skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In your view, "far right" is believing that:

1) Courts should interpret statutes, not executive branch agencies

2) The separation of powers that the founders went to a lot of trouble to implement in the constitution must be respected

3) Judges can't gin up new "rights" from "emanations from penumbras" in the Constitution.

These are not "far right" positions--they are obviously correct. They're the version of government you learned in 8th grade. If they weren't inconvenient for your preferred policy preferences, you would think that too.
This ruling removes power from the executive branch and returns it to the state and to the people. How anyone could view this as a terrible thing is bizarre IMO. In what world is giving federal agencies wide powers to interpret laws and decide the best ways to apply them a good thing? That's a rhetorical question because the answer is it isn't.
There's also Doom as an Interface for Process Management https://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/chi/chi.html
We're still doing the handmaid's tale thing?
It's not "church or jail". The shelter is just one option. They could also crash on a friend's couch, or go somewhere with a shelter that doesn't require religious service.
We being myself and the person I disagree with.
Roast TalktoData.AI – Your personal AI data analyst
Hey hn community,

I'm Vinod, and I'm here to get your brutally honest feedback on my startup, TalktoData AI. We aim to revolutionize data analysis by allowing users to interact with their data through natural language conversations. Here's a quick rundown of what we're doing:

Product Overview: talktodata.ai

TalktoData AI lets you chat with your data using natural language. Connect to various data sources, ask questions, and get instant AI-powered analytics across your company data. Powered by industry-leading LLMs, TalktoData AI is your AI copilot for advanced data insights.

Key Features:

Natural Language Queries: Simply chat with your data to generate insights, eliminating the need for complex SQL queries or programming skills.

AI-Powered Analytics: Leverage cutting-edge LLMs from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and Google (via AWS Bedrock) to perform advanced data analysis.

Comprehensive Data Connectivity: Easily connect to structured data in files, spreadsheets, SQL databases, and data warehouses.

Visualizations and Reports: Generate elegant graphs, charts, and comprehensive reports across various domains to address your specific questions.

Advanced Analysis Techniques: Perform correlation analysis, segmentation, forecasting, and more with simple natural language commands.

Flexible Model Selection: Switch between different AI models available in AWS Bedrock, Azure AI or other platforms to suit your specific needs.

Target Audience: TalktoData AI is designed for data analysts, business intelligence professionals, and decision-makers who want to streamline their data analysis workflow and uncover deeper insights faster. Whether you're looking to understand customer behavior, optimize operations, or forecast trends, TalktoData AI provides the tools you need to make data-driven decisions with ease.

Current Stage: We're currently in the beta testing phase and looking for feedback to refine our product. We're also exploring funding opportunities to scale our operations.

Customer Conversion Strategy: We're targeting SMB's that rely heavily on data analysis and are currently using traditional BI tools. Our strategy includes direct outreach, partnerships with data consultancy firms, and leveraging LinkedIn ads to reach potential users.

Why Us? Our team consists of experienced data scientists and AI experts who have previously worked with leading tech companies. We believe our combined expertise and passion for simplifying data analysis make us the best team to bring TalktoData AI to life.

Contact: For more information or to schedule a demo, contact us at vinod@talktodata.ai. Alright, hackernews, let me have it! What do you think about TalktoData AI? Is this something you'd use, or is it just another AI buzzword salad? Any feedback on our product, market strategy, or anything else would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
I'm not at all an expert in this, but my limited understanding is that electrons are only "singularities" in classical EM; in quantum field theory they're just solitons of the underlying quantum field and can be analyzed with no infinities present. We haven't found a QFT equivalent for gravity yet, but I think the broad consensus is that the gravitational singularities will disappear once we do.
The less intelligent voters on the far right arent your problem. They are your distraction.

Your problem is the VASTLY more informed elites, who spend their time funding teams and campaigns. Teams who get into the details, who plan the messaging, do the lobbying, and provide the scripts that are repeated to those who listen.

It’s the guy who is a middle manager at a campaign, the lawyers figuring out which courts need to be influenced, the wording of which law to be switched, the people who map out each agency org chart and read the by laws to figure out how to dismantle the agency.

It’s those doctors, those lawyers, those analysts, those consultants and experts who are doing the work.
Alright, but what's the actual best minimalist social media?

I'm so fed up with Meta/X and while Reddit is decent, it's no way to connect with friends or carry on conversations that last longer than 2 hours.

I'm convinced that many people feel this way, and while I'm sure there will be a big "don't reinvent the wheel" response here, convincing mom, grandma, and that guy from high school to make and maintain a blog/website/rss feed is a no go in reality.

(And yes, I and my imaginary cohort are ready and willing to pay a monthly fee!!)
The trust process used for the CA roots is fascinating. There's huge trust involved in selecting a CA, and there's a strong desire to use fair selection methods, but browsers act like external auditors, using policy and incident tracking to track behaviors.

