skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Why?

IP theft is a thing and yet China can't make Nvidia GPUs and I can bet $10 it won't be able to in 2030. I don't see why the west could 'just' copy a Chinese energy-positive tokamak even if it had all the plans. (Yes I know this one isn't that.)

The wake up call is for the west to be able to do that at the very least.
But, yeah. F that. I’m not looking forward to evolution. It’s probably going to happen anyway.
Why not just stop once we've done the same work as in the past?
Not really, it's an expensive and risky undertaking so only very wealthy investors or the state can afford this. That doesn't mean that the investors are a value add other than providing money. Furthermore, many publicly useful innovations will not be able to capture a positive return despite being beneficial for society as a whole, so private money is actually poison.
In the case of this machine it implies that they got plasma by fusion. Which means the fusion is working. It's a milestone, albeit one of many.
It’s not like any of the choices are great. Or even mediocre.
what about those of us who still prefer to use terminals, not just point and click GUIs?

relying on ever-more tooling feels too much like putting a band-aid over the problem to me.
A business reference librarian at a large public library would be able to give you pointers on good sources to search for that info.

Also, posting your question in one of the larger ML discussion forums might get some good answers.

You can also search websites like this one: https://www.ai-startups.org/top/machine_learning/ or https://topstartups.io/jobs/?startup__markets=Artificial+Int... or https://aimultiple.com/hub/ml#market-map
D'oh -- I meant to say "the book had to be completely rewritten" but it's too late to edit my comment.
When talking about the price of energy produced by fusion, various estimates put it at 'probably about the same as nuclear fission, maybe a bit higher, but it won't have the proliferation risk/contamination risk of fission'.

However, because the tech was '50 years away', it never made sense for private sector investors, so most investment was from governments.

However, with solar and wind now far cheaper than nuclear due to no need for massive capital investments in concrete and steel upfront many years before production starts, does it even make sense for governments to go down this route?
Lifting the Veil
450lbs… that’s approaching piano territory. Smaller grands are 600 or so, with a full sized concert 9fter being 900-1100.
I replied on the other comment, but i may not be right, i don't know about financial tools and what goes up and down.
I'm not assuming anything. I was answering a question based on:

> There is a whole industry of those bottom feeders the author referred to, who's business is precisely waiting for these sole owners to either die, or better yet become incapacitated to the extent they are forced to sell their businesses (but not so much that they can't hold a pen and read a sales contract), so that they can swoop in and offer them 2x or 3x - "what's your best alternative?".

It's not material to my answer whether that statement is true or not. If you think it is untrue, take it up with user "_rm".
My only problem with your comment is that human forecasters and decision makers are also often not held accountable for their work.
Yeah. While I'm sympathetic to the attempt to formalize the representation, there's a psychology to this that a lot of people in tech seem to miss when I see them dancing.

The reasoning goes: "if I understand and represent this choreography properly, I will be better at the activity of dance." Dancing, for them, is the end result of understanding a representation and then doing it.

But the psychological shift is "if I understand my emotions and body properly, I will be able to use the representation of dance to convey that." While dance obviously needs a backing vocabulary of basics and moves, great dancers accidentally come up with better dance moves because their body mechanics combined with the dance's structure, musicality, and emotion constrain what they do. They—and I'm going to use this word intentionally—literally think and communicate through dancing. To use your phrasing, the "semantic" meaning of the dance is their emotions: the actual activity of dance is simply the representational outlet for that.

When you're with a good dancer, your brain shuts off but you're still stuck within the aforementioned set of constraints. And that's when the magic happens. That's when you actually start speaking. That's when your improvised move is the only way you could have possibly said what you wanted to say.
> It wouldn’t surprise me if at some point in the future we realise mass shields us from a gravitational field that pushes everything in all directions at once as opposed to our current thinking that mass emits a field that pulls us towards it.

It would definitely surprise me since I know that this theory — since it's such an obvious hypothesis — has been proposed multiple times since Newton's own (it's now colloquially called "Le Sage's theory of gravitation" [0], but it had many other proponents including Kelvin, H. Lorentz and Thomson) and it has always failed to accomodate the equivalence of graviational and inertional masses: after all, the gravity is not proportional to the cross-section of the bodies, and graviational shielding does not exist — experiments done by Eötvös were quite decisive in that regard.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitat...
Wikipedia is good on the artefact : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burney_Relief

This includes the reconstruction of the original colours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burney_Relief#/media/File:Quee...
The actual decree: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2024-281
> Dumb question, but is the basic idea that you need to harvest more heat energy from the plasma than is needed to maintain the magnetic field?

No, since creating and maintaining the magnetic field in principle consumes no energy. All the energy put into a superconducting magnet (1/2 L I^2) can be recovered.

