skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think the study that you're asking for is likely to ever be performed. Even if the interior of an intact clove of garlic is free of botulism, pest damage, rough peeling, etc. might introduce it there. The goal of typical processing is to make the food uniformly safe, without relying on the initial distribution of the pathogens. For example, that's why the acidification method linked above applies only to chopped garlic, to ensure the acid penetrates all the way through.

The caramelized bits of roasted garlic almost certainly reached temperatures far above 121 C. The concern is the minimum temperature though, not just the surface temperature.

I'm not sure how your analogy with chicken is supposed to work. If you cooked chicken, submerged it in oil, and then incubated at room temperature for a few days, then I definitely wouldn't eat that either. The problem isn't the initial population of C. botulinum; it's that they multiply under the anaerobic conditions of the oil.

Likewise, I'm not sure what you think is wrong with their advice on the acidified garlic. The botulism simply won't grow at low pH, no matter how long you wait. The taste and texture will eventually become disgusting, but that's not a safety concern.

You seem to have the idea that cooking fully sterilizes food. That's not correct; it decreases the population of pathogens, but not to zero. So the cooking potentially makes the food safe to consume immediately (since the dose makes the poison, and the dose is very small). But if the food is incubated under conditions where the bacteria can grow, then the dose gets exponentially bigger and the food becomes unsafe. Methods that rely on perfect sterility (like pressure canning) achieve that by applying heat when the food is already in a closed container, and are assumed to lose that sterility once the container is opened.

Water-free garlic in oil should be safe at room temperature, and that publication gives directions for dried garlic in oil. I'd guess that confit would be safe too, and I'm not sure why you think the FDA would forbid it. (Note that it would be safe because of the low water activity, meaning that even if botulism spores are present they can't multiply. It would not be safe because it's "sanitized".)
It doesn't require it, but it sure feels good!

Mostly the world has to sit back and suffer for this clown car of over enthused business types promising us that their AI will make all our lives better. Mostly the world has to let this weirdly quasi-cultish hype run unchecked.

I'm frelling pissed about it. I frelling miss personal computing being an aspiration; I wish we were actually improving systems. Instead we're investing billions to make machines good bullshitters. It's enormously relieving seeing such rancorous disgust on display here.
I was expecting a rock climber, not trees :D That's a nice surprise.

There's a lot of really cool equipment for climbing, not just carabiners but various sorts of brakes, rappelling, anchoring, ascending, descending, traversing, etc. – most of which I don't understand. I feel like I'm gawking at Batman in awe anytime I'm near one of those folks.

It'd be a fun modern-day competition to try to get people to scale a castle wall and break into the keep using this gear...
Despite this optimism, I wonder what the tradeoffs are for the drone services. Does it actually spray pesticide as thoroughly as a worker manually applying it? Can it spread seed and fertilizer as well as someone who has tended the land for decades? Is there really a difference in quality of produce?
Still not seeing where he said he himself wrote C in a cave with scraps. Not suggesting he's humble, but I still think he sees himself as one of them (he doesn't say he's "better than everyone [at that level]")
https://distro.ibiblio.org/easyos/amd64/releases/
Completely missed that somehow. Thanks!
You're right—what I said applies to math only. I guess I was thinking about how ML engineers try to frame a problem in math terms whereas our human brain finds the most efficient circuits to solve the problem.
This is a good point. When you read this:

> Instagram’s algorithms have steered men with deviant sexual attraction to children to the girl’s page, flooding it with unwanted comments and come-ons, according the Journal.

It is a normal response to think “I wonder what was so attractive about the images that the child made that these men were forced to follow and comment on them. I will post about how we shouldn’t judge the men or platform until we’ve seen the images”
I don’t think that’s true. I’m pretty sure the hope is that people are reasonably well informed. And anyway, we’re voting on representatives, not specific issues, for the most part. (I mean clearly referenda exist, but they aren’t the main thing). Or we’re voting on matters of preference, in which case the populace is essentially correct whatever their decision.
> There you have it - what are you most interested in, dear leader? Artificial intelligence, the blockchain, or quantum computing?6 They know exactly what their target market is - people who have been given power of other people's money because they've learned how to smile at everything, and know that you can print money by hitching yourself to the next speculative bandwagon.

Nailed it.
Here's the mempipe benchmark latency for core<->core: https://github.com/MarginResearch/cannoli/blob/main/mempipe/...

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MarginResearch/cannoli/mai...

You can see a massive improvement for shared hyperthreads, and on-CPU-socket messages.

