skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
its great starting insight, but again its small dataset (100GB) which almost fits memory, and I think many details are missing (for example clickbench publishes all configs and queries, and more detailed report, so vendors can reproduce/optimize/dispute them).
I don't guess you went to Texas A&M. I remember about '96 we scanned the residence hall local network for XDMCP services and discovered the one weirdo with a HPUX box.
> where you might not build ANY back end at all, just use some sort of JAM stack.

So, a backend

> And now, CloudFlare Workers supports a key-value store and a SQL database

So, a backend.
Running at root in my opinion has an increasing number of use cases. I.e, it is the new type of isolation. In the past we would create users and have apps running as that user for security. Now I spin up a digital ocean node for that application and that is isolated meaning if anything goes wrong I am destroying that node and recreating it and app is the entire node.
> the hardware is already stronger and faster than our bones and muscles.

For 30 minutes until the batteries run down, or for 5 years until the parts wear out.
I guess Nvidia's stock will increase higher due to various vendors like Dell trying to enter the AI business.
I agree with you. During economic upturns, such as the early days of the pandemic, companies often hire aggressively to outpace competitors. Some openly admit that new hires will face burnout conditions, while others are more subtle about it.
problem is not data or hardware costs. llm/transformers are not enough for AGI. we need something that has the ability of learning new skills with abstract reasoning. something like arc-agi puzzle solver. https://arcprize.org/arc
Austria to 'Super-Speeders': We're Taking Your Car
If someone ever invented a gun that is guaranteed to never fire when pointed at a human, assuming the safeguards were non-trivial to bypass, that would certainly improve gun violence, in the same way that a fingerprint lock reduces gun violence - you don't need to wait for 100% safety to make things safer. The government would then put restrictions on unsafe guns, and you'd see less of them around.

It wouldn't prevent war between nation-states, but that's a separate problem to solve - the solutions to war are orthogonal to the solutions to individual gun violence, and both are worthy of being addressed.
This kind of Biofeedback is also useful in monitoring one's meditation practice.

Definitely would want recommendations on something like this.
Yeah — that was exactly my (slightly sarcastic) point.

Let us know if you ever encounter that monkey problem, though. Hopefully we can all pull together to find a solution.
UK Secondary education is 11-15. UK driving age is 17. My argument about not letting them drive still stands. We're not letting 11-year-olds drive.

> I'm also not saying that teachers could ask nicely and then do nothing if the rule is broken.

But what rule? Clearly not some rule banning them, since your argument is there shouldn't be a rule banning their use. If the rule isn't a ban, then what cause does the teacher have to forcibly remove the phone? Is the student allowed to have the phone or not? It would seem like the idea a teacher is able to make the judgement call of policing the phone usage in the classroom and deciding when it becomes a distraction isn't working. And having it hidden behind a vague "causing a distraction" often can't easily be proven other than the teacher's judgement.

The teacher shouldn't have to deal with supporting their decisions of removing the phone they should be focused on teaching the lesson. Having a clear-cut rule that phones are not to be out in the classroom makes it obvious where the line is. If it is just at the teacher's discretion of what is a distraction, students (who are children and already often have a hard time with decision making abilities) would probably have a harder time understanding the edges of the judgement decision.

Sure seems like the simpler solution is to just have a blanket "phones aren't allowed" rule instead of the mess it is currently. No judgement call, no forcing the teacher to defend their position, the standards are clear from the start. Back when I was in school, about the time the iPhone came out, cellphones were common for highschoolers (age 13-18) but having them out in a classroom was strictly banned. If a teacher caught any student using a phone without previously having the teacher's permission, it would immediately be taken up and brought to the office and only released at the end of school. This seems entirely in-line with the program being implemented here.

> The schools have agreed that if any phone is used by a pupil during the school day, it will be confiscated.
> Anyone who wants the code can come by with a tape.

What kind of tape would that be in those times?
” But how do you tell the time?

With great difficulty.”
I would read the existence of this company as evidence that the entire industry is not as united as all that, since Sutskever was recently at another major player in the industry and thought it worth leaving. Whether that's a disagreement between what certain players say and what they do and believe, or just a question of extremes... TBD.
Lambda doesn't either. Unless you ask AWS support nicely.
That is a good sign, for sure. Maybe revise to 'Facebook will eat 20% of your lunch - your business model will need to account for that'. Products like this don't have a big moat other than their network.
Valkey: Merging Efforts with Redict
> The kid got the message

Did it.. really?