A year back I wrote a blog post about other CAs that lost trust: https://alexsci.com/blog/ca-trust/
I've had a consistent experience in Rails where I think for a day or two I've got a legitimate use case for one the whacky things you can do... and then as I work the problem more, it turns out: nope, the simple stuff is still the Right Way.

Someday, Ruby shenanigans, someday...

PS - Being able to pull the shenanigans is super useful during the dev process, usually to skip some yak shaving during exploration, so it's nice to have anyway.
it's not concern trolling, it's that the words used don't describe what it is. what Mark Zuckerberg has done with releasing llama3 and making the model available is frickin awesome, just don't call it open source! it's model available.

Trying to paint me into a corner with a false dichotomy, that if I want it to be called model available instead of open source, and that in doing so, I want a dystopian future where megacorps have AGI and we're all at their mercy isn't going to work. I don't want the models to not be available, what I want is to see what's being used to create the models, the source, if you will, and thus the alignment side of the source, and why it won't answer "how do I make cocaine", as if I'm going to go off and somehow become Tony Montoya. We may never get that, but that's what calling it open source and have it mean that would entail. Making the models available to the plebs is a generous thing for Mark to do, but that doesn't mean we can't ask for more. Or maybe we shouldn't; and just be grateful for his benevolence, because it's not like OpenAI has done the same with ChatGPT. I will give them credit for Whisper though.
I agree that just saying "skill issue" isn't the best, but also, it's totally fine to ask for help rather than write a blog post that says "This is a flawed language design."
It would be cool if newer (imperative) languages had a clear protocol to delimit the simple core of the language from the advanced, library-building features. Like Rust has `unsafe` blocks, imagine a `advanced` or `metaprogramming` block that is required in order to use advanced metaprogramming features. Then you could tell a junior to implement $MUNDANE_INTEGRATION without use of `advanced`, and that constraint could be statically verified in PRs, etc.

It seems like it would vastly simplify language evolution. The core language can have rigid limits on changes and follow the Zen of Python or whatever, while the `advanced` language extensions can be a bit looser. Features could graduate from advanced to core without breaking anything. You get a single powerful+expressive language with a "porcelain interface" without necessarily giving juniors ammo to shoot themselves in the foot.
Call me sceptical.

That would have been astronomically expensive given the enormous supply chain needed to produce charcoal to get that iron in those times.

I am sceptical on how they figured out iron stains are pothole fillings. I think much simpler explanation would be everyday items or metal pieces of carts getting stuck between stones.
"temperature sensitive foods like herbs, chocolate and wine"

How are any of these temperature sensitive in a power outage context?
Companies don't give away their money for free.

If a company voluntarily enters into a settlement, it's because they think they're saving money somewhere else.

In this case the Sacklers are granted immunity to all future lawsuits.
I'm saying that discussions of the origins of Yiddish do not cover Knaanic because it isn't a part of the origin of Yiddish. No different from Judeo-Arabic in that sense: an interesting topic in its own right, just not relevant.

> German Jews saw Knaanic and were inspired to create their own language

This is... not how it works. I know of only one case of "inspired to create their own language" in all of history, and it's Modern Hebrew. Which is a revival, not de novo.
Right, it's only solving phase ordering.

In practice though, correctness even over ordering of hand-written passes is difficult. Within the paper they describe a methodology to evaluate phase orderings against a small test set as a smoke test for correctness (PassListEval) and observe that ~10% of the phase orderings result in assertion failures/compiler crashes/correctness issues.

You will end up with a lot more correctness issues adjusting phase orderings like this than you would using one of the more battle-tested default optimization pipelines.

Correctness in a production compiler is a pretty hard problem.
And multiple years of getting FAA approvals.
Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation? What does that process look like exactly, and how do you achieve it at scale in a changing and dynamic world where the meanings of words change over time?

I think what you’re saying is the equivalent of “just write software without bugs and everything will be fine”

Yeah sure… but easier said than done.
I logged in just to respond to this - I could not disagree more. FB's faceted search is truly awful. I regularly search for specific items on FB and get totally different results if I run the same query multiple times. Sometimes, I'll even get "suggested" items that 100% match my search query and have been posted for weeks but still don't appear in my original search.

I loathe using FBMP, but it has been slowly absorbing all the CL traffic. On one hand, I like that CL charges for high value items now (ex: Cars) because it means you're getting better quality, but on the other hand it has absolutely hastened people's abandonment of CL for FBMP.
Code.movie Automatically turn code snippets into step-by-step animations for th
I’m just one incompetent dev, but I’ll throw this in the convo just to have my perspective represented: every individual part of the google code experience was awesome because everyone cared a ton about quality and efficiency, but the overall ecosystem created as a result of all these little pet projects was to a large extent unmanaged, making it difficult to operate effectively (or, in my case, basically at all). When you join, one of the go-to jokes in their little intro class these days is “TFW you’re told that the old tool is deprecated, but the new tool is still in beta”; everyone laughs along, but hopefully a few are thinking “uhhh wtf”.

