skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Trouble arises in any logical system when we start to make statements on the system itself. As long as there's a strict separation between the target of your logic and the logic itself, you can make it all work out, but recursion is what kills you. To avoid this, many thinkers have come up with a sort of infinite tower of sorts. For example, in ZFC set theory, sets are ordered in cumulative ranks. In theorem proving languages like Coq, Agda, etc, there are a hierarchy of universes. Even Aristotle's four causes can be seen to be a small subset of the infinite hierarchy of cause. It's just the nature of logic.

Similarly, there is a hierarchy of equality at increasing abstraction levels. There's naive equality which is that two things are literally the same. Then there's equality as to the 'class' of objects, and we can even go beyond that talking about equality of equalities (another word for analogies). Most stop there, but you can go on and on and on.

I'm currently interested in homotopy type theory systematizes this notion of varying 'levels' of equality, but it too has issues. It's an open question.

The article does sensationalize a bit because math is just a method of discourse. Equality means different things to different fields, and nothing about this kind of equality means that previous results are wrong.
Repairing an obvious injustice.

The War on Drugs is a war on personal freedom, and the power the state has been given to enact it goes way beyond what any person should see as reasonable.
It's part of the reason why discussions about consciousness often result in people talking past each other, when they start with the assumption that other humans think just like them.
> Look at his emails for [Marjorie Taylor Greene]’s story.

FTFY
In Indian culture, various species were regarded as being on a certain place in a spectrum of consciousness. Vedic literatures regarded even plants as beings who can have feelings. From zero (a rock) to almost 100% (a human) differentiation of species was primarily based on level of consciousness (bodily features as another factor, ofcourse) and interestingly, according to philosophy, selection of a specific species depended on a living entities 'karma', one gets a body with a certain level of consciousness according to the 'good' or 'bad' deeds one does in ones life.
I wonder whether some large asteroid hit the earth and blasted some poor animal into space some millions of years ago...
'Scared as hell': Climate scientists risk jobs, jail to save dying planet
I second Fastmail wholeheartedly. I moved multiple self-hosted (Postfix and Dovecot) environments to Fastmail and haven’t looked back. The only thing I lost was the ability to manually configure an address to bounce back.

Sending and receiving as a wildcard alias is fantastic, and Fastmail allowing that was the reason I finally moved. I held out on that feature for a long time. (You can also do this in Exchange Online if you want to run a convoluted and officially unsupported configuration.)

I only twice had any kind of RBL issues, and one was a motivating factor in moving. I also got tired of worrying about patching and CVEs. I do that enough for my work.
For after effects they offered monthly, monthly with commitment and annual. Same pricing structure as a gym. I guess they need to make it clear but it was clear to me that a cancellation fee applied.
I feel like news has evolved. Just like how we went from newspapers to TV and now to social media. now you want to hear a multitude of different opinions rather than the one just being told to you by the TV. also, their reputation is not very good
Futhark is a statically typed language, so it can’t have the same ambiguity.
The cohort studies around the Dutch Hunger Winter are really interesting but it’s a huge leap to generalize from maternal starvation during gestation have all kinds of effects to some fanciful ideas of inherited trauma writ large.
I can't believe sendmail still exists... worst configuration format ever.
I'd actually say what we did in Futhark is more similar to what Julia does (in the sense that the dot operator is syntactic sugar for Julia's `broadcast`) than what NumPy does---I wrote "NumPy-style" in the title just because I figured that's what most people would be familiar with. A more accurate title might be "Rank-polymorphic function applications in Futhark".

Ultimately it's quite different from both languages, though. Futhark has a strict static type system and we figure out how to broadcast completely statically without runtime information (NumPy and Julia both do it dynamically). This is really the main challenge that the system addresses and it permits you to have broadcasting in an ML/Hindley-Milner/Haskell-style type system along with full type inference and all the usual jazz and goodies.

Our system also doesn't have anything to do with vectorization/performance optimizations---in Futhark, `[1,2,3] + [4,5,6]` is just syntactic sugar for `map (+) [1,2,3] [4,5,6]` (which is how you'd write it without broadcasting), where `map` is already a parallel construct. So broadcasting in Futhark is literally just syntactic sugar for constructs that are inherently parallel, anyway---anything you can express with broadcasting can already be written in stock Futhark and there's no "magic" going on. Broadcasting in Futhark just means that some `map`s can be implicit, rather than explicit.

So it's a very disciplined and transparent (since it's static you can ask the compiler to show you exactly how the broadcasting will work) approach to broadcasting that the user has a lot of control over.

> it’s very important to distinguish between the element-wise application of a function, and a function that is applied to an entire array

Broadcasting in Futhark isn't inherently "element-wise" in the sense of descending through all the ranks of an argument until you get to the scalar level. It tries to actually use the fewest number of `map`s to get a rank-correct function application, so there's a preference for applying a function to higher-dimensional elements over scalars. This might sound non-intuitive/confusing, but it actually almost always aligns with what the programmer intended.

