skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I exclusively use Firefox and I don't have major issues with YouTube. I don't know about the other stuff. However, from what I gather, Google often does A/B testing, so different sessions may get served different versions of the same website, and I do see this often. Because of that, sometimes it's hard to pin down where it's breaking.

Edit to add: To clarify and be more specific, I watched a live stream on YouTube recently and it seemed to work fine.
Ah an 83, a wonderful vintage.
How much will a rich person benefit if they are able to empathise better with poor people who are struggling, and hating them? Maybe that's why they are less emotionally intelligent. They have no incentive to be different. They usually don't make money from something that requires emotional intelligence either (some do, like lawyers, and i'm sure they are just fine on those metrics) - but most rich these days are doing something very isolated and shady where they benefit from seeing people as objects or "data points".

Maybe it's also a matter of selection. It happened to me hear from people that if i had better empathy i won't succeed in software outsourcing, and i think they are right.
I doubt that it's drones causing those issues. More likely it's the poor environmental practices carried out in Turkey. Turkey is a truly beautiful country, but most of the natural beauty is falling to disuse as the government prioritizes other industry, of course with a massive dollop of corruption on the side.
Human flight, resurrection (cardiopulmonary resuscitation machines), doubling human lifespans, instantaneous long distance communication, all of these things are simply pipe dreams.
I hate all this nonsense. Just the idea that culture is a thing to be created, as if people are blank templates to be filled up on a mediocre manager's whim.

However - content aside - I actually liked the page layout. I liked the clickable, table of contents thing on the side, that disappears if the page is narrow. This sort of presentation of text is really nice, imo.
Then click service like "Easy containers" and look at screenshots provided and then there is one having "Expert" tab - they don't provide screenshot of that and I bet there are at least 10 checkboxes.

Most likely if you are an expert you already have one liner ready to configure "Expert" stuff and you don't want to click checkboxes.
This is a pretty simplistic understanding of how modern art/content markets work. Michelangelo got paid to produce images that promoted certain power structures and individuals (the Medici, the Catholic Church, etc.) and not just because his benefactors wanted to create beautiful objects.

Creators get paid for drawing attention to something via the content they create. No one watches them because they are promoting VPN ads. This is not substantially different from a Renaissance artist creating a painting that promotes Catholicism.

If anything, the fact that modern creators are funded in ways explicitly and obviously "separate" from their creative work would imply that the work itself is less bound by patron requirements and more by the (more pure) currency of attention.

In other words, if a creator today made a video in the same manner as a Renaissance painter did, we would likely interpret it as "shilling" or somehow lacking in artistic authenticity.
"while being a lot faster", yes; but something that LLMs do that those other tools don't is being hilariously approachable.

LLMs can operate as a very, very *very* approachable natural language processing model without needing to know all the gritty details of NLP.
>Many people in the industry are just selling snake oil

We have always been selling snake oil - its just the inexperienced and those who have never shipped anything of any value to the world that feel that the snake oil is where the buck stops - but those of us who have shipped tons of snake oil know that eventually that oil congeals and becomes an essential substance in the grinding wheels of industry.

Which this wanker (Disclaimer: Australian, can use it if I wanna, since I know a lot about snakes, too..) seems to not have fully understood yet, as there is a great deal of evidence to support the fact that their experience is mostly academic, and hasn't actually resulted in anything being shipped.

Academics seem too often to forget that software is a service industry and in such a context, snakes and oil are very definitely par for the course.

Nobody cares if you implemented the important bits all by yourself - what are your USERS doing with it? Oh, you don't have actual users? Then please STFU and let the snake wranglers get on with it ..
(2022)

Some discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33131195
Do I read you correctly, in that the bank in effect foreclosed your home due to a policy change since it had a straw roof?
"So, when will you be updating yourself to not provide the same wrong answer in future, or when I ask it later in a new session"

"No."
I can confirm that. 10tb uncompressed, 3tb compressed in clickhouse, 60 billion Rows, queries are fast.
AGI does look like an unsolved problem right now, and a hard one at that. But I think it is wrong to think that it needs an AGI to cause total havoc.

I think my dyslexic namesake Prof Stuart Russell got it right. It humans won't need an AGI to dominate and kill each other. Mosquitoes have killed far more people than war. Ask yourself how long will it take us to develop a neutral network as smart as a mosquito, because that's all it will take.

It seems so simple, as the beastie only has 200,000 neurons. Yet I've been programming for over 4 decades and for most of them it was evident neither I nor any of my contemporaries were remotely capable of emulating it. That's still true if course. Never in my wildest dreams did it occur to me that repeated applications could produce something I couldn't, a mosquito brain. Now that looks imminent.

