skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As usual, there's a relevant Akin's Law:

> 12. There is never a single right solution. There are always multiple wrong ones, though.

I'm not sure simple arithmetic is really the focus there, though I suppose "2²" is a good an answer to "what is 2 + 2" as "4".

The real right answer is of course "can't say without knowing what the field is that we're operating in".

https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
The developer of ComfyUI/StableDiffusion3 4B has resigned from Stability AI
The more benign version happened to me. Over $1k for an Illustrator subscription that I forgot to cancel and didn't touch for 2 years. No email from them that might have reminded me. When I went to support, they offered me nothing. Say what you will about personal responsibility, but I won't pay for an Adobe product again.

edit: Also want to mention that I used a couple different subscription trackers like Trim, and they didn't identify the Adobe charges. Weird.
What even is "free will"? It's an idea that falls apart on close inspection.

You think "I will wash the dishes". You wash the dishes. Ta-daa, free will!

A paralyzed person thinks "I will raise my hand". Nothing happens. No free will!

An ADHD person says to themself "I will wash the dishes". They don't get washed. A different part is broken than to the paralyzed person, but the result is the same.

A lazy person says to their roommate "I refuse to wash the dishes". Free will? They "could", if they were not lazy. Just as the ADHD person "could" if they did not have executive dysfunction. Just as the paralyzed person "could" if their spinal cord were intact.

"Free will", as a philosophical construct, is nothing more than an attempt by the ego to regain a sense of control in the face of the irrefutable realization that the universe is governed by rigid laws, and we are made of universe. (And no, quantum randomness doesn't help you - a random choice is hardly more of an extension of will than a deterministic one).
Or one can quickly learn how to achieve clear presentations by indexing the common errata:

"Chicken chicken chicken" (Yoram Bauman)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk

This should be required viewing for every academic author. =3
I think that in cases like this the line between heroism and foolishness is very thin (and also subjective). Ok, these guys can probably be considered heroes. But how about the three Swedes that set out to reach the North Pole in a balloon that one of them hoped would be able to not only reach the Pole, but carry them past it to an inhabited place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9e%27s_Arctic_balloon... - it later turned out that the balloon failed after only four days, followed by several grueling months of trying to trek back to civilization using the completely inadequate equipment that the balloon was able to carry, only to die, probably by being eaten by polar bears, on an uninhabited polar island)? Or that more recent guy who tried to dive to the Titanic using a largely untested submersible, which eventually killed himself and his four paying passengers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_submersible_implosion)?
Thanks for the clarification. How do you handle dynamic types, ie types determined at runtime?
No. Were it common you wouldn't see such a large difference in profit between the rental and perpetually licensed versions of Lightroom. Aside from support for newer cameras new versions have few, if any, compelling features. Performance improvements (LR is slooooooow), improved noise reduction, improved handling of video or non-Bayer sensors… all of that mostly fell to the wayside in favor of things like that AI garbage, improved mobile integration, enhanced geolocation support.
It is a cat and mouse game. And security by obscurity practice. Not saying it won't work, but if it is open sourced, how long before the malware will catch on?

Here is one on github:

https://github.com/NavyTitanium/Fake-Sandbox-Artifacts
The Big Lie
It started this day

In early 2023, Sacha, then CTO of Le Monde, France's leading news outlet with 300 millions page views and 46 millions of users monthly, faced a critical issue. Despite his pursuit of perfection, he noticed discrepancies in core metrics reported in corporate dashboards, weekly activity reports, and monthly management reports.

Key indicators such as Monthly Active Users (MAU), Daily Active Users (DAU), sessions, page views, and retention rates were consistently inaccurate, often understated by a significant double-digit percentage. The analytics tools, costing Le Monde hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, were failing to provide precise data.

Gilles, CEO of Letsmeet, a productivity software company, encountered a similar problem. An A/B test showed a 17% improvement with solution B after two months, but once deployed to all users, the improvement dropped to 2%. Investigation revealed that 30% of Letsmeet users, including 70% of core users, were not tracked by the analytics tools.

Each in their separate ways, Sacha and Gilles discussed their concerns with industry peers across media, ecommerce, entertainment, and productivity sectors in both France and the US. They discovered a widespread issue: a conservative estimate showed that a quarter of users, representing a third of usage, were missing from all analytics tools.

These digital companies relied heavily on data for strategic decisions. Detailed dashboards on retention, customer lifetime, and cohort behavior were standard. A/B testing and conversion funnel analysis drove product decisions. Some even used AI to model user behavior. Despite the inaccuracies, management had no choice but to proceed as if the data were correct, lacking any viable alternative.

