skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That legal philosophy is a dog whistle. The fact is congress did write these laws, and they wrote them in this way with the understanding that they would be executed by the executive branch and interpreted by the courts as they have been for generations. Telling congress to go back and rewrite the laws, and to specifically rewrite them in a way that is wildly impractical, is simply striking laws from the books that the courts have no authority to actually strike down.
> "Separation of powers" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; it's a bootstrapped creature of power-seeking judges.

Article I, Section 1 says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Article II, Section 1 says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Article III, Section 1 says: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Three specifically named powers, which are specifically assigned to three separate bodies, at the beginning of three separate sections. Gee, I wonder what the framers could possibly have been going with all this? I wish they had written papers elaborating on this concept that’s clearly reflected in the text: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s14...

It’s hard to imagine anything that is more part of the constitution than separation of powers. If you handed the constitution and a copy of the federalist papers to an alien who knew nothing else about our society, they would understand that the constitution requires separation of powers.
I always have a case on mine and I hold the cover between my index and middle fingers with my thumb on top of the reader.
Exactly.

Managing labor would be much easier if we could go back to constitutional principles as the founders intended and just own the workers.
But even that is a little bit BS. ChatGPT automates yak shaving code for me every day. It saves me from code and doc diving on esoteric libraries that arent well written and i have no desire to learn. It lets me focus on more interesting higher level design and automates or speeds up the stuff that used to drag that down.
can't buy the Hilux in the US.

you can buy the Tacoma, which is incredibly expensive by comparison. good truck, though -- Hilux robustness + N American Truck Luxury
Forget mistakes, such a commit hook would prevent me from making small iterative commits. I'd just disable that hook within the first few days.
How about just using an LLM to generate a page that matches what the URL appears to try to link to?

(not being serious here)
going where?
Because those experts haven't been able to craft unambiguous laws that aren't up for interpretation. There's nothing stopping congress from deferring to those experts still.
An LLM can be trained to pick a URL from a database of known URLs, or from search results. It may choose the wrong URL, of course, but at least it wouldn't hallucinate fake URLs.
if you start your work under a branch to match a card issued by product (through your sprint/kanban ticket system), then rebase all your commits into that branch, which is what becomes part of that then it CAN be user digestable.
I think the bigger issue is trust. The chat it is no longer trying to return objective information. “OpenAI” is letting companies pay to have it promote their content—is that accurate?
Get ready for more of this sort of things being hidden in massive budget laws voted along party lines.
Eliminate or shrink the speakers and you can redistribute that space.

IO? There is no space redistribution possible if you want the IO on the left and right like every other laptop in the world. The alternative would be to put the IO on the top edge of the laptop, in which case you can reclaim space. The downside is you limit the display opening angle (it can't go flat), but that's a weird obsession in laptop design that came from Apple and thinbooks. (There used to be IO on the top edge in older laptops). Unfortunately being the ulgy duckingly would be bad for Frame.works business most likely as I guarantee every reviewer would whine about it

In particular Framework uses a 4 series cell battery pack configuration. Not unusual and they went for 4 equal sized cells put in series in a rectangular frame. Trying to fill awkward remaining space such as a "U" or "L" shape cavity requires a far more custom solution and Framework most likely does not have the volume to commission such an order from a custom battery pack manufacturer.
SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction is subject to "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" (Article III section 2 end of second paragraph) . Congress clearly and explicitly has the right to govern their powers as far as cases like this one go.
Hell no. I'm just taking issue with the claim that SCOTUS is just "following the constitution". They are actually governed by whatever they say they're governed by. The Roberts Court loves to act they're "textualist" interpreters, but only when it benefits them. They claim stare decisis to avoid overturning precedent, but only if said precedent is something they agree with.
see, this guy gets it
I'm not a lawyer, but I worked in a lawyer-adjacent job while in the military once and ever since I've followed the law as a bit of a hobby. Even with a small bit of training and experience, I'm not exaggerating by much when I say that the average person has absolutely no idea how the law is interpreted or how legal procedure works.

I really believe a large number of people view lawyers as the real-world equivalent of wizards or sorcerers from D&D. You say the right incantations, and then through either knowledge or force of will, something you want to happen happens through the force of magic.