To end on as nice of a note as possible for the poor Googs: of all the things you bring up, the one I’d highlight the biggest difference on is Code Search. It’s just incredible having that level of deep semantic access to the huge repo, and people were way more comfortable saying “oh let’s take a look at that code” ad-hoc there than I think is typical. That was pretty awesome.
I am right wing, because I'm from a third world country. Federalist Society is full of squishy elite beltway conservatives.
The cycles per instruction were identical for every instruction.

Power usage dropped by almost a watt or about 25%.
Which is fine. Legislation shouldn't be rushed, and the default should be to do nothing.
Truth be told, we don't really know that electrons are singularities in the EM field. Classically that's the case, of course. But in QFT, as you start to probe to shorter distances (and higher energies), our theories eventually break down because gravitational effects cannot be ignored. (For instance, how do you describe the EM field at distances shorter than a Planck length? The energies needed to probe to that limit would collapse the system into a black hole.)
I vaguely remember that vt220 actually special caces this kind of overprinting. And today everybody targets some kind of vt220/xterm hybrid…
For years I've tried to get a reading group together for this book. But of all my friend's in the Bay Area, I am the only one that enjoys LISP/Scheme and Physics.

Happy Tau day!
Who uses cards anymore? I don't even carry a wallet. Everything has been tap to pay on phones for years now.
In order:

1) A box fan with a HEPA filter taped to it;

2) The ones IKEA sells, or equivalents.
> it doesn't have the same kind of predictive power that people want (i.e. too much freedom so it can be used to explain anything, not just everything).

That's the popsci version that's been disseminated, yes. It's not exactly wrong, but it's misleading.

First a bit of background. Quantum field theories like the standard model are effective theories, not fundamental ones. We know we don't know the real high-energy physics, so we treat it as a black box and loosely speaking "average it out" as a new free parameter. This is analogous to how an engineer designing a bridge can ignore the fact that iron has a crystal structure and treat it as a continuum with bulk properties like tensile strength. In reality this having a particular tensile strength is a state, not an intrinsic property, and you could end up with a different tensile strength if you melted the iron and let it resolidify (I'm not a metallurgist, substitute some other material if that's not true for iron), but we can build bridges without knowing that.

In the same way, Standard Model is a particular form of "solidified" string theory. It's true that there are many, many, many others, but they're not free parameters in the same way. You can write down perfectly reasonable looking quantum field theories that string theory can't produce, and if our best effective theory was one of them then we would have good reason to reject string theory. But it's not.

So the situation we're in is that we have some solid material, and we want to know what a single molecule of it looks like, but we can't see anything other than the bulk properties. What the "string theory is unfalsifiable" crowd is demanding is that whatever molecule we predict have only a few possible crystal structures. And maybe it does. That would be convenient. But sometimes nature inconveniences us: it might be some crazy carbon allotrope. It might be glass.
I do find this quite hard to believe. Iron would be considered an expensive material to use in roadbuilding even today. The pictures aren't all that convincing.

> But lead author Eric Poehler of the University of Massachusetts Amherst writes that stray iron drops found on the street suggest that the molten metal was carried from a furnace to the repair site.

If the hypothesis is that they were capable of carrying molten metal from a furnace to the road, isn't it more likely that these are splashes or spills from molten iron en route to a blacksmith?
I think the "dark forest hypothesis" can apply here.

The advanced alien civilization may indeed be interested in us, but still not consider it their best interest to act as soon as possible.

If they decide to act, other civilizations (perhaps even more advanced) may decide to intervene in some way. A civilization that decides to reach out (in a friendly or hostile way) also reveals their own location in the universe.

The most risk adverse choice is probably to remain quiet, especially if they are millennia ahead of us technologically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_forest_hypothesis
It's still a pretty crazy idea to add something that only works on printers at that time. It's very much worth asking about OS support, and "it's there because printers" leaves a lot of story untold, it's not a sufficient answer.
R has the best syntax of any language I have used. What I hate about R is not the syntax, its all the functionality inside it that was written in hairy C and FORTRAN style. Unfortunately, any system gets written on top of by programmers of legacy systems. The syntax and semantics of R are probably the most elegant of any language I have used. The rules are extremely simple, logical, and transparent and are largely inherited from Scheme. The amount of power it gives developers is unparalleled outside of Common Lisp. So much can be redefined by users. It really is at its core a LISP wrapped in C clothing, but better because few people working on R care at all about compiler optimization. Instead, they all care about late binding and introspection so programmers can figure out what their code is doing. If speed is needed, use C++ (Rcpp). However, in practice R is usually fast enough. Somehow the R developers understood Knuth's proverb that premature optimization was the root of all evil (and wasted effort), but the rest of the world forgot.
I’m pretty sure they’re saying the other commenter and they themselves disagree.
I'm currently reading a book about Cleopatra [1] (it's superb) and I've been absolutely boggled by the productive capacity of the nation states of her era. Whether it was building ships, growing and transporting grain or raising armies, these were highly sophisticated bureaucracies that knew how to make, grow and transport huge quantities of stuff.