In the next post, we will answer to this fundamental question : Why are the analytics data so consistently inaccurate?
the same thing probably happened early on, chemical evolution may have thrown up multiple replicators, but our ancestors had some small edge which allowed them to literally eat the competition.
Making Apple Silicon faster: Threads and tasks
At least complexity seems bounded, Bureaucracy, in contrast, expands to meet the growing needs of the Bureaucracy.
In the interest of simplified manufacturing and support, they leave some power consumption on the table.

You can take that back and get a little more juice, at the risk of instability or time.

No automated system is perfect, /shrug
It doesn’t locate my email program. It contains zero information about that.
Will this cause actual code signature checks to tell if the EXE running is fake or not?
Very cool to see this on GitBook!
Very nice and well executed idea, but I think that in many cases this could be overestimating the competence of the attacker.
Should make it look like you're Russian too.
FAIR is considerably downscaled from what it was before, in eg 2022.
Transform your career with our Geospatial Analysis using Python course. Over 3 months of intensive training and a 2-month internship, you'll learn Python, ArcPy, and advanced geospatial libraries. Gain hands-on experience and become a sought-after GIS professional in various industries.
In the name of bantz, we never had culture of cannabis usage in Europe before 20th century. Opioids on the other hand…
> Should I be able to make wild claims about my product to trick you into buying it? False claims about my buisness performance to pump the stock?

If you also abolish the notion of intellectual property as well as trade secrets, both of which are severe limitations on free speech, then sure. Otherwise it's just another case of wanting free speech when it suits the company but wanting to restrict it when it doesn't.

> Lies about your character? Your kids? made up stuff that whips up entire segments of your city to commit violence or vandalism against you?

Sure, as long as the actual violence and vandalism is harshly punished to discourage people from acting on falsehoods. The speech was never the real problem here.
That’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the unreleased “Star Trek” project in which Apple ported System 7.1 to run on top of Novell DOS 7 (descendant of DR-DOS) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project
Autoscaling GA: Scale Faster, Sleep Well, Don't Break the Bank
not surprised if this is the trojan horse
And the subscription turned out to be about the same cost as
upgrading every year.

lol, no.

Lightroom upgrades cost about $80. According to the wiki page Adobe rents Lightroom for $10/mo. That upgrade would only get me eight months of access.

Adobe has provided a ton of value for those subscriptions.

Sure, they've provided a ton of shareholder value for those subscriptions. Customer value? Not so much.
"A car is a plane, just a very bad one. It can do the cruising down the runway part, only the flying part is missing".
This has been discussed several times in the past most comments look to be here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11185764
Apple M3 is 21-42% faster at compiling V compared to M2
The factories that build them is like something out of a sci-fi film. Quite mind blowing.
I'm just so glad they didn't get thier hands on Figma. Screw Adobe, they're complete parasites.
I'm pretty sure the "greenlight" on the title means they are meeting to confirm that the countries will vote in favor of the law so it can be quickly approved once it makes to the parliament:

> If Chat Control is endorsed by Council now, experience shows there is a great risk it will be adopted at the end of the political process.

meaning: there will be little opposition to the proposal once it reaches the MEPs.
As the sibling says, this is just a semantic change in the scope behaviour of loop variables. You need to add an extra line of code to emulate Go 1.22 semantics in Go 1.21 code, but there's not really any hidden magic if you just interpret Go 1.22 code according to its own defined semantics.
This seems like a problematic standard. For one, it's very fuzzy. A human who is top 51% and one who's top 49% are very similar to each other and could probably swap places depending on how they're feeling that day; there's nothing fundamentally different going on in their heads. Even at the further ends of the scale, humans have essentially the same kind of brains and minds as each other, some more capable than others but still all belonging to the same category of thinking things. Your AGI definition bifurcates the human population into those that possess general intelligence and those who don't, but this seems hard to justify. At least, hard to justify when drawn there. If you put the line at profound mental retardation where a person can no longer function in society, that would make more sense. A slightly below average human may not be exceptional in any regard but I think they still possess what must be regarded as general intelligence.

Furthermore, you're counting cases where humans do things the computer cannot but ignoring cases where the computer does things humans cannot. For instance, I doubt any human alive, let alone average humans can give reasonable explanations for short snippets of computer code in as many languages as GPT-4o, or formulate poetry in as many styles on arbitrary topics, or rattle off esoteric trivia and opinions about obscure historic topics, .... I think you get the point. It has already surpassed average human abilities in many categories of intellectually challenging tasks, but with your definition if it fails at even one task an average human can do, then it lacks "general intelligence."