Now I don't know what to be more scared of. An AGI, or a artificial mosquito swarm run by Pol Pot.
The only way to help people struggling with income is to lower their income taxes.

That forces them to still be productive members of society instead of supporting populist handouts that are not sustainable once the ball gets rolling and corporations move out.
> who dedicate huge teams of highly paid people to ensuring children get addicted to their platforms

one word: corruption. there's no solution for it because it's a matter of character. now I've spent quite some time in school and university with people who now work for criminal police, police, governments, media, and I know that some of them, if not most, shouldn't be trusted withe safety of other peoples' children. and i also know that some of them absolutely will sell data collected through scanning children's messages and I also know that there's plenty of people in psychology, again, I know some, who would absolutely use said data for therapeutic experiments, marketing campaigns, and so on just to see what can be done with people. this shit has been going for decades in different segments of the population. so we absolutely must establish strong encryption practices wherever we can, especially for children, who's future is still in development, who are learning to be productive and constructive, however long it may take. even more data points for those who already fucked up with what they collected in the past is a bad idea and it's not a matter of competence, these guys are good, it's a matter of character, these guys need to tend to different desires, but they have been "set up" to be what they are now and they are spreading and applying that shit more and more systematically now.
That's not exactly how it works. The satellite operator will be taking paid orders to scan over specific areas of the earth, about 4km in width or so.

So you have to have a pretty good idea where the carrier is, and then you get an image delivered with some latency as the satellite will need to pass over a ground station that downlinks the data.

So it isn't free (although umbra has a CC BY 4.0 license for their data, much more permissive than other providers. Nor is it easy to search huge amounts of the ocean for the carrier.

What most entities probably do is tip and cue, which is use a sensor with coarser resolution to get an approximate location and then use a sensor with finer resolution to look closer.
Sorry, saw this only now. The author is assuming that the spherical shell is a topological defect in some Higgs-like field. Generally speaking, if the coupling constant(s) of a field are large compared to gravity, it's reasonable to ignore gravity when looking for solutions to its equations of motion (just like you usually ignore gravity while doing electric engineering). Once you find one, you can switch on gravity and verify that it still holds. In the case at hand, it's all conjecture, since the author just assumes existence of a suitable solution.
It doesn’t answer my question though. What do we get, as member of a society, if one or two companies get to be huge and become monopolies? What’s the societal benefit of that?

I also don’t think regulations like these cripple innovation. They make it harder to compete against more unregulated markets, that’s for sure, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing overall.
I'm sure you don't mean this, but it sounds a lot like you are saying that it is a child's fault when they get sexually abused and don't tell anyone about it.

That happens all the time to children, they are groomed both offline and online. It's a real problem, and it isn't going to be solved by saying we just need smarter children.
Dangerous weapons are not inherently unsafe.

Take a Glock, for example. It is a deadly weapon, designed for one thing and one thing alone. It is, however, one of the safest machines ever built.
This kind of complaint about GNOME is pretty common. I'm actually kind of surprised GNOME is the default for so many high profile distros despite the controversial UX.

That said, I personally find vanilla GNOME pretty easy to use. It only took me a day or so to get used to not having things like a taskbar. If you use the hot corner (which is also hated), you can switch to any open app with one mouse click just like with a taskbar.

So either I'm an alien, or people are more adaptable than they give themselves credit for, and will go impressive lengths to not adapt (e.g. making a taskbar for a desktop that's perfectly usable without one).
> This was a discussion about how OpenAI’s base of 400k is unique within the context of a TCO in the 800-900k range.

That's not how I interpret the conversation.

I see a claim that 900k is a BS number, a counterargument that many big AI companies will give you 400k of that in cash so the offers are in fact very hot, then a claim that only finance offers 400k cash, and a claim that netflix offers 400k cash.

I don't see anything that limits these comparisons to companies with specific TCOs.

Even if the use of the word "base" is intended to imply that there's some stock, it doesn't imply any particular amount of stock. But my reading is that the word "base" is there to say that stock can be added on top.

You're the one being pedantic when you insist that 400k cash is not a valid example of 400k cash base.

Notice how the person being replied to looked at the Netflix example and said "Okay that's true". They know what they meant a lot better than you do.
I'm not suggesting that we should break crypto to keep kids safe, I'm suggesting that we shouldn't let kids be on the internet at all. Society doesn't let kids vote, doesn't let kids buy alcohol or tobacco, doesn't let them drive or join the army, and doesn't let them watch 18-rated films.

I remember being a teenager.

I remember the valuable life-lesson we got about not trusting strangers in the form of the police creating a (safe) demonstration with one of their own plain-clothed officers pretending to be a villain, I remember subsequently making huge errors of judgement, and I remember others being far more trusting than me.

