parsed form back out to a binary format. Any automated commit had to preserve that parsed-and-dumped binary format bit for bit. The slowest part of the testing was waiting for Blaze to do all the loads.

Every day I would prepare and test as many files as I could, break them into CLs (think PRs), mail Rob a shell script he could run to approve them all, and go to bed. Then I'd get up early in the morning (5am ET) to submit the changes, because there were various cached indexes that got updated when BUILD files got submitted, and it seemed better to send them when not many people would be working.

That scheme worked until a system did fall over and someone got paged, and then after that I agreed to only submit the large changes during business hours. :-)
Well, it is unclear. In a POSIX-y context "filesystem" can refer to

(a) the entire permanent storage system

(b) a particular technology for organizing bits on a storage system

(c) a subset of (a) that has been mount(1)-ed somewhere within (a)

I tend to use (c) most often. No idea what the author or you might do.
I mean this as a genuine comment and not a political non-sequitor but we'll see how it lands. If you think that's a bad idea, can you imagine what Donald J. Trump's wiki page would look like if you allowed 'primary' sources? Or, really, any political figure. Though I think he makes a very good implicit case against allowing that.
Also, sometimes the formatting simply makes reading something messy merely tractable, not aesthetically pleasing.

Once, a product launch depended on me urgently kludging a device driver in Python (long story). And this involved a large hand-maintained mapping table. I wrote it quickly but carefully, and found some formatting that made the table readable enough, without implementing a minilanguage in Python.

But the Black formatter had been rigged to run automatically on commit, so... poof! :)
Sorry it's taking so long to review and for the radio silence on the PR.

We have been trying to figure out how to support more structured output formats without some of the side effects of grammars. With JSON mode (which uses grammars under the hood) there were originally quite a few issue reports namely around lower performance and cases where the model would infinitely generate whitespace causing requests to hang. This is an issue with OpenAI's JSON mode as well which requires the caller to "instruct the model to produce JSON" [1]. While it's possible to handle edge cases for a single grammar such as JSON (i.e. check for 'JSON' in the prompt), it's hard to generalize this to any format.

Supporting more structured output formats is definitely important. Fine-tuning for output formats is promising, and this thread [2] also has some great ideas and links.

[1] https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/text-generation/json...

[2] https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/issues/4218
Note that not all jurisdictions have the concept of "fair use" (use of copyrighted material, regardless of transformation applied, is permitted in certain contexts…ish). Canada, the UK, Australia, and other jurisdictions have "fair dealing" (use of copyrighted material depends on both reason and transformation applied…ish). Other jurisdictions have neither, and only licensed uses are permitted.

Because the companies behind large models (diffusion, LLM, etc.) have consumed content created under non-US copyright laws and have presented it to people outside of US copyright law jurisdiction, they are likely liable for misapplication of fair dealing, even if the US ultimately deems what they have done as "fair use" (IMO this is unlikely because of the perfect reproduction problems that plague them all in different ways; there are likely to be the equivalent of trap streets that will make this clearly copyright violation on a large scale).

It's worth noting that while models like GitHub Copilot "freely" use MIT, BSD (except BSD0), and Apache licensed software, they are likely violating the licenses every time a reasonable facsimile pops up because of the requirement to include copies of the licensing terms for full or partial distribution or derivation.

It's almost as if wholesale copyright violations were the entire business model.
Common Lisp Community Survey 2024
If getting into the weeds, I don't think you can accurately measure wealth creation since any reasonable definition of "wealth" is going to be dependent on utility metrics that vary from person to person. Whether an action net creates or destroys wealth is not even going to be consistent.

Profit, as in dollars in minus dollars out, is much easier to calculate, but only tangentially relates to wealth.

Whether a regulation may prevent it doesn't change the fact that they could generate massive wealth with no one profiting or incurring a loss by distributing it. For the purposes of the thought experiment, assume it already had captions for the remote students for whom it was recorded.

What do you think is nonsensical? That the government (or the Fed under the direction of the government) intentionally pushed down interest rates with a policy of QE? That lowering rates increased the price of existing assets, generating a profit for the owners? Or that this was just inflation, not wealth creation?

In any case, when rates dropped, first thing I did was buy a house, which almost immediately went up by 30% (based on comps). So apparently the reasoning at least had some predictive power. I also made some large stock gains going 100% into the market, but was too timid to use margin to multiply that.

The original comment that you quoted and responded to was criticizing the article for implying that profit generating activity is all that matters (and hence the metric to measure instead of e.g. network deployment), ignoring non-profit activity which is arguably more important.
wouldnt it be more practical to make a PR for llamacpp to replicate what Ollama does well instead?
GPT autonomous generation sans human optimization? Paradigm shiftingly best-in-class next-gen deliverable!