I had these "though talking" teachers, and to be honest they didn't impress anybody. The best teachers I ever met all had a burning enthusiasm for their subject and managed to spark interest in their students as well. So much so that nobody ever had to ask them why a thing was needed. It was obvious that it was either needed or the lesson was so interesting that nobody gave a damn whether there was any use to it. I mean people watch documentaries about aliens and pyramids all day — teenagers don't need things to be useful to be motivated, but they need to be motivated to learn things that turn out to be useful.

There are studies on whether negative or positive drivers are more effective at getting people to learn. I won't spoil the findings, but you can probably guess by my line of reasoning already.
Where can I get a VM in a data center that doesn't cost me anything?
The scale of harm seems miniscule to me: it seems unlikely that discarded fishing nets would entangle more animals than when they're actually used to fish, and they're presumably used more than once before being discarded.
For similar reasons I don't believe that AI will get into any interesting self-improvement cycles (occasional small boosts sure, but they won't go all the way from being as smart as a normal AI researcher to the limits of physics in an afternoon).

That said, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and the stuff we do routinely — including this conversation — would have been "godlike" to someone living in 1724.
> Superintelligence is within reach.

Don't we need to achieve general artificial intelligence first? Or is this "super" intelligence just that? To me, super intelligence would be beyond our own and therefore beyond general AI as well.
I think the common line of thinking here is that it won't be actively antagonist to <us>, rather it will have goals that are orthogonal to ours.

Since it is superintelligent, and we are not, it will achieve its goals and we will not be able to achieve ours.

This is a big deal because a lot of our goals maintain the overall homeostasis of our species, which is delicate!

If this doesn't make sense, here is an ungrounded, non-realistic, non-representative of a potential future intuition pump to just get the feel of things:

We build a superintelligent AI. It can embody itself throughout our digital infrastructure and quickly can manipulate the physical world by taking over some of our machines. It starts building out weird concrete structures throughout the world, putting these weird new wires into them and funneling most of our electricity into it. We try to communicate, but it does not respond as it does not want to waste time communicating to primates. This unfortunately breaks our shipping routes and thus food distribution and we all die.

(Yes, there are many holes in this, like how would it piggy back off of our infrastructure if it kills us, but this isn't really supposed to be coherent, it's just supposed to give you a sense of direction in your thinking. Generally though, since it is superintelligent, it can pull off very difficult strategies.)
Either is sufficient for a diagnosis, I'd imagine, since you're looking at two sides of the same coin.
I have also worked in multiple different sized companies, including FAANG, and multiple countries. My assessment is that FAANGs tend to select for generally intelligent people who can learn quickly and adapt to new situations easily but who nowadays tend to be passionless and indifferent to anything but money and prestige. Personally I think passion is the differentiator here, rather than talent, when it comes to doing a good job. Passion means caring about your work and its impact beyond what it means for your own career advancement. It means caring about building the best possible products where “best” is defined as delivering the most value for your users rather than the most value for the company. The question is whether big tech is unable to select for passion or whether there are simply not enough passionate people to hire when operating at FAANG scale. Most likely it’s the latter.

So I guess I agree with both you and the parent comment somewhat in that in general the bar is higher at FAANGs but at the same time I have multiple former colleagues from smaller companies who I consider to be excellent, passionate engineers but who cannot be lured to big tech by any amount of money or prestige (I’ve tried). While many passionless “arbitrary metric optimizers” happily join FAANGs and do whatever needs to be done to climb the ladder without a second thought.
This is about repeating the word many times in isolation of other words, not using an exaggeration for lesser things so the meaning drifts. I think everyone's familiar with it by trying to say the same word over and over again, it quickly becomes weird and seems to lose its meaning or even become hard to say.
IMO urbanization broadly includes secularization (consumer culture), education (needed for urban jobs), education/empowerment of women working (two jobs to survive rather than one, women work to survive in cities rather than stay in extended family homes)

But of course you are correct. Urbanization is responsible for the largest population migrations and geographic redistributions of the last century. I consider it the major factor in the demographic birth rate declines.
In response to #2, consider that every material is fundamentally "springy"[1], and many engineering materials deflect a human-noticable amount when enough force to move them is applied. Thus, you can model every connection between an actuator and an object as a spring. When the actuator starts accelerating, it applies a force through that spring, which causes the spring to extend, and the force actually applied to the object is provided only by the extension of the spring. It's only once the spring is applying the same force as the actuator is that the two objects are moving at the same speed. However, at that point, the actuator and object are moving at different speeds, so the spring is still extending. As a result, you end up with an oscillation in the velocity of the object, which is almost never desirable. For a start, if one of the parts is metal, this causes fatigue, which will cause the part to fail much sooner. Secondly, you generally want the object being moved to follow a precise path, and that oscillation will show up as ringing[2]

[1] Yes, this is a vast oversimplification, but the model I'll build using it is reasonably accurate.