What is needed from a physics point of view is for fusion energy production to comfortably exceed the energy put into the plasma. And there's also a whole host of engineering and economic issues beyond that.

Energy is recovered from DT fusion by stopping the neutrons in a blanket, converting their energy to heat, and taking that heat away in a fluid.
education / culture issue
You can also have robotics without AGI, as we already do.
Because the gains from increased productivity have been reaped by executives, not workers. You keep working the same hours to make your bosses more money, when you could be working less instead. This income gap has been widening since the 1970s[1,2].

[1]: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide...

[2]: https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
>having these infinite abstraction levels where nobody ever truly understands what in the world is going on anymore

s/infinite abstraction levels/Rube Goldberg contraptions/
The reading version of internal monologue is called "subvocalization" and this paragraph describes it well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization#Comparison_to_...

Reading your comment, I don't subvocalize at all. In order to get through my college degree, I taught myself speed reading. Now, I just naturally do it. My eye flicks to the middle of every 5-10 word chunk and flies though the text. If you did speech synthesis at that speed, it'd be a incomprehensible chipmunk. So I don't subvocalize at all. It'd be way too slow. To suppress subvocalization I used to hum (in my mind) instead, but I don't need to anymore. If something is hard to understand I will slow way down, then the subvocalization might kick in. When typing, I do subvocalize everything, since I can't write that fast.

I think this post/paper was more about your personal thought process rather than reading though. I very rarely have any internal monologue. In fact, the rare times I do have one are usually very awkward social situations where I wanted to say something but don't. Otherwise never. My whole life has been that way. An internal monologue sounds like a nightmare to be honest. Constant talking that nobody else can hear? No thank you.
It is, but also it's a helpful simplification, I believe. It's kind of like a cup and a ring being topologically equivalent. Helps you talk about some generic thing without overloading with details.

Then there are many more layers on top: palms facing up/down/side, cupped or pressed against, which part of the hand/arm/body are you holding, which one's on top, compression or stretch, at what height, etc.
No, this was companies doing it. They controlled ports, rail and roads (or what ever roads that may exist in remote areas), and controlling in-going supplies was a matter of policy and enforcement. Mining and railway companies where once very large and powerful, similar to some trading companies in the past.
The ones I could find sounded like autopilot was engaged:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_cras...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Australia_Beechcraft_King...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Baltic_Sea_Cessna_Citatio...
How about others in the EU bailing them out when they found out you actually can't just increase spend forever? Grexit would have been certain bankruptcy
> And you’ll be disappointed if are hoping for a video that shows off this feat.

I can confirm, my google page didn’t show any video of the robot other than the slomo clip from the launch (also present in the submission).

Then there is the claim of 200m jump on the moon. I can understand the lack of video here.
I would consider western and non western equally bad.
MINIX3's development has stalled years ago.

Basically, around MINIX 3.2.0 (just before I stated contributing) the OS ditched its homegrown userland and adopted the NetBSD source tree + pkgsrc. While that boosted the software compatibility of MINIX3 in the short term, the maintenance burden of keeping up with upstream with such a large diff proved unsustainable in the long term, especially after the grant money dried up.

In hindsight, my opinion is that MINIX3 should've gone with NetBSD binary compatibility. The NetBSD syscall table would've been a far slower moving target to keep up with than the entire NetBSD source tree.

The OS also had a significant amount of tech debt, especially in the microkernel which was uniprocessor and 32-bit only, as well as outdated hardware support which meant nobody was daily-driving it anymore. It also was an aging design: while the system was divided up into user-mode servers with message-based communication, you couldn't containerize a process by spawning a parallel userland ecosystem for example because it wasn't capability-based or namespaceable.

It's too bad really, because the base system had really impressive capabilities. It could transparently survive crashes of stateless drivers, even when stress-testing it by injecting faults into the drivers at runtime. You could live-update the various system services at runtime without losing state or impacting clients. Some really good papers came out of MINIX3 [1].

I've ranted more in detail before, both on HN [2] as well on Google Groups [3]. I do not fault the maintainers for the current state of affairs because keeping up the MINIX3 userland against modern software standards was a major maintenance burden, so adopting NetBSD's one way or another was inevitable. At any rate, there are other micro-kernel based operating systems [4], some under active development, so MINIX's spirit lives on.

[1] https://wiki.minix3.org/doku.php?id=publications

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34916261

[3] https://groups.google.com/g/minix3/c/qUdPZ0ansVw/m/7LuOv0YOA...

[4] http://www.microkernel.info/
Migrate the most complex use case first. There's nothing worse than discovering mid-migration that you have to pause for rework. Better instead to slow down with your first adopter and accelerate for subsequent.
The article is light on details. It doesn't mention an operating temperature or Q factor.

