skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I always find these comments about interesting, having worked at Facebook and Google, I never quite felt this way about Google's Monorepo. Facebook had many of the features you listed and quite performantly if not more so. Compared with working at Facebook where there are no owners owners files and no readability requirements, I found abstraction boundries to be much cleaner at FB. At google, I found there was a ton of cruft in Google's monorepos that were too challenging / too much work for any one person to address.
People simply have no idea what they're talking about. It's just jumping on to the latest hype train. My first impression here was per the name that it was actually some sort of compiler in it of itself--ie programming language in and pure machine code or some other IR out. It's got bits and pieces of that here and there but that's not what it really is at all. It's more of a predictive engine for an optimizer and not a very generalized one for that.

What would be more interesting is training a large model on pure (code, assembly) pairs like a normal translation task. Presumably a very generalized model would be good at even doing the inverse: given some assembly, write code that will produce the given assembly. Unlike human language there is a finite set of possible correct answers here and you have the convenience of being able to generate synthetic data for cheap. I think optimizations would arise as a natural side effect this way: if there's multiple trees of possible generations (like choosing between logits in an LLM) you could try different branches to see what's smaller in terms of byte code or faster in terms of execution.
I feel like any security issues could be solved by just letting app developers sign their own app bundles again. Then you could ensure an app is legitimate whether from the Play Store, F-Droid, or Shady Free App Store. Currently, Google makes it so painful to try to use independently-distributed software because apps signed by Google can't be upgraded by independently built versions and vice-versa. (Plus Play Protect pops up and disguisedly asks if I want to delete all F-Droid apps like every month.)
What political environment makes fixing things possible? Countries scraping their constitutions tend to be poor ones just finishing revolutions which more often that not creates dictators (1799 France included). Except, very few exceptions
I'm hiring for this, Fintech project, 100% Elixir + Phoenix + LiveView. Email at bio
Cannot overstate.
What, https://richardkemick.com/ ? I don't see the issue.

(Note: I am browsing with Mull (hardened Firefox) + uBlock Origin. No telling what happens if someone goes there with a mainstream browser.)
"You know about slime mold? Well, slime molds are so close to being both plant and animal that it's like they can't make up their minds. Some think that maybe it's these indecisive organisms who have been running the earth all this time. There’s more slime mold than any other form of protoplasm on the planet. If they wanted to, if they finally decided to commit to being either plant or animal, they could take us over just like that. [Interviewer: You talk about slime molds like I should know what these are]. I mean, they're everywhere. If you walk in an alleyway and slip a bit, twisting your ankle, maybe it wasn’t an accident. Maybe it was a slime mold attack." - David St Hubbins in a deleted scene from Spinal Tap (1984)
> more than capable of establishing the requisite in-house research apparata to allow the Branch to become quickly read up and fluent on anything.

Not only can they not “become fluent in anything,” it shifts more power to lobbyists and industry where expertise exists that can draft the language they want with the loopholes they want. The scale of federal governance is literally impossible without the looseness of intent interpretation that can be challenged and validated by the court.

You may as well say we can replace the regulatory bureaucracies with expert systems, because we should be able to predict every possible outcome beforehand and just make a giant if/then out of it.
Your application for a tourist visa to the Earth Planetary Visitor's Bureau has been denied due to a clerical error. Please alter your course to enter a holding orbit until your application has been resubmitted. We thank you in your interest in visiting Earth.
> Besides, we're projected to ingest all of humanity's written knowledge by 2026, and after that there will be a cliff in power consumption, we will mostly switch to inference on purpose built hardware, which is vastly more efficient.

Does this claim presuppose that people will forever be content to use a circa 2026 ML model? If so, that seems unlikely to me.
> Devastating that expertise will no longer influence the application of law and policy.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Nothing stop Congress from leveraging experts in drafting laws.

This simply requires that interpretation of law be done in a clear transparent way (courts), rather than by a nameless, faceless, unelected bureacrat.