I'm at work and don't have the book on me, so I may have this slightly wrong, but IIRC, in Cleopatra's day Alexandria (where she resided with her court) was consuming 300 tons of grain per day, which arrived on ships via the Nile. Or consider the ability of Rome to draft and train legions of highly-skilled soldiers: it was at a scale similar to that of modern-day Russia.

1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7968243-cleopatra
I am somewhat sceptical, as iron was very expensive back then. And they do not come up with a working idea how they possibly could have done it in an economic way. Portable smelters were not really a thing. And building an oven next to every hole does not sound too practical either. At least not easier, than just fixing the holes with stones.

Also shouldn't we have found other instances, where it was done?

"The researchers found that repairs using liquefied ore were being carried out just before the city’s destruction."

So my first (uneducated) guess would rather be, that hot lava might have tampered with the evidence.
Exactly.

If Congress seeks to regulate air, water, land, and space pollution, from American companies, they should appoint industry experts who intend to leave public sector jobs for lucrative private sector jobs by going to work for the companies the laws need to regulate. It’s worked great for politicians who become lobbyists or prosecutors who go work for big law.

It’ll work great here too.
attack!!!

near to a cinema next to you!!

;-)
I would not say we are anywhere close to perfect in compilation.

Even just looking at inlining for size, there are multiple recent studies showing ~10+% improvement (https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3503222.3507744, https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.04808).

There is a massive amount of headroom, and even tiny bits still matter as ~0.5% gains on code size, or especially performance, can be huge.
I totally agree. My point, though, was that being poor isn't illegal. The ruling keeps the jurisdictions for camping in public at the city level, it isn't specific to why someone is camping or broadly about being poor.

If cops have to stop enforcing it the laws will eventually be overturned. If cops do enforce it courts and jails will back up, eventually the law would either be dropped or more support would be built out to help those in need.

That's not to say I like the law. I would much prefer it didn't pass, and in general I disagree with a legal system that is focused on punishing citizens rather than helping them.
Unless I'm mistaken, this strikes me as a really incredible claim. To the best of my knowledge, Rome didn't make much use out of cast iron. Iron has a very high melting point, it's not something that people were just casually melting. There were a few exceptions, but my understanding is that Europe mostly didn't use cast iron until late in the middle ages.

The idea that some random resort town was casually melting iron and hauling it around to fill cracks strikes me as really implausible. Some other, more easily melted metal perhaps, but not iron. Not unless my understanding of Roman metallurgy is really mistaken.
In a way that lets you get accents on the characters that have built-in accented versions, or in a way that lets you put it on anything?
I think the purpose of the inscrutability serves is to "idea launder" obvious falsehoods into something believable, much like the convoluted path one takes to convert stolen money into believably-legal money.
Not exactly HNers. Most likely bots or at the very least paid shills.
Couldn’t find the TensorFlow family in the Python galaxy…
How to Edit (Yourself)
Some aircraft are equipped with a system that records parameters in flight, and sends it via 4G when on the ground. This is used for preventive maintenance mostly. It’s a service that’s more and more common.

However that data belongs to each airline.
https://archive.is/gIPFV
I think all you really need is decent universal chat. Not our current siloed ecosystem with 15 different chat systems run by 8 different companies, none compatible with each other. But a truly universal chat system: like E-mail where you can E-mail anyone no matter what their ISP, computer manufacturer or phone manufacturer is.
> Like no, I would not read each article by itself, but if life gives you lemons, it's a great time to make lemonade.

Nobody wants your lemonade. There's too much lemonade.

You're lucky you live in the brief moment where you can take the lemons and use ChatGPT to turn them into combustible lemons, and use them to burn the stupid lemonade stands down. This era will soon end, as businesses adapt to ubiquity of LLMs.
Maybe enforcing the second law of thermodynamics? Or they're a consequence of the same. It's a region of space where the conditions that existed before the big bang have ostensibly reestablished themselves, which is why it appears as a 2d boundary phenomenon to us.

I am a total crank.
> Modularisation is usually the key. Small modules do one thing and are as seperated as much as possible with as little side effects as possible.

100% agree. The nuance I find is that a lot times, people want to draw the lines of the module along something that's more immediately intuitive, but results in longer-term complexity.