I suggest that your definition is one for "AHI" (Average Human Intelligence), not one for "AGI" (Artificial General Intelligence.)
The really fun part is when malware authors add detections for "fake sandbox" and then real sandbox authors get to add those indicators.
I don't know how to create a liver, or test one, so what does that say about my liver? Pretty much nothing.
You can set up the equations many ways, but then there's "turning the crank", aka "plug and grind" and there's the correct answer, and everything else is wrong.

Yes, I know that singularities are special cases, as well as two roots for the square root, etc.

> they won't learn the concepts and reasoning

Memorizing comes first for children. Concepts and reasoning comes later. In college, concepts and reasoning come first, and memorization is unimportant.

I remember memorizing the times tables when I was 5 or 6. I'd draw out the 10*10 matrix and fill in all the boxes, using addition. Eventually I noticed that "times" meant add the number that many times, and that I didn't have to memorize it anymore. But the work memorizing it laid the groundwork for the epiphany.
we recently added dynamic type support with this snippet! (docs coming soon!)

Python:
https://github.com/BoundaryML/baml/blob/413fdf12a0c8c1ebb75c...

Typescript:
https://github.com/BoundaryML/baml/blob/413fdf12a0c8c1ebb75c...

Snippet:

async def test_dynamic():

tb = TypeBuilder()

tb.Person.add_property("last_name", tb.string().list())

tb.Person.add_property("height", tb.float().optional()).description(
"Height in meters"
)

tb.Hobby.add_value("chess")

for name, val in tb.Hobby.list_values():
val.alias(name.lower())

tb.Person.add_property("hobbies", tb.Hobby.type().list()).description(
"Some suggested hobbies they might be good at"
)

# no_tb_res = await b.ExtractPeople("My name is Harrison. My hair is black and I'm 6 feet tall.")
tb_res = await b.ExtractPeople(
"My name is Harrison. My hair is black and I'm 6 feet tall. I'm pretty good around the hoop.",
{"tb": tb},
)

assert len(tb_res) > 0, "Expected non-empty result but got empty."

for r in tb_res:
print(r.model_dump())
There are bad people on both side of the border - don't be fooled that they are more on the "other" side of the border because there might be ones that you are not seeing (yet). Blocking the whole "other side" is simply the "path of least resistance" or the "low hanging fruit". Creation and all other good things ALWAYS require more energy than destruction and other bad things. But creation/invention is the only activity that leads to progress and evolution - everything else is stalling, regression, devolution ...
Internet was created BY military FOR military - but it evolved into THE only thing in the world that connects people. ALL people.
References at the bottom.

The most general problem in Internet are not the malicious people - botnets can infect insecure devices ANYWHERE in the world.
The main problem is that some (many) of the ISPs at the last mile allow outgoing IP packets with source IP address which is outside of the IP range(s) these ISPs operate/own. Larger ISPs on the upper layer can not prevent this because otherwise IP routing will break. So it all depends on the "last mile" ISPs. And it is quite possible for the "status quo" to live for many years ....

https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/2022/impact-of-ukr...
https://labs.ripe.net/author/athina/how-sanctions-affect-the...
https://labs.ripe.net/author/farzaneh-badiei/sanctions-and-t...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030859612...
https://labs.ripe.net/author/moritz_muller/internet-sanction...
To check if your credit card is in scammers' database, please enter card number and cvv
> So, say you want to create a new web standard...

This and the following image have a misguided understanding of the market. We know how this situation plays out because we ran exactly that experiment in the 2000s with Firefox and IE6. Those market share numbers are contingent on Google doing the best possible job as curators insofar as the userbase can tell.

If there are browser features that users want (like tabs) or web standards that enable Cool New Stuff (like modern JS) then users will go out of their way to install browsers that support them. Firefox got all the way to around 20-30% of the market before MS's control of the web collapsed and we entered the current era.

The "problem" that competitors of Google face is that Google is a rather competent steward of web standards. Their browser engine is hard to compete with because it is very good, their web standards are hard to compete with because they are largely appropriate.

Although I stand by a prediction I have that the next wave will be when a Brave-like model takes hold and the price of browsing the web drops from free to negative. With crypto we are surely getting to spitting distance of advertisers paying users directly to look at ads instead of paying Google to organise the web such that users look at ads.
can you nice them?
You can also sometimes get it very cheap via random country specific deals. They had one last year for Latvian students. Excecpt it had zero checks in place to ensure you actually were a student. I think I paid something like $4 for a year of Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator, Premier, Adobe Stock, etc.

Of course it goes without saying, if you do this use a burner card. They dont ask for/check for a valid address or anything like that so when it comes to the stupidly complex to cancel renewal process you just walk away and let their threats go to an empty inbox.