All it really does is use the minimal number of `map`s (and `rep`s) to massage a function and an argument with a rank mismatch into something that makes sense (or is rank correct)---it doesn't even have a notion of scalars, only rank differences!
i don't get the reference
Apple outbids bottom- and mid-tier buyers, and top-tier buyers are extremely finicky about what they're buying: exploits, not vulnerabilities, for reliable bugs, with a variety of additional constraints. Apple and Google will buy exploits top-tier IC buyers won't, with less negotiation and less risk.

The major parties to this market are aware of each other and are calibrating against each other; Apple and Google aren't blowing this off. It's complicated and counterintuitive in a bunch of ways.
When I took Dan Freed's algebraic topology course, one time he asked us if two spaces were the same. Then he looked at us for a moment and said that actually that was a "Bill Clinton question: the answer depends on what the meaning of the word is is".
The Dirty, Deadly Secret Behind Electric Cars [video]
1. Lots of libraries prevent you from submitting multiple queries. It's a good idea to do that in general.

2. If only the second part of my message covered this...
Especially with the word "compass" in the title, I figured they made an accurate map of the earth's magnetic field and would use that to avoid needing any satellites. Then I opened the comment thread...

Come to think of it, the earth's magnetic pole shifts so I guess this isn't possible? Either way, "London Underground tests new dead reckoning system" would have been more accurate it sounds like
Terence Tao wrote a blog post years ago dividing math education into 3 stages: pre-rigourus, rigourus, and post-rigorous. That distinction seems relevent here.

Every mathamatician knows that the integer 1 and the real number 1 different objects [0]. We could make every invocation of a canonical isomorphism explicit, but that would make all of math far too unwieldy to do.

This is the core problem with formal proof verification. Current provers need you to prove things at such a low level that they are simply unwieldy to use. That does not mean we need to reinvent all of math. It means we need to improve formal verification tooling. Maybe we also need to train mathamaticians in formal verification systems. In much the same way that they had to be trained to use computer algebra systems. We didn't reconstruct all of math. We just learned how to work within the limitations of tools when we use those tools.

[0] Unless you go out of your way to construct them to be the same thing. There is not actually any official definition of, for example, what the integer 1 is. Since so many definitions of it are equivalent, that is a fundamentally pointless conversation to have. A few textbook authors need to make a decision for pedalogical purposes. No one else cares.
In this context, Googlers does in fact mean Google employees. The context from the surrounding talk[1] talks about Google's use cases such as concurrency being a key part of the language, etc.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTrP_EmGNmw (quote is at 20:30)
> science didn't admit to a female orgasm, either

Science doesn't admit anything. It is a methodology that is practiced.
It is prototype, right ?

- 25/3.5 lens - 3.5? For not replecable ???

- Minimum focusing distance of 25cms - 90's welcome !

- Shutter speeds from 1/350... - they must be proper crazy... Or vampires :>

And that price for no-electronic-included ??
I gave it some more thought.

I now believe that learning a language like Haskell (or Elm or PureScript) forces you to see your program as pipes that you fuse together.

It's not just functions. Haskell has only expressions and declarations. That means, for example, that you are forced to provide an `else`, when you use `if`. The idea is that you have to keep the data flowing. If a function doesn't provide a meaningful value (so it returns nil, None), you have to handle that explicitly.

And, btw

> Your version differs from mine on that aspect. It passes two unrelated objects.

Those two objects are not unrelated. They have the exact same structure (an attribute named "x"). So they could be considered two values of the same type.
Reasoning by analogy as a substitute for any actual understanding strikes again.
Do you also suspect homicidal money making motives behind Z3, Lean, and F*? It seems more likely to me that they just want some useful knowledge out of these projects that they can integrate into a product that actually sells.
That assumes that once a golden goose dies, there’s an infinite supply of replacements. There’s a reason we’re comparing these companies to a mythical creature after all: if sustainable businesses producing valuable things were easy to create, this website wouldn’t exist.

The thing is, the people who own these companies also happen to live in a word powered by the products they produce. If you kill a bunch of golden geese in pursuit of profits, they will see bigger numbers in their broker accounts, but it’ll be because everything we all use has become scarcer and more expensive.

Sure, the owners will look richer - at least in comparison to everyone else. But would you rather be rich in a world of scarcity? Or middle class in a world of abundance?
> I guess you'd need to look at the performance of Adobe stock compared to eg the S&P500 index.

So why not just comment with exactly this?

Here is a comparison of ADBE and SPY, which ADBE correlates very strongly to SPY, and also in this analysis is AAPL which severly outperformed the SP500:

2003 -> 2013
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&s...