In this case, about ~350 cycles local core, ~700 cycles remote core, ~90 cycles same hyperthread. Divide these by your clock rate as long as you're Skylake+ for the speed in seconds. Eg. about 87.5 nanoseconds for a 4 GHz processor for local core IPC.
To be clear the training the paper is talking about is training for managers, rather than general employees. So not really the slaves, but the [still, in the 21st century, usually white and usually male] people with the whips.
Especially since most "data scientists" turn spreadsheets into reports for the C suite, I'd argue that his entire role fits into the same arguments he makes against AI. Like he says, unless you're doing things on the cutting edge, I don't think most businesses have seen positive outcomes from employing data "scientists" or "engineers". They just take people's excel spreadsheets and make them prettier, taking approximately one quarter to implement each into Power BI.

Also being 5 years into his career thinking he actually groks how it all works is adorable. I get the impression he has the idea that work is supposed to be a rewarding passion project rather than getting shit done for your boss. Give me all the cushy bullshit AI projects please. I can play with the toys for 6 months and come back with whatever and it will be perfectly acceptable. Either "this is great, super helpful for the company" or "welp, the tech isn't there yet, but at least we tried". That's called riding the gravy train.
Lol, yeah, sorry, I really gotta work on brevity...

> It's really all about separation of concerns.

Exactly!
It’s here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40725329
I sort of agree and disagree. I wouldn't agree with the idea that most FAANG engineers are not passionate by nature about their work.

What I would say is that the bureaucracy and bullshit one has to deal with makes it hard to maintain that passion and that many end up as TC optimizers in the sense that they stay instead of working someplace better for less TC.

That said, I am not sure how many would make different choices. Many who join a FAANG company don't have the slightest inkling of what it will be like and once they realize that they are tiny cog in a giant machine it's hard to leave the TC and perks behind.
I've never gotten to drive in Waymo, but my understanding is that they are very limited in the areas and routes they will take. Perhaps I'm off here, but I almost think of it as a trolly with tires, taking specific known roads and turns it can handle.

I know it won't drive on the highway, and I've also heard it avoids unprotected lefts.
Because that's the average machine we had to use back then.
A really useful meta-question is:

How much work is it to answer that question?

A few examples: Junior devs asking about how to do something - sometimes the answer is clear, there's a standard or a decision has already been made - sometimes someone has to do some work to decide how to proceed. Its easy for people to get frustrated when they think they asked a simple question, but at the point they ask, NO ONE knows the answer.

Do masks work? How much evidence of what types would it take to make a satisfying answer to this question? What would those study designs look like? How large would your sample size need to be? I think it would take a great deal of work just to design the studies and get them past ethical review boards, much less get them funded and completed.

Anything related to diet. Getting real answers takes way more work than can reasonably be done for anything more that the simplest questions.

---

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBBnfu8N_J0
Unreal Engine and Steam Audio may be worth looking into before you invest significant amounts of time into this.
I feel like OpenAI took this thing out of the oven too soon or packaged in a way which misrepresents its nature. The power of AI isn't to answer your technical support questions or be your AI personal assistant, it's in the manic creativity that convinced people they were talking with a human (albeit a slight unhinged one.) But that energy had to be nerfed for business use cases and in of itself is problematic for monetization. So what we're left with after they've been nerfed is basically an iteration on what we already had, not the world changing technology that we were promised.
That's solving the wrong problem; sucking away years of someone's life for minor benefits doesn't become a good deal by being free.
This is a good point that no one has really pointed out based on my skimming, except for the OP saying they could stop all NK based attacks, which I’m guessing is based on blocking the 2 country routers.

However, a minimal amount of cyber attacks probably actually originate from NK directly. It’s known the NK hackers are trained in China and attacks probably flow through compromised VPS accounts, VPNs, open proxies, and open SOCKS-5 located around the world.

The NK hackers could be sitting in NK using the systems I referenced above to do their attacks and were not able to because they couldn’t connect to the internet. Maybe so, but they are most likely usually sitting in China and other locations.
Out of curiosity how does nitrogen fertilizer offset labor?
You seem more confident that me. What do you suggest, eight billion humans, each releasing as much pollution as they can afford, with no restrictions, increasing year on year? What effect will it have on the environment?
I don't see how AI, quantum and block chain are at all equivalent.

Block chain has no use.

AI and quantum hage obvious uses if they work.

Quantum is not close to working now. It's where AI was at in the 80s/90s.

AI may not be perfect but there is no denying that the GPTs were a dramatic shift.
Looks like a DJI Agras model to me! Amusing considering the recent news regarding DJI being banned.
I swear this particular rant style is derived from earlier writers who I've read, probably many times, but don't remember. It feels completely familiar, way more so than someone who started working in 2019 could possibly have invented ex nihilo. They're good it though! And somebody has to keep the traditions going.
The consequences of actual AI is far reaching compared to a plane crash.
Or just Australian.
Show HN: Pong Wars in Standard ML
Please note that Ludic is partly writing for himself to vent about the massive disappointment it is working in tech after all he's been through and partly as a rallying cry for others who can relate to being primarily surrounded by well-spoken incompentents.