How can anyone say "no, I'd rather have some bureaucrat do it"?
What's your definition of effective and how are you evaluating if the administrative government is meeting your definition?
WA is the state code for Washington in the US, by the way. Is WA commonly thought of as "Western Australia" worldwide outside of the US? If not, maybe consider using less overloaded abbreviations in your titles.
Respect for not trying to shoehorn an “LLM” use case this would not be suitable for.
When using `with` and the `{:ok, term} | :error` patterns in Elixir, I just wish we had first class monads.

There are some third-party libraries to make working with these a little easier, but it never sat right with me. Probably being so close to the BEAM means we cannot stray very far from what Erlang is doing, but errors would be much nicer to handle with monads.

That said, pattern matching alleviates a lot of pain in many cases. If you have a pipeline of fallible steps, you can do:

def step1({:ok, data}), do: ...
def step1(:error), do: :error

def step2({:ok, data), do: ...
def step2(:error), do: :error

etc.

I think the `with/else` anti-pattern is that your example just feels clunky because of this lack of monads. It is an anti-pattern not because it's a bad idea, but because it is simply unergonomic and just looks bad.

In general, whenever I feel the need to differentiate errors to handle them separately like your example, with a little refactor I can usually simplify the `with` expression and avoid having to do all that ceremony.
its a nickname

https://www.matt-blake.co.uk/google-inside-the-chocolate-fac...

[ Free food is not the only perk to working at Google; the offices themselves have more than a touch of the Willy Wonkas (employees even refer to it occasionally as ‘the chocolate factory’). There’s a library with beanbags; sofa-lined workspaces; a state-of-the-art gym; a massage parlour offering treatments from facial-rejuvenation to Reiki; and a roof-top allotment area where Googlers grow their own vegetables. There’s a ball pool on the sixth floor, between marketing and events, and a ‘napping pod’ for when the fun gets too much. One of the canteens has a pool table, a fussball table, a table-tennis table and a candyfloss machine. We feel as though we’ve stumbled into a sort of open-plan Shangri-La. No wonder everyone we pass seems so chuffed with themselves. ]
Is the problem the data center or is the problem carbon emissions?

How about tax the carbon emissions.
Allies were so put out by Bush II that they gave Obama the Nobel peace prize before he did anything.
Yes, exactly. Perfectly put.
How about some colour ? Not everybody loves black and white (or dark gray and light gray).
Amendments 1 and 9.
What store do you think Xiaomi have? * looked at my Xiaomi device * Oh, hello Play Store.

Don't know about Amazon Fire, but Amazon Android store (same with Samsung) went nowhere and has never been successful.
Everyone in every industry that I know about relies on true information from their suppliers, from software to produce. They're the ones who know about the products, after all. In fact, pharmaceuticals are the one industry most likely to treat suppliers at adversaries, with FDA regulations continually attacked as too stringent.

Purdue was actively lying about their drugs.

"Purdue trained its sales representatives to carry the message that the risk of addiction was “less than one percent.”50(p99) The company cited studies by Porter and Jick,51 who found iatrogenic addiction in only 4 of 11 882 patients using opioids and by Perry and Heidrich,52 who found no addiction among 10 000 burn patients treated with opioids. Both of these studies, although shedding some light on the risk of addiction for acute pain, do not help establish the risk of iatrogenic addiction when opioids are used daily for a prolonged time in treating chronic pain. There are a number of studies, however, that demonstrate that in the treatment of chronic non–cancer-related pain with opioids, there is a high incidence of prescription drug abuse. Prescription drug abuse in a substantial minority of chronic-pain patients has been demonstrated in studies by Fishbain et al. (3%–18% of patients),53 Hoffman et al. (23%),54 Kouyanou et al. (12%),55 Chabal et al. (34%),56 Katz et al. (43%),57 Reid et al. (24%–31%),58 and Michna et al. (45%).59 A recent literature review showed that the prevalence of addiction in patients with long-term opioid treatment for chronic non–cancer-related pain varied from 0% to 50%, depending on the criteria used and the subpopulation studied.60"

"The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/)

"Purdue has known about the problem for decades. Even before OxyContin went on the market, clinical trials showed many patients weren’t getting 12 hours of relief. Since the drug’s debut in 1996, the company has been confronted with additional evidence, including complaints from doctors, reports from its own sales reps and independent research.

