skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I definitely don't have an inner voice. I certainly can "enable it", for things such as composing this reply. But in general I'd describe it as a stream of thought, not bound to any language. Then when I need to actually communicate I "pipe" it through whatever language I need (I grew up in a home with multiple languages, don't know if that influences it).

One way I notice this is how thoughts are generally unpacked and stored without a language association, meaning I can't remember how people phrased something, only how I interpreted it. I feel like this is a decent memory optimization, but it drives my wife nuts and can be very unhelpful during arguments...
It is a part of the language rules that you can't ever change if you don't want it. It is magic in that sense.
Have you thought about productizing this as a better reverse DNS lookup? It feels like you're 90% of the way there.
> I ended up pulling groups out and found that some of them could not solve one step equations--like x + 5 = 10 stuff.

A colleague of mine taught remedial algebra to freshmen at the University of Washington back in the 80's. She'd show the students:

x + 5 = 10

and ask what 'x' is. They'd all fall over in a quivering heap saying they can't do algebra.

So she tried:

_ + 5 = 10

and asked them to "fill in the blank".

They could do that, no problem.

The problem they were having was the "x". "x" meant "algebra", and they couldn't do "algebra".

I know this is no magic solution to teaching algebra, but it is interesting how some people are triggered by it.
Dating app based on real world interactions
Looking for genuine connections? Our app helps you find real, meaningful relationships while protecting your privacy. We respect your data and never sell it. Our focus is on face-to-face connections, encouraging meaningful offline interactions. Beyond dating, join a supportive community to meet new friends and expand your social circle. Experience an app that's truly different.
> When is a broadcast expression transformed (and fused) into vectorized code?

A broadcast expression is dealt with during lowering from expression trees to the linear IR. The trick is that it just turns into function calls. When you write

a .+ f.(b)

that turns into

materialize(broadcasted(+, a, broadcasted(f, b))

where the broadcasted calls are lazy, uninstantiated representations of the call. The `materialize` function then performs the fusion.

As long as you write type-inferrable code, the handling and fusion will all happen during compile time with no dynamism.

> Do you always (statically) know the input types? In Futhark, due to parametric polymorphism, you don't necessarily know the input types.

A method in julia always knows its concrete input types when it is called. Julia basically works by stitching together chunks of static code. So if something dynamic happens in the middle of your program, the compiler just waits until the the types are known at runtime and then resumes, and compiles new static code as far forward as its able to analyze the program.

If your program is fully inferrable, then the whole program is compiled 'just-ahead-of-time' when you first call the outermost function.

> Doesn't something like `[[1,2,3]] .+ 4` go two levels deep? Or have I misunderstood something?

No, that would error in julia.
Exclusion is a necessary tool in education. For instance, if someone is being persistently disruptive, you kick them out.
Correct. If you need to do a fresh install on the same or new drive, then you'll need a new key. I only use these cheap OEM keys for VMs and use more expensive retail keys that persist with MS login on physical hardware. Although I know plenty of people that build own gaming machines with OEM keys.
Hey everyone! One of the creators of BAML here! Appreciate sharing this post. For anyone interested in playing around with an interactive version of BAML online, check it out here: https://www.promptfiddle.com
How about this example: the natural number 0 is not a member of the integers, from a set theoretic perspective.

In the natural numbers,

0 = {}

However, {} is not an element of the integers.

This is not something I expect to be easy to understand. This is the standard set theoretic definition of integers that mainstream mathematicians use. This is not some esoteric, fringe theory.
Oh then demonstrate your supernatural abilities to know what a lizard is feeling to us
USB-C 3.1 PD does 240 watts by raising the voltage to 48V, so the chips to accept that already exist, even if they're expensive right now.
I had a math teacher who claimed the opposite anecdote: he found that kids can do equations when there is x (obviously ones who are past their algebra fear): x + 5 = 10 is no problem. But then when you use some unfamiliar symbol, they freeze: △ + 5 = 10.