I remember the school anti-drugs campaign centred on Leah Betts, and that the way the teachers talked to us felt so patronising that I wanted to do drugs just to spite them. (Never acted on it, just wanted to).

I remember the art department computer, some very old attempt at security to stop kids messing with it, which I could trivially circumvent.

I remember when we got ISDN at school, and that I immediately started heavily using the internet whenever possible. They had content filters of course, but they were mediocre at best.
Yeah, doesn't get much more obvious.
Proprietary charging cables lead to more e-waste, which is a public externality as well.
GP mentality is prevalent and the reason why the "big ball of mud" article and the "worse is better" blog post are so relevant. People don't want to understand computers and computation they just want to get some stuff done. Companies just want to put out a product. They never seem to realize that following their noses and not thinking too much about the underlying tools is what landed us with this mess of ever changing, overly complex frameworks and nightmarish levels of insecurity increasingly surrounding more and more critical infrastructure.
If it is sufficiently intelligent, then it will be able to arrange the hooking up of machine guns just via chat. You seem to fail to note that superintelligence has an inherent value prop. It can use its better understanding of the world to generate value in a near vacuum, and use that value to bribe, coerce, blackmail, and otherwise manipulate whatever humans can read its output.

Imagine a chatbot that can reward people with becoming a billionaire via the stock market if you just do what it says. Imagine a chatbot that can pay your colleagues in solved bitcoin block hashes to kill your children if you don’t do what it says to connect it to more systems. Imagine a superintelligence that can inductively reason about gaps in a missile defense system and dangle that informational carrot to generals in exchange for an unfiltered ethernet port.

There is a great A24 movie called
“Ex Machina” that explores this concept.

Superintelligence is inherently dangerous to the human status quo. It may be impossible to develop it “safely” in the sense that most people mean by that. It may also be impossible to avoid developing it. This might be the singularity everyone’s been talking about, just without the outcome that everyone hoped for.
This kind of makes sense, but to me, in a post-9/11 world, the US military would definitely be scrambling whatever they have to track a rogue airliner that's gone completely dark, yet is still verifiably flying (sat pings).
Prior Covid infection may protect against common cold
Just going through your last paragraph; the logical implication of getting angry about any of that is either living in a state of ignorance or getting angry all the time. Either of those options is far inferior to just taking note of what is happening and calmly suggesting some improvements or working to make things better when the opportunity arises.

And these issues are just minor compared to all the terrible stuff that happens routinely. If we're ranking issues from most to least important things like "you need a mobile phone owned by a duopoly to authenticate yourself to your bank" are just so far down it is laughable (the wry type, like "why do I even care"). The fact that you need a bank at all is a far more crippling issue. Let alone all the war, death, cruelty and disinterest in suffering that is just another day in a big world.
>humour

The word you should have used is authoritarianism, which this writer has, alas, in spades.

Your users are more important than your sense of self worth, in this industry.

Nobody ships ego. We ship working software: to users who find it valuable.
I'm a Data Scientist currently consulting for a project in the Real Estate space (utilizing LLMs).
I understand the article is hyperbole for perhaps comedic purposes, and actually do perhaps 80% align with a lot of the authors views, but it's a bit much.

There is industry-changing tech which has become available, and many orgs are starting to grasp it. I won't deny that there's probably a large percentage of projects which fall under what the author describes, but these claims are doing a bit of a disservice to the legitimately amazing projects being worked on (and the competent people performing that work).
> Compare with Linux, which was adopted extensively by corporations, and forced to give back.

I don't think Linux's success has as much to do with license as it has to do with Linus Torvalds. Very few developers can work on one project for 30 years straight making respectable engineering decisions for the entire run. And even fewer delegate well. Both of which Linus seems to have managed. If anything, corporations seem to use Linux despite the GPL, because it has collected the best hardware support of any of the Free / Libre OS options.

> We see new research and novel ideas coming to Linux first.

Linux still has no great GPL'd answer to ZFS. Linux adopted the Berkley Packet Filter, which has become infrastructure for an ever increasing number of subsystems in the kernel. Linux's tracing infrastructure is finally about feature parity with Dtrace, though it's still not quite as easy to use. The list goes on. Certainly many great things have been pioneered in Linux as GPL'd code as well, which is great. Your view just seems to be a little biased.

I don't have any problem with your choices about how you license your code. Everyone gets to do what they want. I can only say that the folks I've worked with don't bat an eye at MIT or BSD or Apache licensed dependencies, but know to ask about the GPL and avoid. That's about the extent of it. In my experience they do not even consider licensing under different terms - probably because it's only possible with carefully curated code in which there's only ever been one contributor, or every contributor has signed a CLA allowing the lead developer to relicense.