I've got zero issue with anyone pirating their software at this point, Adobe deserves it for the crap they've pulled over the last few years.
In theory. The non-ideal state of Java and (especially) C++ generics suggested that it might be unwise to rush into a particular set of implementation choices.
How do these modern Atoms compare to the Apple ARM chips? Does Apple make something comparable in terms of power/performance?
> And which philospher of science said that then?

I did. Obviously. Why would I retell what another philosopher said? That would be rather silly. If they want something to be known, they can let you know themselves.

> Which others disagree?

Whichever ones disagree. Again, they can speak for themselves.

> Some claim that Mathematics is the Queen of Sciences

In other words, not science?

> yet without which science is and has nothing

I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing. If that is what you are trying to convince us of, you are not making providing a compelling argument.
Scarecrow Cloud Native AI with Nextgen Quantum Crypto XR ++

(bingo?)
Very much a 'hey you could do this....but dont' kind of thing. The website tanks massively (Chrome, M3 Pro).
I don't believe he misread. I believe he felt like the reply to the other users post was needlessly curt or snarky, which I'd agree with.
I work at an IT provider - we see this daily. Have to whitelist to keep the customer happy, usually the other end is a 1 or 2 person business with an old hosted Yahoo system or similar
Wrong thread, perhaps?
How Pixar Accidentally Deleted (& Recovered) Toy Story 2 (2022)
I've used plenty of languages with iterators but have also never really missed them very much in Go. So I think this is a flawed analysis. The proposed Go iterators are just syntax sugar over some existing code patterns. They'll be nice to have but one can very easily do without them.

By way of analogy, consider that almost any language is missing lots of features present in some other languages. For example, Go does not have inheritance. If I do not miss that feature while using it, that does not necessarily mean that I'm a Blub victim.
If consciousness, or rather, "philosophy of mind" interest you, and you like thinking about it, your position about "consciousness isn't real" (i simplify here) is a more and more talked about position, and the tenants are called "illusionists". Basically, they think we have an illusion of consciousness/subjective experience. Once again, poorly simplified, i'm not smart/dedicated enough to totally understand the idea and it is hard to explain something you don't totally get.
But is one female enough to avoid inbreeding?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression#Polyploi...
In the AI race, Chinese tech firms can compete with unlimited applications
> I guess if this gets enough attention, malware will just add more sophisticated checks and not just look at the exe name.

But more sophisticated detection means bigger payload (making the malware easier to detect) and more complexity (making the malware harder to make / maintain), so mission accomplished.
> Once you can pass on information orally and written through the generations, knowledge will always improve.

Nope. You can pass on myths the same way. All that happens is that you get more refined myths, that always have "evidence" for them at any point in time because they are refined by each generation to fit any new observations.

It's worse with oral knowledge[1]: oral "knowledge" that is passed down is frequently more damaging than not passing anything down at all, because in the lack of any knowledge on the subject, people will try to gain some knowledge (whether experimentally or not), but with "knowledge" passed down, there will exist pockets of people who will actively resist any attempt to discard that "knowledge".[2]

[1] Ever play a game of telephone? Each generation changes the message enough so that even a short period of 30 generations is enough to completely obliterate any of the original message.

[2] See every religion ever.
> I did. Obviously.

So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.

> I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing.

I haven't, just presented positions held by others .. and with no convincing case I guess we must conclude that science is nothing.

Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.
I was directly involved with forking the Path of Exile wiki if anyone has any q’s about process.
I agree with you that the best way to make money consistently during a gold rush is to sell the shovels, but in the case of AI it's just impossible. There has been a GPU duopoly for like 20 years.

You could try making specialized chips for AI, like NPUs, but it requires a lot of money as well, as you'd need a big team of really smart ($$$) people.

And you're overestimating the speed and interest of big corporations. If you're making an application around an LLM (a wrapper) for a smaller market, Google/Alphabet or Microsoft or whatever isn't going to release a product which will make your company obsolete.

Not because they lack resources, but because many markets simply aren't interesting for companies of this size. And even if the market was attractive, giants move slower than startups, even if they keep pushing the narrative of being just as agile as they were when were starting.

There's a reason why they spend billions every year acquiring smaller companies.
You described my experience well as well, except my abstract colorless ball was barely even visual. I was quite happy to entertain the idea of a ball on a table with very few concepts activated - roundness for the ball, flatness for the table, gravity holding the ball on the table. Rather like a physics problem.

When forced to dereference a color, it felt like an entire system was booted up. Not only did the ball have color, it also had specular reflections. There was lighting. The table gained an abstract sense of having texture.

What I find particularly fascinating is that my mind also assigned "red". I wonder if that is a coincidence, or a deep reflection of something about how brains work. Supporting evidence: in languages with only three words for color, the three colors are "light", "dark", and "red": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Stage_II_(red)
> happy

or misguided?

(I know the pain.)