At that level, people tend to resemble trained models. I was trained on x, so I don't get it any other way.
> Congrats on both the paper and the graduation!

Thanks! Although I still have to actually graduate and the paper is in review, so maybe your congratulations are a bit premature! :)

> A long time ago, I worked on optimizing broadcast operations on GPUs [1].

Something similar happens in Futhark, actually. When something like `[1,2,3] + 4` is elaborated to `map (+) [1,2,3] (rep 4)`, the `rep` is eliminated by pushing the `4` into the `map`: `map (+4) [1,2,3]`. Futhark ultimately then compiles it to efficient CUDA/OpenCL/whatever.
Just because you're reliant on words to think doesn't mean others are.

Language certainly helps shape thoughts, even to the extent that, certainly for older kids and adults, different languages influence and constrain thought in different ways.

But consider dreams. These are adjacent to thoughts, and don't require language. Some dreamers are even able to express will not only on their actions, but over the dream itself. And if proof were needed of a conscious agent, it's there even in an apparently unconscious being.
The problem isn't Fandom, per se, but the ad-driven model for the internet.
Sidenote: My brother the biologist tells me that cats do not instinctively understand that heights can be dangerous; they have to learn it by trial & error.
Thanks, I agree with most of your points.

Your footnote is especially noteworthy: most of the arguments against generics I saw from the Go authors struck me as arguments against C++-style templates only. And I can see why you don't want your language to become like C++.

But the authors also gave the impression that C++-style templates are the only kinds of generics they knew about and that they could even envision.

> [...] saying that generics are mostly useful for custom collections and this is not a big-enough use case.

Yes, all the while implementing their favourite collections generically as a hard-wired language built-in.

They claimed that their void-* style 'generics' (via the empty interface) could solve most problems, but they didn't even use them for their own key-value data structure.

As an example of their earlier 'generics' being good enough, they touted how well they can represent arbitrary sorting algorithm. But, of course, they could only represent single-threaded in-place sorting algorithm that way.
> I just wonder what these people are doing with this money and why they want it so much. $1bn is essentially unspendable. But we see 200 people with 10x that and 15 people with 100x that. I just don't get why they care anymore. But I guess people really care about points?

Money is relative. I bet there are things $1bn can buy that we aren't even aware of because we were never exposed to it. Some of those things are probably non-tangible, like the ability to influence politics and change the world.
The usual formal definition for the rational numbers is equivalence classes of pairs of integers. The zero is then the equivalence class of (0, 1) which is not the same as the integer 0.

You could certainly somehow get it to work by starting with the closure of the division operation but would introduce a lot of unnecessary headache along the way.
I would consider this evidence that language predates human vocalizations. We already know deaf children will invent signs and gestures to communicate, and language not dependent on a hyoid bone. Do we have any way of dating the relevant neural structures through genetics?
Good Article on a very important topic.

Generally, Problem/Systems/Requirements Analysis should be done Top-Down but Solution Design/Implementation should be done Bottom-Up. This approach is key to managing Essential Complexity.

The Analysis starts with the "system-as-a-whole" and uses the scientific reductionist approach to figure out the constituent sub-modules and their interactions. This is applied recursively to sub-modules until we choose to stop at a desired level. This identifies the essential complexity at the module level (eg. need for DSP processing algorithms on certain media RTP/RTCP data flows). But in the process of breaking down the system we also will have identified the essential complexity in the interactions between modules (eg. the SIP/etc. protocol module responsible for setting up the above media data flows) and cross-cutting all modules (eg. performance, logging, exception-handling). So while constructing the solution we now can take care of all the identified essential complexities involved by spreading our functional modules over a layering of policy and mechanism modules (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_mechanism_and_po... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns). This distribution of Function, Policy and Mechanism is what constitutes the Architecture of the System.
Reminds me of when the full-scale invasion started in Ukraine, I was in Kharkiv, and I met several people for whom "this was not their first war". The neighbour's family was from Nagorno-Karabakh, and had just fled the Armenia-Azerbaijan war that started a year earlier, the taxi driver was a Syrian refugee, and Kharkiv has many people from the Donbass region where the war started years before.