"When many doctors began prescribing OxyContin at shorter intervals in the late 1990s, Purdue executives mobilized hundreds of sales reps to “refocus” physicians on 12-hour dosing. Anything shorter “needs to be nipped in the bud. NOW!!” one manager wrote to her staff."

"‘You want a description of hell?’ OxyContin’s 12-hour problem" (https://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/)

From what I've seen (women sent home days after a c-section with Ibuprofen as the only pain medication; all of the doctors near me displaying signs saying they will not treat chronic pain), pain medication may well be under-prescribed at this point.
These types of frameworks will become abundant. I personally feel that the integration of the user into the flow will be so critical, that a pure decoupled backend will struggle to encompass the full problem. I view the future of LLM application development to be more similar to:

https://sdk.vercel.ai/

Which is essentially a next.js app where SSR is used to communicate with the LLMs/agents. Personally I used to hate next.js, but its application architecture is uniquely suited to UX with LLMs.

Clearly the asynchronous tasks taken by agents shouldnt run on next.js server side, but the integration between the user and agent will need to be so tight, that it's hard to imagine the value in some purely asynchronous system. A huge portion of the system/state will need to be synchronously available to the user.

LLMs are not good enough to run purely on their own, and probably wont be for atleast another year.

If I was to guess, Agent systems like this will run on serverless AWS/cloud architectures.
VT100 has some demand; not later less iconic terminals. (Personally, I think I still have a few V2xx and a Wyse or two.) Many of these eBay listings are effectively permanent, from commercial resellers who are waiting for the rare case that some business somewhere really wants an exact replacement for an old system component that no one wants to risk changing.

I may still have a Sun 3/60 pizza box (as well as a Sparc or two), and maybe even keyboard and cables (one of the common problems — I've had people excited about a ‘free’ SGI Indy but they come to their senses when they realize it's a blue paperweight without time, money, and luck finding the ancillaries). Fortunately I found takers for my (three!) deskside Sun 3/160s about a decade ago. But even for a single pizza box, shipping has become a killer for non-local transfers (I'm outside US; SW Ontario).
Hence why I said “displacement effects are likely to dominate [...] the marginal environmental cost of the renewables themselves.”...
You're assuming that judges are slower to resolve ambiguities than regulators are. My experience with regulators has been that often they not only let the law be ambiguous for years despite repeated requests for them to make a decision, but are then fond of retroactively and suddenly "clarifying" things in response to shifting political/media winds. Nor do they feel any obligation to be consistent with past rulings.

Courts are at least expected to make progress on cases as they are brought, to be roughly consistent with past case law, and they aren't allowed to just refuse to make a decision for a decade and return to it when it's suddenly in the newspapers.
The US health care is so expensive, is largely due to regulation like HIPPA that makes administrative cost astronomically high.

It is not a good idea to have those agencies roam freely imposing regulation that they might not able to foresee the economic consequences
I don't think that follows. If ChatGPT tells me that two masses attract one another via gravity, that's objective information regardless of whether it uses a statistical process to produce it out of training data or contacts an oracle to directly query the divine will of the gods. LLMs don't always return objective information, but they typically do.
It isn't simple. The judgement states that broad implied deference to the agency of the act in question, per Chevron, is incorrect and the courts decide in the those case.