I would hazard to guess that no - they did not achieve fusion. They achieved plasma which is a precursor to fusion. Controlled plasma, at a high enough temperature, is an environment in which fusion can occur. All this article says is they created controlled plasma. Crucially, they did so with high temperature magnets which is fairly novel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor You might also be interested in reading this. Q factor is what's used to discuss whether a fusion device is generating net positive energy.
They do

https://github.com/pizlonator/llvm-project-deluge/blob/delug...

Or

https://www.circle-lang.org/site/intro/
> Curb Stomped by Apple actually having a developer platform strategy around AI

Lol no. Intelligence of an apple did not curb stomped anything. Including apples. So far regulators like EU and countries like China curbstomped the fruit intelligence.
Another issue with using such relative qualifiers IMO is that they become meaningless over time, as the namespace becomes polluted as every few years something addressing some problem with a potentially different approach is given a similar qualifier.
Tell that to the Navajo Nation. They're sitting on and around the 2nd largest source of uranium in the country. Between all the miners getting lung cancer and the high rates of blood cancer in everyone else due to the environmental neglect from the mining companies they eventually declared a moratorium on mining within their land.

I had a brief teaching stint out there on Shiprock. One of the first peculiar things I noticed was a clinic that I first thought offered some kind of radiation therapy, like an oncology clinic or what have you. Upon closer inspection I realized it was a clinic for those affected by radiation-related illnesses.

Meanwhile, given all the oil and gas activity, it certainly seems like that has given them far fewer problems.
Performance tip: avoid unnecessary copies
Yes! I was a backer for this while it was still running. Really cool series, don't have a physical copy of the book but do intend to get at least a digital copy at some point. Man that hard copy would make a GREAT coffee table book though...
If you can or ever were able to do this in 2 seconds that is unimaginable to me. Not in a doubting way, I just have no idea how I could do it in 2 seconds. It would take me 20 to 30s and at least. But most people wouldn't even try to multiply this top of their head.

Also this multiplying of two digit numbers I was never taught, I just came to a strategy that I explained with my thoughts. And I used to do these for fun as a kid. But I would only get faster than that if it was something I had memorized, but not numbers from scratch. And I had to constantly try to repeat numbers in my head that I had stored for addition down the road.

What is usually tougher top of my head and especially if I am tired at all, is something like 68 x 68. Then here first I have to decide whether I go from 60 x 60 or 70 x 70. Since it's that close to 70, I think 70 is more likely be easier. So I think okay 4900 - that's from memory right. Then I start to think what I have to take off from 4900 and what is 68 x 68 lacking compared to 70 x 70. So I will think that if I add 2 x 68, it will make it 68 x 70 and then I have 2 x 70 missing. So I need to deduct 140 and 136. So now at this point, this is much easier done in writing but here I frequently have to repeat numbers or redo some steps because I am not certain or I forget. But otherwise 4900 - 140, this comes easily instantly 4760 - maybe that's how it is for you with 62 x 62. And then now I take 100 off, it's 4660, and further 36 it would be 4624. Right now testing this in my head it took more than a minute because I wasn't sure whether I could just use the logic that I was thinking out of the box and I'm quite tired.

What if you were to have to do something more difficult e.g. 3 digits multiplication or 4?
I believe that was the point they were making.
Readwise.io and its tagging feature are what I've been using for the past couple of years to save pages for later reading (displacing Feedly). The paid version has:

- a built-in RSS reader

- an easy-to-use tagging feature that you can use from the browser extension

- a nice text-to-speech reader — on the elliptical machine I listen to articles that I've saved for that purpose from Twitter, HN, etc.
I meant the deserve part in the sense that if we're doing copyright, the only thing that makes sense to protect is the work itself, not the piece of plastic or paper holding it. Whether works "deserve" to be protected is an entirely separate discussion.

As for lending, there is very little difference between lending a physical medium and expecting it to be returned and sending a digital asset and expecting it to be deleted afterwards. In both cases you have basically no way of preventing someone from making a copy and have to just trust them and/or dangle the threat of legal action over them. Yes, some things are more effort to copy than others, but with modern phones and OCR, even books can be digitised and copied in a matter of minutes and with no material cost.

So practically, if we wanted to prevent copying, we shouldn't allow lending at all. And I think that would be too important of a thing to sacrifice just to get authors a few extra percent in income (since, as we've seen, people who pirate are not very likely to buy if piracy isn't an option).
> It would be so cheap we would all be heating our houses with resistive heaters

"Too cheap to meter" was a promise in the 50's regarding nuclear power. Since then it turned out to be one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity if not the most expensive.
Mitch Bradley was the author of a great deal of that Forth; his CForth is on GitHub : https://github.com/MitchBradley/cforth

(It might be easier than finding an old Sun machine)
The author of this post seriously underestimates what is needed to get to memory safety. In particular, spacial safety is not memory safety - just adding bounds checking won’t get you there.