People who have experienced one extremely unlikely event are more likely to experience it again, see Poisson clumping (although I know this type of event is not independently random). Ernest Hemingway and his wife survived two plane crashes a day apart.
Do animals have friends, enemies, cliques? Yes. Do animals play practical jokes on each other? Yes. I've seen all of these in cows.
What if the first language was a sort of sign language, and vocalizations were only auxiliary, optional? With time, humans who vocalized had a better chance to be understood, and their vocal tract evolved. Humans instinctively gesture to this day when speaking.
New Rust-Native Iceberg Catalog
Same with Guild Wars game series, where both games had officially hosted wiki sites and the best part - those are directly accessable ingame by using command "/wiki [item name or whatever you are searching]" in chat window. Handy!

https://wiki.guildwars.com/
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/
The answer for fill in the blank equation is 7. I just made that up. It can be any value.

(Just kidding. I assume a typo)
We use Django with https://htpy.dev/ as templating system.
maybe unclear to you. may I recommend Orality and Literacy by Walter J. Ong. which talks about how text and writing transformed human culture

the point (which I learned from the book) is how writting transformed human culture but did not define it, humans have a pre-literal (i.e. written) culture whose origin is literally really lost to history

I'm saying that tech transfer can absolutely be speech driven, but I admit that text driven technological transfer is in some ways an improved version of oral-only cultural transmision (i.e. knowledge preservation)
https://github.com/hansetag/iceberg-catalog
I think these types of posts are extremely nitpicky and not useful. From my experience, these sort of SEC filings are compiled by associates in a biglaw firm under a lot of time pressure, with file names like "version 41.B FINAL EDIT". Things get lost in translation. The signing off parties on the document are not sama: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849056/000110465921...

I think someone made a mistake. Also, from looking at the sig page the signing parties are others...
This is absolutely a false equivalence.

Google and Meta choose to give the government all sorts of data that they're not required by law to give, because they don't see it as worthwhile to go to bat for their users. You can choose to use a vendor who will protect your privacy and demand full due process on the part of government requestors.

In China there is no due process and no choice of vendors who would demand it, even if they could.
I fancy myself of having a good understanding of modern uarch. But i have to agree with @Marthinwurer. This branch predictor structure with parallel predictor and fake branch address is quite wild.

Do you know how this compare to what AMD/AppleM/Qualcom is doing ? This seems super effective, but seems pretty power hungry as opposed to just increasing the chase size and predictor precision. Plus i would assume it makes the cost of miss-predict even higher.
Htmx + Kotlin with ktor and the html dsl was really fun to play with on a personal project. Static typing, autocomplete and a full-fledged programming language available to use in your html markup is a game changer. I was structuring my endpoints as pairs of "data" and "render", where the render endpoint just reused the function for the date endpoint.
Unbounded recursion. Not recursion itself.
I think it's because we transcribe the languages discussed into the Latin alphabet.

If you hear the languages spoken, they sound nothing like each other.
Same, at least 90% or so.

I'm terrible at recognising faces - changing a "symbolic" feature like facial hair or glasses will completely throw me - but great at reading maps.
Slightly unrelated, but James Burke explains this really well in Connections[1] S01E03.

Basically he says one of the reasons China didn't experience the rapid growth Europe went through during the Renaissance was because Chinese society during those times had a strict hierarchy. You weren't allowed to rise through the ranks with your inventions or technologies, no matter how revolutionary they were. "No incentive, no change."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(British_TV_series...
What happens to latency if service time is cut in half (2022)
I just found this tool a few days ago using GPT-4o looking for a better way to navigate and search logs. I did try it now and it looks great.