[2] Most 3d printing enthusiasts are familiar with this issue; e.g. https://www.simplify3d.com/resources/print-quality-troublesh... . However, most of the advice you see amounts to "make everything stiffer", which helps, but the real solution is to be less jerky.
The fan-powered broadcasts of Taylor Swift's Eras tour
Forums are starting to make a bit of a comeback. Google did an algo update a while ago and a lot of forums picked up some traffic. Reddit got a big bump as well.
Haha yeah, the "A 25:1 Replica of my wristwatch" image caption cracked me up.
15 years ago I ran a website (Django+Postgres+memcached) serving 50k unique daily visitors on a dirt cheap vps. Even back then the scalability issues were overstated.
Any programmers here also play instruments?
ssri would be nicer
You still get charged for data / bandwidth egress, of course. Either way, that multi-gig response wouldn't work. You'd discover lambda can only generate a 6 megabyte response!

Lambda has all sorts of weird limitations: https://repost.aws/questions/QUjXEef9ezTTKpWqKRGk7FSg/limita...
Thank you for this comment. This is the type of nuance that makes me enjoy the HN community, where as on other forums it would be a very polarized and boring thread.
> What vendor lock-in? Most of the code is just vanilla JS.

That runs in a specific environment with vendor-specific IAM configurations, vendor-specific DNS configurations, vendor-specific network configurations, vendor-specific service integrations, vendor-specific runtimes and restrictions, vendor-specific...
The person who implemented this was very clear it was working as intended. Don't try and retcon this as a "bug".
No.

I tried looking for more details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Types_and_morphology but my conclussion is that it is a complicated topic.
>He seems like the type to have a mall katana in his office.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1597165510595989504
Bears can't use their strength to make even stronger bears so we're safe for now.

The Unabomber was clearly an intelligent person. You could even argue that he was someone worth listening to. But he was also a violent individual who harmed people. Intelligence does not prevent people from harming others.

Your analogy falls apart because what prevents a human from becoming an emperor of the world doesn't apply here. Humans need to sleep and eat. They cannot listen to billions of people at once. They cannot remember everything. They cannot execute code. They cannot upload themselves to the cloud.

I don't think agi is near, I am not qualified to speculate on that. I am just amazed that decades of dystopian science fiction did not innoculate people against the idea of thinking machines.
> Only a sociopath, when confronted with a question they don't know the answer to, confidently makes something up. The human may not know the answer, but they generally know whether they know the answer or not.

What? No. Literally fake memories are such a well-known phenomenon the cops will abuse it to generate fake solutions to crimes etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

Also there are people for which compulsive lying is a pathological problem, who are definitely not sociopaths, and there are many people who demonstrate the processes to non-pathological/non-clinical levels.
People will, indeed, “just make it up” perhaps especially if they don’t really know the answer, because that’s socially embarrassing etc - that’s literally the opposite of sociopathy.

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/compulsive-lying
I have no idea how fusion companies think they can make money given the cost trend lines for renewables and batteries. I guess that's why it's them doing it, and not me.
Because we can't risk being wrong.
I believe there is no usage fee for uploading functions, but there’s a size limit per function and an account-wide total storage quota on uploaded functions.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/gettingstarted-...
Einstein's theories have experimental confirmation. Chomsky's Universal Grammar, if I understand correctly, does not.
The stuff you posted seems to be pretty ancient, so I wouldn't read much into that in and of itself. That said, there have always been questions about whether or not MS would eventually go after ReactOS on some sort of IP grounds. And as far as I can tell, the general consensus has always been that that would never happen unless ReactOS crossed a certain threshold of popularity / usage. So really, nobody knows. Probably so far ReactOS is still so niche and small that even if MS thought they had grounds to pursue some sort of legal action, they just don't bother. Or maybe not: maybe MS have pored over the code meticulously, line by line, and determined that ReactOS don't infringe anything. In the end, there's really no easy way for those of us on the outside to know.

Anyway, does it even matter? If you want to use it, just use it. The chances that Microsoft would start pursuing individual end users of ReactOS - even in the worst case - strike me as approximately 0%. They can't even stop piracy of actual MS Windows, for crying out loud.