If you subdue the urge to write him off based on his emotionally expressive writing, you'll find a lot of poignant observations you wouldn't get from more civilized venues (e.g. HN, famous tech influencers, thinkers, and execs, etc.).

Ludic's blog is a one-man 4chan board, minus the racism, sexism, and so on.
The entire sentence is:

“I'm not God's gift to the field, but I am clearly better than most of my competition - that is, practitioners like myself who haven't put in the reps to build their own C libraries in a cave with scraps, but can read textbooks and use libraries written by elite institutions.“

It’s quite poorly written, but they note they’re clearly better than most of their competition.
What is a "marshmallow test"? I've never heard that phrase before?
The end of days are coming!

Joking aside, all of this is just inferences. They don't actually know what's going on. For all we know, it could be an alien species turning the attic light on.
Let me pose a hypothetical. What would your reaction be if the OP got the bad recommendation for garlic-infused oil from TikTok? That is a believable scenario. You would not be far wrong if it drove you to shout from the rooftops that TikTok (and social media in general) is a BS machine.

Why is it worse for the bullshit to come from a program (LLM) than it is from a human on social media? if not, why single out LLMs for their bullshit?
> Please don't mention AI again

Editorialized & not the title of the post.
One approach: apply skepticism to your own beliefs...learn to experience it like a game, so the natural (and culturally conditioned) human aversion to epistemology diminishes over time, or even reverses.

> without devolving into full conspiracy-esque "trust no one", "everyone has an agenda" type thinking?

Should this necessarily be avoided? Are you asserting that it is not substantially true?
Why blame people skeptical of psychiatry for affordability issues when you could just blame big pharma? Wouldn't that actually make sense? The fact that you mention the former but not the latter makes you lose a lot of credibility

Or I guess, if you have skin in the game, it does make sense to criticize the people criticizing the game instead of the people perpetuating it

> in this hypercapitalist healthcare system (speaking of the USA specifically here), whether or not it is “worthy” of care

What's more hypercapitalist than this "ask your doctor" shit?

If I was a pharmaceutical company, it would be in my financial best interest to deem as many people eligible as possible. If I was an admin at some mental health thing somewhere, it would be in my financial best interest to make sure as many people buy into it as possible
I never really knew about, or thought about, this phenomenon until I started trying code generated by ChatGPT. Then I started to realize ChatGPT's answers seemed really good for programming languages I knew little about, but pretty bad for programming languages I knew a lot about.

Then I realized this probably applies to many different subjects.
As corny as they seem now the early FMV CD-ROM games felt like a gigantic leap forward at the time. Being able to interact with a photorealistic environment was a completely new experience. Being too ignorant at the time to understood how they worked it seemed like pure magic. Of course they were nothing but a novelty in retrospect but the illusion was very real at the time.
You're right, but "I Will Fucking Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again" is definitely linkbait, so we had to change it by the site guideline "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I confess to being a bit self-indulgent in coming up with the edit—I thought it would be hilarious to flip it to something meek and passive aggressive.

Normally when we edit a title according to that guideline, we search earnestly for a representative and neutral phrase from the article itself. In this case "earnest' and "neutral" aren't much of a fit so I felt it more in the authorial spirit to troll a little.
Even if they really wanted to there isn’t enough electricity in NK. Lots of articles written about the minimal amount of emitting lights seen at night.
One thing I’ve noticed with the AI topic is how there is no discussion on how the name of a thing ends up shaping how we think about it. There is very obviously a marketing phenomenon happening now where “AI” is being added to the name of every product. Not because it’s actually AI in any rigorous or historical sense of the word, but because it’s trendy and helps you get investment dollars.

I think one of the results of this is that the concept of AI itself increasingly becomes more muddled until it becomes indistinguishable from a word like “technology” and therefore useless for describing a particular phenomenon. You can already see this with the usage of “AGI” and “super intelligence” which from the definitions I’ve been reading, are not the same thing at all. AGI is/was supposed to be about achieving results of the average human being, not about a sci-fi AI god, and yet it seems like everyone is using them interchangeably. It’s very sloppy thinking.