The histogram view could be improved to use a highlighted center line instead of the top line, but its quite helpful (once you read about SHIFT-I)
Cow practical joke anecdotes, please! :-)
Conceptually, yes, every integer is also a rational number. But they are represented as different objects.

It's a bit like saying every int32 is also a double. Yes, every value of int32 fits into a double, but the bit pattern is different.

The canonical construction for rational numbers is pairs (a, b) which we interpret as a/b. An integer k "is the same as" (k, 1).

So it might be more correct to say every integer has the same value as some rational number. Of course this distinction is pointless most of the time, so we don't worry about it.

This is not unique to integers and rationals. It also applies to naturals and integers, rationals and reals, etc.
Exploring ASP.NET Core: creating robust and scalable web apps
Following WW2? The European Union was established in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty
All of the ways is quite the ask.

There are 2 main main approaches: explicit constructions and axiomatic constructions.

Dedikend cuts and Von Neuman numbers are both examples of explicit constructions. You can point to exactly what a given number "is", and then prove properties about you construction.

The other approach is the axiomatic construction, where you define what properties you want your numbers to have. You then (hopefully) prove that such a system exists and is, in some sense unique.

Taking the integers, the most common explicit construction is the set-theoretic Von Neumon construction, where 0={}, 1={0}, 2={0,1}, 3={0,1,2}...

You can also imagine defing 0={}, 1={0}, 2={1}, 3={2}

Note that while we say these are equivalent definitions, they produce different results in the sense that, for example, 0∈3 in the former, but not in the latter. [0].

You can also define natural numbers as a subset of the cardinals. In this construction, 3 represents the collection of all sets that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondance to the set { {}, {{}}, {{{}}} }. Here, the exlusion of various infinities is a rather arbitrary part of the definition.

You can also define integers as a subset of combinatorical games, given by 0={|}, 1={0|}, 2={1|}. This naturally leads to negative numbers, -1={|0}, and a zoo of "numbers" not seen outside of combinatorical game theory, such as ↑ = {0|{0|0}}. Still, if you restrict yourself to the integer looking numbers and follow the game theory rules of addition, you get something equivalent to the natural numbers.

You can also define them as strings constructed from the alphabet of a single character, so 0="", 1="a", 2="aa". (This is the free monoid over a single set)

Lambda Calculus gives us the church encoding, where:

* 0 = λf.λx.x
* 1 = λf.λx.f x
* 2 = λf.λx.f (f x)

Under the axiomatic definition of numbers, the classical definition is given by the 9 Peano axioms, which amount to assuming the existence of 0 and a "succesor" function S(n) informally corresponding to S(n) = n+1.

All of the above examples are things I have actually seen and that arise naturally in their respective branch of mathametics.

[0] This contradiction is not actually an issue, because no one ever actually says 0∈3, even though it is technically true in some constructions.
> Languages that are easy to reason about would be generally in the category where you need to do fewer translations before you get to the way the program is executed

This is a very interesting definition of "easy to reason about".

To me, "easy to reason about" means that it's easy for me to figure out what the intent of the code is, and how likely it is that the code does what it was intended to do.

How it translates to the machine is irrelevant.

Now, if you work in an environment where getting the most out of the machine is crucial, then I understand. In my domain, though, dealing with things like allocating and freeing memory makes it harder to see what the code is supposed to do. As a human, I don't think about which memory to store where and when that memory should be forgotten, I just act on memories.

Functional languages, then, tend to be high level enough to not expose you to the workings of the machine, which let's me focus on what I actually want to do.
There’s a very deep problem with that—every time you invent a “superset”, do you then have to redefine the subset to be a subset of that “superset”?

There is an infinite chain of supersets of the rational numbers, real numbers, etc.

Think of it like this… we can define 0, and then define 1 as the successor. Repeating this, we can have a definition for every finite number. But we cannot do this the other way around. We cannot start with ∞, define the predecessor to ∞, and then somehow get back to 0.