2013 -> 2023
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&s...

See the difference?
I always had sideloaded fly app for mini 2. You can get it directly on the dji website
I think you're completely wrong. It's worse than going around saying stuff, it's publishing that statement on official documents for multiple years.

From the article:

> Yet, Altman has been claiming the chairman title for at least three years in securities filings and a website associated with the AltC Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition corporation, or SPAC, that he registered in 2021.
This is Apple's new goal.

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/services-reven...

And they will need access to all of your data to provide those services.
Embedded Rust Will Always Be Unsafe [video]
I hate the second thought, because not documenting is clearly not stopping people from committing the unreadable code. Instead we get "my code is self-documenting, I'm not going to write documentation".

And as for the third opinion of "the documentation becomes out of date when the code changes", I would prefer slightly incorrect comments to decipher code rather than no comments to decipher code. Doubly so because I can compare the comments to historical revisions.
Ask HN: How to run Piper text-to-speech on a Mac (using Docker)?
Hello HN -

My goal is to have a high-quality open-source text-to-speech engine running on my Mac. Research has led me to evaluate Piper TTS (https://github.com/rhasspy/piper) - the voices sound good, and it can run on a RaspberryPi. There seems to be a blocker in getting it to run directly on a Mac (this person explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQe861JElXc).

So, I've been trying to get Piper to run in a Docker container on my Mac.

I've spent all evening trying to get this to work, and haven't succeeded. I can't seem to get the right incantation of Docker files & compose.yml to get it running.

Who's been able to get Piper running locally in a Docker container, and can you share guidance?

Here are my working notes for Piper & Docker: https://jonathan.rogivue.net/notes/piper-text-to-speech/

Thank you!
"If trends continue, language models will fully utilize this stock between 2026 and 2032" - that will require data centers with their own nuclear reactors (or other power plants) as hinted at by Marc Zuckerberg?
No we aren’t? No idea what you’re even trying to say.
So for me I definitely visualized a ball on a table, but the color wasn’t resolved, if that makes sense. After hearing the question asked it kind of snaps out of superposition into a red color (but there was definitely a color-choosing step that happened after hearing the question).

Same thing happens if you ask “what surface is the table on” or “what country is this image in”. It’s layers I can add to the mental state, but if they’re not important they’re just not there.

I’d say the closest thing to what I was “seeing” before the color question is something like a wireframe, or maybe the gray color of a Blender model without colors/textures applied. Grey in the sense that you don’t really notice it’s grey, you just understand the grey color means color is absent.
Similar. Retail panels can go as low as $0.2/W for the end consumer, so assume that manufacturing costs are $0.1-0.16/W for standard solar panels.

But these are translucent. They'll be put onto windows. So even if they're 50% more expensive, it's serving an adjacent use-case.

The more interesting figure is they're getting 160W/m^2. That's very large, and it'll be a big deal considering there is more vertical surface area than rooftop area on buildings. Standard solar panels get about 220W/m^2.
This thread is about China?
Could brain-like computers be a 'competition killer'?
I would love a program analyzer able to generate a list of magic behaviors:

$ penn-and-teller ~/projects/go
- init() is implicitly called on program start [link to explanation]
- xyz_unix.go() will only be used when compiling to unix [link]
- file.go:20:20 calls a bult-in function [link]
Even general purpose programming languages have this. Java has at least 4 as well:

* Assignment (=)

* Referential equality (==)

* Structural equality (.equals())

* Comparison equality (.compareTo(_) == 0 )
> However, what's true is that if you're arrested, the police won't have to ask Google/Apple/anyone to give them access to your accounts.

> They'll just hold the phone to your face, and get a convenient list of all your accounts and a means to log into them.

As with any password manager installed on your phone. Passkeys don’t claim to solve and are not intended to solve that particular kind of threat.
Also worth nothing that Ryan mentions

> In addition to iterating on the training set, I also did a small amount of iteration on a 100 problem subset of the public test set

and

> it's unfortunate that these sets aren’t IID: it makes iteration harder and more confusing

It’s not unfortunate: generalizing beyond the training distribution is a crucial part of intelligence that ARC is trying to measure! Among other reasons, developing with test-set data is a bad practice in ML because it hides the difficulty this challenge. Even worse, writing about a bunch of tricks that help results on this subset is extending the test-set leakage the blog post's readers. This is why I'm glad the ARC Prize has a truly hidden test set
I think the modern ones are all fine for the basic stuff like that.

For my work, it was the highly detailed low level stuff. Pre-flight checks/profiles, content tree (object level, including text fragment) browsing, flattening, converting, transforming versions, and so on. It was indispensable for some of those operations, working in a printing business where clients would sometimes send in their own problematic PDFs which we'd need to adjust or inspect to find the error.