Instead I think the term AI is going to slowly become less marketing trendy, and will fade out over time, as all trendy marketing terms do. What will be left are actually useful enhancements to specific use cases - most of which will probably be referred to by a word other than AI.
It feels a little bit like a James Mickens rant, but not as funny (not a jab at the author of this, James Mickens is just really funny).
I've recently read through many of the author's articles and also through his LinkedIn content, and came to the opposite conclusion. The intentional "In-Your-Face-Trolling" style is intended as a cover for "Impostor Syndrome in Overdrive", which lots of us suffer. Yet he was able to fool so many! Just check the "Compliments" section on his website :)

I made the following comment about him in a conversation with a coworker:
"
The guy who authored the article is mad. Certifiably mad. Just spewing around pure unadulterated truth. (LinkedIn link goes here)
What does it tell about me (or anybody) who so far hadn't found anything in his writings to disagree about?
"

Krazam (search YouTube) is the other example of largely the same. But because it is visual it is a bit more obvious.
Thank you for the feedback, we have made corrections. As for the evidence, our website planning was somewhat rushed, and we will further improve it in the future. Thanks again.
Now is a good time to start a service business
MIT's John Leonard was saying years ago that unprotected lefts are one of the hard problems. They're so situationally dependent and can depend a lot on social signaling. I have to make one to get into my driveway probably daily on a fairly busy road. I've had drivers flash their lights to let me know that, yes, they see me and are going to let me turn. I've also (rarely) been honked at by someone who was not about to slow and didn't think I was giving them enough space/turning quickly enough.

(Many other hard problems of course but unprotected lefts are something that drivers face multiple times a day in often ambiguous situations.)
This post has an unnecessarily aggressive style but has some very good points about the technology hype cycle we're in. Companies are desperate to use "AI" for the sake of using it, and that's likely not a good thing.

I remember ~6 years ago wondering if I was going to be able to remain relevant as a software engineer if I didn't learn about neural networks and get good with TensorFlow. Everyone seemed to be trying to learn this skill at the same time and every app was jamming in some ML-powered feature. I'm glad I skipped that hype train, turns out only a minority of programmers really need to do that stuff and the rest of us can keep on doing what we were doing before. In the same way, I think LLMs are massively powerful but also not something we all need to jump into so breathlessly.
Maybe the connection the GP saw was in terms using their other instances for training. It is not exactly the same process, but there seems to be a hint of similarity to my - sadly - untrained eye.
IMO this should be flagged. This is outrage porn, and comments overwhelmingly fall into two camps: ones discussing the author and writing style, completely devoid of intellectual curiosity; and ones venting their own pent up energy based on the title/topic. Very few are interested in the actual points of the article, because it’s written in a way that maximally discourages civil discussion.

I know occasionally a “discuss the title” thread is allowed, but this one is almost strictly worse than just the title without the link, since we don’t get useless comments on the author in the latter case.

Oh, and I say this as someone who vaguely agree with the sentiment.
> Carter took his own life four months after winning the prize.

And that answered the question I've had ever since I first saw this picture. Truly sad, but I can't say I don't understand how Carter got there.

Imagine how he'd feel to know that we now have yet another famine happening all over again, this time with food a mere 20km away and hundreds of trucks laden with food just waiting desperately to be allowed to deliver their goods, blocked by both a government bent on extracting the highest possible price in blood and its citizenry that willingly throws itself in front of moving trucks to prevent the aid from reaching their human brothers and sisters.

To think that these all exist in the same universe.
This seems like a good place to ask - if your knowledge of (computation/complexity) theory is at the level of the Sipser Introduction to the Theory of Computation book, what's a good learning path to get current?
I absolutely agree with you on almost everything here. Much of it is what led me to my hypothesis for the cause. Why would religion seem to have such a strong relationship with healthier birth rates? The obvious responses don't really work out. The Bible is surprisingly ambiguous on how many children people should have, or even if everybody should endeavor to do so. And in any case, people scarcely follow the teachings of the Bible when even moderately inconvenient.

Looking to past, in ancient times philosophy meant something different than today. Essentially everybody was expected, as a part of becoming an adult, to develop their own philosophy of life. Ancient religions offered very little in the way of life philosophy. Pre-Abrahamic religions, such as in Greek or Norse culture, had Gods which took on all human characteristics - maliciousness, greed, sadism, and more. The stories offered were metaphorical in nature, rather than something to guide your life by. So this is the era where you get people inventing everything from the Cult of Pythagoras to Zenoism (stoicism).

But in modern times we, in general, no longer have religion and we no longer have philosophy. So what have people turned to guide them in life? And the answer seems largely to be Product. Eternal happiness is always just one new Product away. And not only have many people turned to Product, but there has been an increasing trend of people denying their own mortality - whether through some sort of singularity event, the 'marvels of medicine' somehow growing exponentially to enable people to live indefinitely, or even some fringe quantum immortality views.

What alternative philosophies are emerging seem to also be death cults in any case - viewing humans as little more than machines, rejecting ones own consciousness, and so on. In all of these philosophies and world views there seems to be very little reason for children. And it just so happens that when one starts to look at things from this perspective, it somehow explains everything literally perfectly. I've yet to find a single compelling exception, while every other explanation for fertility just completely falls to pieces under the slightest of scrutiny.