In other words, if you want to work backwards and say that smaller sets (like the natural numbers) are a subset of the bigger sets (like complex numbers), then you have to pick a “biggest set” containing all numbers, which is unsatisfactory. Somebody always wants a bigger set.
At this point, I hope this is well known.
Sure, but most people might need their phone to do banking apps or apps like WhatsApp, Spotify or Maps which are not available on your phone. This allows people to run GNU apps on their android phone so they can have both
XScreensaver's Hilarious Google Privacy Policy [video]
Wouldnt it be funny if people yelled "moral failures and scoundrels" at a diabetic variant for ages.
Basically the same as overclocking; set, test, reset, retest ….

Be careful with the verification runs as they can easily eat up the energy savings that you are trying to archive
t-online uses a global whitelist, which is pretty stupid for e-mail. sometimes it helps contacting them, other times they refuse to resolve it for arbitrary reasons (not because of actual spamming)
Not in consumer electronics, but pretty much became the largest electronic component manufacturer in the world.
In SWI for example, clpfd and friends rely on attribute values and hook predicates to interject the backtracking process with their own thing. SWI provides those things so that it can be extended.

Non trivial Prolog programs which only use pure predicates and do not use cut are sparse. Yet those are also the only circumstances in which things like clpfd will work without special consideration.
Is there somewhere where I can sign up to be emailed or otherwise notified when this is ready? I want to try it but from the lack of APKs or other introductory materials, it seems to not be ready.
For touted Go simplicity, this looks messy and hard to read.

Look at Rust iterators which are just simple and readable ‘next() -> Option<Item>’ that can be targeted with ‘for item in iter’ and chained iterator expressions or C#’s yield return or IEnumerator<T> (which support cleanup on panic too) which works with foreach and the same kind of chaining. Both are faster, easier to read and write too.
> GPT-4 is an AGI, just a very bad one.

Then stop selling it as a tool to replace humans. A fast moving car breaking through a barrier and flying off the cliff could be called "an airborne means of transportation, just a very bad one" yet nobody is suggesting it should replace school busses if only we could add longer wings to it. What the LLM community refuses to see is that there is a limit to the patience and the financing the rest of the world will grant you before you're told, "it doesn't work mate."

> So at what point does a human go from not generally intelligent to generally intelligent?

Developmental psychology would be a good place to start looking for answers to this question. Also, forgetting scientific approach and going with common sense, we do not allow young humans to operate complex machinery, decide who is allowed to become a doctor, or go to jail. Intelligence is something that is not equally distributed across the human population and some of us never have much of it, yet we function and have a role in society. Our behaviour, choices, preferences, opinions are not just based on our intelligence, but often on our past experiences and circumstances. It is also not the sole quality we use to compare ourselves against each other. A not very intelligent person is capable of making the right choices (an otherwise obedient soldier refusing to press the button and blow up a building full of children); similarly, a highly intelligent person can become a hard-to-find serial criminal (a gynecologist impregnating his patients).

What intelligent and creative people hold against LLMs is not that they replace them, but that they replace them with a shit version of them relegating thousands of years of human progress and creativity to the dustbin of the models and layers of tweaks to the output that still produce unreliable crap. I think the person who wrote this sign summed it up best https://x.com/gvanrossum/status/1802378022361911711
Let me guess: Doc Martens… their boots (especially faux leather ones) are absolutely bottom tier garbage.
Is it just me who finds this tool horrendous? Instead of just giving a report, it makes words fly on the page... Certainly it looks cool and perhaps appealing to some younger generation, but if it is tech analysis, you would expect clear and concise report, not some flying things with explanation like I am 4
Why the down votes? It's a fair question to ask. It's not like we all know about the undersea cables in Vietnam, and the volume of the problem makes it plausible it'd be a state actor. It's OK to ask questions.
To be fair, this ain't available in India either.