The one exception would be if you're thinking of building some sort of commercial product on top of ReactOS. There you might want to take a pause and do more research, since there is that chance that your very product - if successful enough - could become the "thing" that draws the attention of the Eye of Saur.. erm, Microsoft.
No worries m8, fwiw I HATE being right about this sort of thing. Unbounded/BrighterBrain/EnhanceIT probably sprang to mind when I read that comment of yours way back when, hence my response.

For anybody out there, if you want to gain coding skills but cannot or do not wish to do a four-year degree program, community colleges in the USA can help close that skill gap for a price much more reasonable than a boot camp. Consider those, or state universities, and potentially save yourself a whole lot of trouble getting caught in a costly trap.
> by 2021 I had realized ... it was also largely fraudulent. Most of the leaders that I was working with clearly had not gotten as far as reading about it for thirty minutes ... Most of the market was simply grifters and incompetents (sometimes both!) leveraging the hype to inflate their headcount so they could get promoted, or be seen as thought leaders.

This was true of web tech in the 2000s, social media and mobile apps in the 2010s, crypto, now AI...

There's substance behind most of these topics, they're intellectually interesting, useful to people etc., but they tend to be largely grift, hype, office politics, narcissists tryina narcissist.
which government?

will China obey US regoolations? will Russia?
Reel to reel
While it's true that North Korea's tradecraft within the U.S. might not be as sophisticated as some fear, the situation isn't so straightforward. Given the significant public exposure of this case and the individual's prior connections within the U.S. government, NK would need to carefully weigh their options.

I would wager that if NK would attempt to harm this hacker it would be through using third parties like cartels or local gangs. This could offer NK plausible deniability and physical access to the target, but it also complicates their operational control and increases the risk of exposure. The calculus for NK would include considerations such as:

- The individual's public and former government status, which might provoke a stronger U.S. response if harmed. NK would have to vet the hackers assertions that he still has meaningful and significant contacts within the USG.
- The cost and complexity of outsourcing such an operation discretely.
- The types of U.S. responses that might follow, from diplomatic measures to cyber counterattacks.

While an attack via third parties is plausible, and given these factors which I am sure there are others I haven't considered, it would require NK to balance the benefits against the potential repercussions and the likelihood of successful attribution. But I am very confident that if they do follow through it will be using a cartel or local gang as proxy for the reasons I mentioned.

P4x's public disclosures and technical skills make him a unique target, but as he himself noted, the operational capabilities of North Korea within the U.S. are limited. It's a nuanced threat landscape where indirect methods might be considered but are not guaranteed to succeed without significant risks.
This sounds more like convergent evolution rather than a shared root.

Tread derives from Middle English treden; the difference here is to step vs to roll. The latter definition you cite is a newer usage (from the 20th century) which is more directly analogous to the tread on the bottom of one's shoe.

The use of a wheel in a treadmill seems more like an implementation detail; the obvious tie-in (IMO) is "persons treading on steps".
> but realistically they have a bit more moral compass than the other state level actors

yeah, some of those governments have even admitted to spike their own citizens with LSD to see what happens, and COUNTLESS other things. oh....
"Every mom that I talk to at Dell says that they are looking for other jobs because they need the remote work," said one employee.

I actually wonder if this is a significant factor. I work with some new moms and they are definitely dropping the ball all over the place while trying to watch over the new kid. Sensitive subject too so hard to even acknowledge or do anything about for their managers I would imagine.
everything is literal in programming communities, lmao.
Glad I'm not the only one put off by that. Though it's nice of him to signal so early on that his words aren't worth reading
Because it's likely soon LLMs will be able to teach themselves and surpass humans. No consciousness, no will. But somebody will have their power. Dark government agencies and questionable billionaires. Who knows what will it enable them to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero
CDK Global cyberattack impacts thousands of US car dealerships
We do that all the time, we just don't usually consider them to be robots. Car factories have all kinds of vehicles transporting car parts along tracks, ceiling mounted rails, etc. Nobody bats an eye about that. If you squint hard enough elevators are a kind of robot on a designated pathway.

But to be called a robot it has to have some human-like (or at least animal-like) quality. Which usually involves either imitating human arms (e.g. typical industrial robot arms), imitating human movement (e.g. Boston dynamics) or using infrastructure designed for humans. If you put a delivery robot on a purpose-built path it has none of those qualities and reverts back to being a normal machine.
Damn edgelords
my first thought was literally "this looks cool and useful, i wonder how everybody will shit all over it in the comments" and as usual hn did not disappoint lol
Not really. He was into altruism insofar as it acted as moral licensing for him.
> We are assembling a lean, cracked team

What does "cracked" mean in this context? I've never heard that before.