But yes, C can be memory safe. It’s just harder than the post makes it seem.
What I am getting from this is that archaea make extremely efficient digestive enzymes that target (diatomic?) hydrogen.

Was there anything else that I missed?
you have the choice of either going with the flow and keeping making a burden out of your life, or screwing the uncertainty and risking with what you love and believe in the most, because 32 sounds like you damn deserve it to the fullest.
Looks good! Thank you
To end all wars, one might say.
I'm not an expert in this field but I feel like the key is to make Dragon as a platform cheap, and once that happens more rides can be carried (to ISS) hence making the system battle-tested. Being cheap and reliable are the two major reasons NASA rode with Soyouz in the past few decades and, for better or for worse, still riding with them even after the Ukraine war started.
Thanks for the view back into history. I was kinda under the impression that this side-hustle thing was new. Apparently its not only old, but was an essential part of the technological progress we've had since then.
Google is force canceling gsuite because I used unlimited storage as unlimited
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. The original question is political in nature and polls run by both major sides of the political spectrum in the USA support your argument.
Related:

Pre-scheme: A Scheme dialect for systems programming (1997) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29725313 - Dec 2021 (12 comments)

(surprised there hasn't been more)
No tokamak, even one intended to achieve fusion, would first be operated on D or DT. They'd first extensively test it with ordinary hydrogen.
They use their own runtime for V8 isolates, so they have a lot of leeway into how they measure/meter it.
Commoditize your complement. If you sell operating systems, it pays to make compilers a commodity so that everyone can write programs for your operating system. This is true even if you aren’t “selling” the OS in the traditional sense of the word.

The alternative is a world where developer tools are expensive, and thus only the rich can program their own computer.
I do hate steam! Praise be to gog!
Wow, I never imagined that fusion funding was that paltry. Considering the insane things that have to be built to make it work, it is very impressive what has actually gotten done.
I don't think you want your secrets committed...
Greece has a lot of businesses with seven-day working weeks. Hotels, that kind of thing. This rule change says, AIUI, that you can't work in that kind of job and insist on a five day working week.

The money of working hours per week is unchanged.
Unclear what the relationship is with the Global Meteor Network (https://globalmeteornetwork.org/) that has people build meteor cameras, often based on RPis, and then contribute the data so that meteor orbits can be determined.

This site: https://tammojan.github.io/meteormap/ shows the meteors detected over the last 24 hours. You can see that the UK is pretty well covered with cameras as are some parts of Europe. The US is rather sparser -- with only Arizona having good coverage.

Building a camera is fairly easy and is under $200 -- most of the parts can be ordered on Aliexpress.
It seems that the investment in fusion is incredibly tiny relative to the potential payoff and compared to other trivial or even destructive pursuits?
> However, with solar and wind now far cheaper than nuclear due to no need for massive capital investments in concrete and steel upfront many years before production starts, does it even make sense for governments to go down this route?

Cheaper per watts generated, which aren't constant. Cheaper for a constant output? Reliable to actually power a full grid through downturns such as storms, winters, etc? No, not really. There are exactly zero currently available widely usable grid scale (being able to have enough capacity to power the grid for up to days at a time) solutions. Pumped up hydro is the only one coming close, but it's expensive and it requires specific geography. Just saying "batteries" or "supply and demand by load shedding" doesn't magically solve this problem.
I've gotten 15 other responses and the ideas I write and respond to inevitably blend together. So I apologize if I make some assumptions based on statements from other parts of the post that I have answered.

Regardless, I am a huge fan of the devil's advocate. You can talk about points without them being your complete world view. That's the assumption that we seem misaligned with. Just because I don't want all information to be free the moment it is published (or stolen) doesn't mean I want to abolish copyright.
What to Use to Develop Your Startup or Start a Hackathon in 2024?
I'd say spacetime exists IN math.. :)
Google fanboys entered the chat room. Care to explain what is it that you dislike about my comment? Was any of it non-factual?
> At that point you might as well ship each commit via a separate PR. (While in development you can temporarily set the branch for Part 1 as the base for Part 2.)

Absolutely. Indeed, this (independent commit) is a very positive side effect (typical example: separating refactoring commits).
>I'd even go further and say that nature generally doesn't torture things for amusement the way the worst humans have done.

Let me introduce you to the species named Felis Catus.
At the most basic level, your process is in the D or S states rather than R state. Cloudlflare workers are not exactly Unix processes, but the same concept applies.