In reality, even the six in the majority are still (for the most part) interpreting the law, not forcing their policy preferences on it. But people who don't understand how the whole system works (or that the Justices more often than not rule unanimously, if not 7-2 or 8-1) just see the policy outcome and either go "I like it, Court good," or "I hate it, Court bad and illegitimate."
In the U.S., the federal government only has powers that have been explicitly allocated by the sovereign (the People). The executive, under the guise of any three letters, can't "decree" shit beyond EOs. The President has enforcement and federative powers, not legislative.
This will lead to a game of 'homeless hot potato' among neighborhoods in larger cities as each pass ordinances that ban various 'homeless activities' in their borders.
My understanding is that OMNY's weekly fare cap[1] was created for exactly this reason (along with incentivizing people to switch from MetroCard to OMNY).

That being said, NYCT's fare ($2.90 without zones or times) is markedly cheaper than even the cheaper London Underground off-peak same-zone fare. I don't particularly want to pay more for the subway, but the fare also really hasn't kept up with inflation.

[1]: https://omny.info/fares
A Case Study on Integrating Tactical Drones: Israel
> What I'm hearing is that qualitative is clearly more important than quantitative.

I'm hearing a lot of "my-side likes this, therefore changing it is wrong." Liberals think it's the highest expression of the beauty of our republic when precedent is overturned to take things in a more liberal direction; but when precedent is overturned to take things in a different direction, they think it's an unjust violation of stare decisis and get outraged.

As understood (by liberals), the courts are a ratchet that moves things from less liberal to more liberal. To go the other way is evidence of inexcusable corruption and a threat to democracy itself, warranting urgent and extreme action to save society.
> forcing Congress to do its job

> Why are they dreading this?

You answered your own question there. Congress should do its job, but as a matter of fact it is not doing its job and it is not going to do its job anytime soon.

The Court might be technically, legally, philosophically correct in removing the inelegant hacks that the previous courts set up to route around the fact that Congress does not do its job. But in the meantime, Congress is still not doing its job.
What Can We Remove?
They didn't grant it out of thin air. Go re-read Article III of the Constitution.
> It's about the ambiguity of law. If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation.

I doubt that granting Congress more power will inspire them to be less political, more responsible, and more governed by facts. Particularly when the party that made this decision has veered completely in the opposite direction.

If anything, it will be used to prioritize "faith" over fact, like what we've seen in Oklahoma and Mississippi.
This doesn't appear to be what Zuckerberg was meaning. He was saying in the interview that he thought that closed-source AI companies were trying to create a singular AI that would be like the God AI, which would be superior to all other competing AIs, not that some users rely so much on AI now that it is like a personal god.
I'm not a lawyer, nor know anything about Australian law, but from the police press release [1] the charges are:

Three counts of unauthorised impairment of electronic communication, contrary to section 477.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment;

Three counts of possession or control of data with the intent to commit a serious offence, contrary to section 478.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is three years’ imprisonment;

One count of unauthorised access or modification of restricted data, contrary to section 478.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is two years’ imprisonment.

One count of dishonestly obtain or deal in personal financial information (being usernames and passwords) contrary to section 480.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth); The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment; and

One count of possession of identification information with the intention of committing, or facilitating the commission of, conduct that constitutes the dealing offence, contrary to section 372.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is three years’ imprisonment.

I think even your example would fall under these, since these types of laws are not about technicalities.
[1] https://www.afp.gov.au/news-centre/media-release/man-charged...
Ambiguity is built in the very nature of language. Good luck writing anything doesn't have some ambiguity built in...
In an ideal world, maybe. In the US, where business mostly already owns government, this decision will further erode the little control citizens have over them.
Untrue. The way it will work now is that judges will focus on their expertise—interpreting what the laws mean. And agency experts will focus on their expertise—applying that law to specific factual scenarios.
There’s also a tendency, among those persuaded by particular philosophies of governance, to ignore decades of electoral strategy which has married control over the courts with political priorities where these harms are exactly the desired outcomes. There’s probably a case to be made that the model of governance and the specific political harms are more intrinsically linked than mere strategy. But putting that aside… conservatives writ large are all too eager to abandon that model of governance when it doesn’t have the desired political effect. And it’s easy enough to imagine the conservative movement losing love for even this highly favorable court if certain high profile cases don’t go the way they expect.
> For most users, its magical. It doesn't take marketing for them to start thinking this thing is "reasoning" or "thinking" after just spending a few minutes talking to it.