(Favourite one: a font was embedded in a PDF that mapped a character using // in its name, which was "fine" on PDF, but on the printer's RIP was converted to postscript for one step, and // in postscript precedes an immediately evaluated name so it stopped parsing and tried to look for it and bombed out)
It's a necessary component of this sort of idea, but clearly it's not sufficient. I mean, we have had Russia in war with Ukraine for about a decade now, beginning at the annexation of Crimea, even though they had fairly good trade relations, even if they were hurt once Maidan happened.

I think that one needs strong economic ties, but it seems to only truly work with democratic societies.
iirc a lot of Intel chips (12th gen+ esp) can be slightly undervolted to achieve better power efficiency and lower temperatures with negligible impact to clock speeds. particularly useful on laptops, mini PCs, and desktops that spend a lot of time at idle.
It’s a battery powered portable device. Wouldn’t it have better battery life and being lighter - ie better portability - be kind of important?

Also a “laptop” computer that doesn’t fry your reproductive organs when working on your lap is an obvious metric.
I will never understand why anybody gave a shit about this "not for thee" thing. I get being irritated that the language didn't have generics! I didn't care, but the complaint made sense. But the language having a small, capped number of useful generics seems to me, as a normie, as a good thing. It was always weird that people personalized this.
What Game Are You Playing?
Adobe doesn’t primarily sell products, Adobe primarily rents its products to consumers. Adobe is a literal actual real world example of a rent seeking company.
There seems to be a perception in big companies that if you're not pissing off your customers enough to drive them away, you're leaving money on the table. So there's this constant pseudo-optimizer running to get the maximum profit possible.

Thank you Harvard Business School.
Credit where credit's due please,

https://oversight.house.gov/subcommittee/full-committee/

MTG couldn't have done it w/out Gym Jordan, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar et al taking timeout from Beetlejuice and important work promoting other conspiracy theories.
As one of the high school geometers of all time, I was always rather partial to ≅ which we used for congruence. I'm happy to share it with other mathematicians if they'll agree to keep their mitts off of ":=".
news as transformed from reporting facts and the events that happened to speculating about what might happen and allowing pundits to say just about anything

It's become so tribal and bias reinforcing, the internet broke their financial model and they decided to focus on negative, rage inducing content
I too use go + fiber + htmx.

> mini framework for adding some structure to the templates

Would be good to read little more about this mini-framework
Which saves on labor and land use costs, which is why it's a big deal.
Comparing ads in content to smoking is some truly iffy, shaky "science". Conjecture more like it.

And finding a means of funding for content is not bad thing even if it involves a conflict of interest. You're painting it as if it were some sort of nefarious activity when in reality it consists of "here's our content, much of it is authentic, verifiably useful (people want it after all and keep reading) and also, we make money off these very visible ads right here. If anything, it's a better model than internally recommending things in content in a dishonest way.

What's more, compared to instead handing that content and those eyeballs over to Google, the top monster itself of online ads, dark patterns and gamed suggestions, it's the much better option.

Your underlying narrative seems to be that people trying to use their efforts at content online to make money is somehow inherently morally wrong, and that's absurd. It's particularly ridiculous when, as in this case, the alternative is a colossal advertising/tech corporation essentially stealing that content to suck away views from these much tinier sites.
I don't know what you mean, it's a straightforward analogy, but yes, that's right, except for the part where he's heralding this news by telling people the LLM is an underexplored solution space for a possible solution to his AGI benchmark he made to disprove LLMs are AGI.

I don't mean to offend, but to be really straightforward: he's the one saying it's possible they might be AGI now. I'm as flummoxed as you, but I think its hiding the ball to file it under "he doesn't mean what he's saying, because he doesn't believe LLMs can ever be AGI." The only steelman for that is playing at: AGI-my-benchmark, which I say is for AGI, is not the AGI I mean
That has been a solved problem for decades.

The hard part is doing that during re-entry.
In my previous role an Adobe representative attempted to bribe me with a free personal Creative Cloud subscription if I dropped my attempt to cancel a bunch of company licences. Horrifying practices, I hope they get enough of a fine to force real change.
I don't know how OpenAI can be blamed on this. Isn't your profit-driven boss the root cause?
Realistically, you can’t use the software forever anyway unless you’re planning on never upgrading your computer.
Whatever else you think this is doing, it is conflating two very different situations:

1. Someone gets good at solving a certain kind of problem and decides to find more of those problems to solve after the first successes. Like someone who saves a life and decides to become a paramedic.

2. Someone who gets good at solving a problem and keeps refusing to believe that the problem is solved, becoming ever more picky. Like someone who saves a life and then stalks that person, nagging them about doet and exercise.

I don’t see that the first one is a “syndrome.” It’s perfectly reasonable for the March of Dimes to adopt a new cause.