> Looking back over history

I think one has to be careful about grand narratives. They often leave out crucial details while painting a version of things as we want them to have happened, as opposed to the messy haphazard way things tend to happen. Hindsight is 20:20, but rose colored glasses can still throw it off.
Did anybody else expect this to be in a glass bottle? Maybe I've had one too many :D
Phased array antennas are indeed usable antennas for radar purposes and many modern radars use them. That said just having a suitable antenna is not enough for having a radar system, you also need sophisticated equipment for both transmitting powerful enough pulses and receiving the (extremely weak) reflections. The power of the reflections drops with the fourth power of the distance to the target. From a quick look at the starlink satellites I very much doubt they could effectively function as a radar system. There's just not enough solar panels to power a big radar on there.

Background: I used to be an weapons engineering officer working on future radar systems back in my Navy days.
It's not just demos though. It's that the final 10% of any project, which largely consists of polishing, implementing feedback, ironing out bugs or edge cases, and finalization and getting to a point where it's "done" can end up taking as much effort as what you needed to complete the first 90% of the project.
Not really. We have a very small minority of them in picturesque areas that are extremely poor because making rice terraces is a last resort thing in poor farming areas.

The overwhelming majority of the rice comes from the Mekong and Red River Deltas which are, like all deltas, extremely flat.
Unfortunately, driving and enforcing ("softly" or "hard") a team charter is harder than publishing a short README telling how to best communicate with you.
Sega had basically the same service several years earlier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Channel
Why is anyone honestly providing useful information a moron?

At least if the "PUM" is in private context.
> a feature from other OS

From virtually every other OS for the past 25 years. That is reason enough to support it.
I would probably say it's impossible to tell so both are equal in that security regard.

I would say other things like tracking for example poses a higher security risk and for that reason makes Firefox the safer choice. But you have other browsers that builds on their engines like Librewolf and similar that are even safer.
Can we drink it?
Like, they know to skirt traffic on Mopac via the clever use of service roads? And hopping off Mopac at 24th to slide along Pease Park?
Unequivocally false. A sole copyright holder is not bound by license terms in the same way as parties to whom the work is being licensed.
Apple didn't reject X, they acquired NeXT, which much earlier chose Display Postscript over X11 since Jobs was big on wysiwyg. The paperless office, promised decades ago, is finally here and with that wysiwyg a demand of the past. X had many competitors and outlived them all.
> (close enough to a city though)

Well that is a problem. I dunno why small town or village grocery stores worked perfectly fine until syddenly they started to close down one by one.

There has to be some oligopolly or something at play.
Cryptographers' Feedback on the EU Digital Identity's ARF
Further, my team’s mail list spans people working from IST through PT (13.5 hours). If everyone works a local 9-5*, there is no moment when mail to that list (or a post to our slack channel) won’t hit someone “off hours”.

* Or anything even close to that…

Throttle on input.
> In F, everything is a function from triples of (environment;stack;queue) to triples of (environment;stack;queue).

I dabble with compiler-writing, and one of the techniques there is to program an abstract machine. It fills a nice niche - it's a bit more concrete than hacking together an interpreter over your AST, and a lot less concrete than writing out LLVM instructions.

Some examples are Krivine machines and SECD machines (which stands for Stack, Environment, Control, Dump).

They let you play around with ideas before you commit to a particular semantics of your language, for instance, whether you'll pass by value or reference, via the stack, or via the heap.

But exposing (e;s;q) directly to the programmer is a fascinating idea! If I'm thinking about it right, it means a programmer could write code to take a parameter which was passed in via the stack, and decide "No I think this should be on the heap instead" and then update all pointers in the program accordingly.
I'm literally buying an overpriced apartment in the Netherlands right now because I know that the population is only going to keep growing while housing supply will stay limited, so if I keep it 20 years and sell then, I'm going to be fucking rich and I'll just retire to a small town in a poor country with fast internet. The fact that I'm massively overpaying right now doesn't matter.
The Google Cloud web interface is horribly slow for me in Firefox. For instance, while filtering logs, it can take a few seconds for my keystrokes to show up. This is the only website I've noticed performing poorly like this.
> The party that's about to lose will use any extrajudicial means to reclaim their victory,

How will the party about lose know they are about to lose?

> regardless of the consequences, because their own destruction would be imminent otherwise.

Why would AGI solve things using destruction?
Consider how the most inteligent among us view our competition with other living beings. Is destruction the goal? So why would an even more intelligent AGI have that goal?
If you're willing to include Chrome forks then I'd say Brave is, despite the issues surrounding their love for crypto, more secure than Chrome, and it has much better anti-fingerprinting if you care about that.