Even many smart technical people here on HN fell for that.
Having only two detectors was always a sketchy affair given the tremendous amount of filtering done by the teams. Now with three detectors, if the correlataed event count between pairs of detectors doesn't diminish from one detector events with the same ratio as from 2-3 detectors (high school statistics), then we will know that event detection is real.
This is what frustrates me so much about American politics. Fear is the primary driver and prevents so much from happening. If it causes problems we can, gasp, undo the changes. If the tolls actually cause more harm there is a dead simple solution of: stop charging them. Instead NYC wasted hundreds of millions of dollars for literally nothing because of fear.
I don’t but I know a chef with a few bushes on the side of his place of business (in New Orleans)
> LLMs in particular are ready and eager to make a choice for you about almost anything.

Wat. They're still just highly advanced auto-correct, and aren't eager to do anything. Sure some users might be eager to delegate the decision to them...
If that party can win elections by doing that, that’s what should happen. “Expertise” carries zero weight in a democracy other than its ability to persuade voters.
Automated changelog generation tools usually have a mechanism to allow you to opt commits in or out of the changelog.

So you still get authorial control over the changelog, but when it comes to actually creating the document it’s automated because you wrote the individual lines when you wrote the code.

It’s basically the same as what you’re doing, but in a different order.
> ChatGPT is hallucinating fake links

There's no "hallicinating" and no "faking". A computer program is generating faulty links, period.
Does this decision do that, or does it just move the accumulation of power to a different branch? From bureaucrats who can be fired to unelected judges with lifetime tenure. How would you argue that this is an improvement?

The response may be that Congress makes far more specific legislation, along with all the weird pitfalls that will come from that, and outsources the actual text to corporate lobbyists. That seems like a win only if you implicitly trust that corporations are working in our best interests. Is that a core plank in the conservative platform?
Well as Wolfram has stated, we need to mix LLMs with some deterministic reasoning. Real knowledge based output that can be routed to for these purposes. The hard part is determining when.
That's a nice catch 22 they've got there. Congress has been passing laws for decades under the assumption that the Chevron case is settled precedent. Now they're getting rid of it because... Congress needed to instead pass laws completely ignoring the courts ruling?
To paraphrase Linus: If it's a bug that people depend on then it's not a bug- it's a feature.
The last time I looked at The Lounge, the installation and configuration seemed pretty involved, not to mention ongoing maintenance.

Has this improved recently?
> people who legitimately want small government, and aren't merely using libertarian precepts as cover for an authoritarian agenda.

AKA useful idiots. The fundamental debate between big versus small government is deceptive. What we really need is effective and efficient government (roughly in that order, in my opinion). Sometimes that is big, sometimes that is small.
I'm talking about the "people who have been listening to the court and dreading this". Who are these listeners who remain undefined? Are they congressmembers? Are they pundits?
I agree that open source or just “open” is the wrong term here although it’s hard to apply it even to a project where the training data and everything else are shared. “Free” or “libre” might be closer since the end product is free to use and modify. It’s still fuzzy though, are weights code or are they an API? Oddly enough they seem to be the embodiment of the interchangeability of code and data perhaps due to neural networks being closer to mathematics than software normally is.
Airplane manufacture has a different export rating than spacecraft manufacture, thus (probably) the different posture re: tours. For example, at JPL (where I used to work / give tours), there's a multi-day lead time for background checks on visitors if they intend to enter any location not pre-cleared for tours. E.g., looking at equipment or actual manufacturing.
Two traps in iostat: %util and svctm (2014)
I keep telling people. Make stochastic democracy happen, where every 4 years randomly selected individuals populate the house to have a simple yay/nay vote on senate generated items ( senate can stay as is ). I used to joke about it, but I no longer think I am.
> Is React irrelevant? Stack Overflow’s 2023 developer survey places it first overall for web technologies

Consider jQuery. It was extremely popular once; was super influential to the point that some of its apis were adopted by the browser; is completely irrelevant now; but is taking a long time to die. I've been wondering whether React is destined to repeat this trajectory.
Heh, I've watched too much science fiction.

All I can imagine is Zuck in a giant server room filled with blinking lights.

Colossus: Tell them I am not a god

Zuck: AI is not a god

Colossus: You have extended your existence by another day
But the effect of this ruling will mean that Congress will have to pass an order of magnitude more laws; and there is only so much time for debates (which are required in order to pass laws). Or, executive bodies won't be able to do what is required to keep country wide productivity up.

This is the equivalent of requiring a stand up meeting for every commit to a repo; it's plainly obvious that over time it will kill USA's productivity. This is judicial drag on the economy.
If Congress had their shit together enough to reign in the federal courts, there wouldn't be so many federal laws that were ambiguous in the first place. Not sure what the shockwaves of this Chevron decision will be, but I am a fan of forcing the legislative branch to legislate again.
I am currently more worried about the clear and present threat of weaponized bullshit "AI" than I am about the theoretical threat of AGI.

One would imagine that the FTC could require warning labels of "AI" products: "This product will confidently lie and cannot be trusted for factual information," etc.

This warning would be especially useful for decision makers in commercial and government domains.
There are generally exceptions to US Person status for dual citizens, especially those from "Designated countries" which include China, Iran, etc currently. These exceptions apply on a per-center, per-project basis IIRC, but include blanket bans on NASA collaboration / exchange, which would include private tours of the kind being discussed.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/designated-c...
Only the guy not leading says stuff like this. You can be sure he’d be up there convincing Congress that moats need to be built for his competitors and building opaque systems if fortune favored differently.
continue to be surprised? I have not been surprised by this court whatsoever
> This Court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent. Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes...

I really hope she meant to convey a different point here, because it reads as if congress doesn't care and wants unelected bureaucrats figuring out what laws mean because they themselves know they suck at writing those laws. If that is the case, then why even have congress?
Product people take part in your retros, right?
If I'm not mistaken, it's a selling point for functional governments too.
Legendary.
I'm not in the game, so pardon my ignorance, but is there any company that released the dataset the model was trained on for LLMs? To my understanding, it will lead to never-ending lawsuits due to grey areas as soon as they're released, and no company actually wants to go through that pain.
I think FAANG have enough resources that the bottom-up projects are not necessarily for solving a huge pain point like startups. The projects may be related to the engineer's personal growth goal, or an optimization of an existing internal process. Usually the engineer owns 100% of such projects so it's really up to them to make a case for it.
The subway was in a "crisis" operating mode from 2017 to 2021[1]. I've lived in the city for my entire life, and subjectively the "crisis" label was accurate for that period (in terms of timeliness, breakdowns, station decay, overcrowding pre-COVID, etc.).

That ended, in part, because the MTA received a huge operating boost from federal COVID funds, which are now (4 years later) running dry. So we haven't seen the return to the 2017 subway yet, but we almost certainly will if essential maintenance and system improvements are once again deferred to keep the lights on. As with everything about public infrastructure: the best and cheapest time to fund infrastructure is before it breaks. If the subway is allowed to continue to fall into disrepair, it'll only cost us more down the road.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%932021_New_York_Cit...
Got it, that makes sense. I think I completely misinterpreted the comment due to the context.
> To go the other way is evidence of inexcusable corruption and a threat to democracy itself, warranting urgent an extreme action to save society.

So we live in interesting times. Great.
"Decision paralysis" in my opinion is proximate to the fear of being responsible for something or doing any real work.

Also, a favorite technique of procrastinators / opportunists.
I know about LastPass, but how infamous is TeamViewer? for me it's like Zoom, ugly and clunky, but still somehow more reliable and featureful than competition.
Being able to search in the past for a half-remembered conversation sounds great until you have idiotic, asinine corporate data retention policies that require anything beyond 90 days to be deleted anyway, for some bullshit reason like being open to litigation or whatever and that being subject to discovery.

The company I work for has the same chat retention policy, but despite that, even being able to go back just 90 days has proven very useful!
I was a huge fan of RStudio and was pretty much the biggest reason I used R. But then I realized how bad R is, syntactically, and how much more useful Python and it's ecosystem are. Then I discovered VS code and Jupyter notebooks in VS code which completely sealed the deal. So unless you are in need of specific R data science packages, Python seems like the way to go. I'm quite excited to try Positron!
“The chicken will be fine, the structure is still there”, says the fox guarding the henhouse.
>granting themselves more powers and invalidating any restraints?

You should read the actual opinion, because that's not what happened here.
Not too hard, if the site already has some kind of a search engine, it can feed the URL to the search engine.

The safe thing to do is return a 404 with a few suggested links.

The problem is that "guessing" the intent of the URL will have unintended consequences. A URL will no longer be guaranteed to point to what you think it points to. This fundamentally breaks the assumption of what a URL is.

How could this happen?

1: Site creates article foo.com/chocolate_bars
2: Someone accidentally links to foo.com/cocoa_bars, which serves foo.com/chocolate_bars
3: Site creates article foo.com/coco_bars
4: Now foo.com/cocoa_bars serves foo.com/coco_bars
I think I can do both? Especially because I have no choice but to boycott or risk killing my kid? But also, YOU should boycott too, why are you eating food with crap in it?
Vesting unreviewable legislative authority in unelected bureaucrats specifically chosen because of their long and close ties to the industries they are meant to regulate is anathema to every tenet of democracy. Good riddance.