There were a ton of arguments that interpretation, in general, is an Article 3 right of the courts. Though, I'd assume if congress explicitly granted interpretation to the specific agency of the act, we'd have a separate case on whether they're allowed to do that (explicitly defer).
Just to be clear, sponsorblock has less than 3% the number of users of Ublock origin alone, so while an interesting utility and a interesting subject for the ad-blocking debate ethics-wise it has nowhere near enough prevalence to be significant when talking about ad-blockers used by the masses. And "the boring report" it's not even optimized for mobile viewing (Android), at least in my experience a few minutes ago: https://i.imgur.com/q6e3DzM.jpg
If Android disappeared tomorrow, what would you call Apple's role in the smartphone market?
LLMs now write lots of science. Good
No affiliation with the university
It's down again today
You can plug your interview.
https://archive.ph/kYf9c
> It's true that neither rustc nor clippy complain about having a `Result<_, String>` return type.

I would love to understand where the original author picked up that unfortunate idea from. I’ve never seen someone do this, and it’s very explicitly throwing away all additional error information by converting it to strings. No wonder you can’t figure out where your errors are coming from!
He was treated fair and just, and with that the other players were respected.
They're the most accessable packaging building system, is why. If you're ever actually trying to install something (properly, i.e. not making a mess by just splattering files across the filesystem with 'make install') that isn't already packaged, you're going to have the easiest time with PKGBUILDs (basically, if you can figure out how to compile the software using the instructions for that, you can make a PKGBUILD. The same is not true for other package managers). So they're praised by power users who can manage that and by developers who don't want to learn a harder to use packaging system.
There aren't many good christians left. A lot of churches in socal today have metal gates over their front steps to prevent anyone from sheltering on them. Growing up, I figured big city churches always opened their doors and pews for people to sleep, but apparently that was a trope from hollywood and not what many churches today at least do for their local community.
Bazel Python does not cross compile IIRC. How was this achieved?
Unpopular political proposals affect electoral outcomes even if not implemented
This may work for "casual" attempts, but if someone really want to exfiltrate data, they can still do so in any number of ways. For example, they can send DNS queries. To your usual DNS server, so you won't see a new address. Which will happily pass it along to whatever the registered nameserver for the queried domain is.
In that case what’s the explanation for clear air turbulence events having an exactly proportionally lower rate of causing damage and injury such that the rate has remained flat despite the increase in events? What’s making turbulence safer?

Edit: this isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m very interested in any proposed actual mechanism. As someone who is very alarmed by turbulence I’d love a reason to believe it’s getting safer.
Chevron is about who interprets statutory law, agencies or courts. That question has been controversial for 100 years, ever since we have had administrative agencies. For example, the Supreme Court decided in 1944 that courts should give some respect to agency interpretations, but the court had the final say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore_v._Swift_%26_Co. Chevron didn’t create the deference concept until 40 years after that.

Chevron was always contentious, and applied by courts in a rather haphazard way. But overturning it wasn’t “political.” It was originally decided by five republicans and a Democrat (with three justices not participating) and was overturned by six republicans. What happened was an ideological shift in the Republican Party to separation of powers that’s been going on since the 1980s.

Law nerds have been talking about this for decades. The only thing "politicized" is how the media is using public ignorance of how the legal system works to attack the Supreme Court for an extremely academic legal issue.
It was a common technique back in the day with both dot matrix and "letter quality" printers to print a line and then go back and print it again to either get a bold effect by printing the same characters twice or to overlay one character on top of another. If the spacing was right you could have drawn accented characters that way.
That’s what this particular website has been calling Google, because it’s “quirky”.
Maybe more "traction" is not that important, in the end?

BEAM has been around for decades and has proven its worth. Elixir has been around for quite some time too, is super stable and reliable, has a pretty decent user base, real-world applications, ecosystem, etc. In many cases, it's arguably the best tool for the job. And it's not like some critical piece of puzzle is missing.

So it may stay kinda niche forever because people who fully understand the problem and fully realize how to solve it will also always be niche.
As similar complaint:

> "The rule of thirds is perhaps the greatest fallacy ever foisted upon the beginning photography student, a canard from lazy educators designed to give the impression that their ideas are based soundly in theory."

…and then asking why cinematography is taught differently: https://www.photo-mark.com/notes/rule-herds/
I don't think it is the inexperience level in congress that is the driving factor. Ted Cruz has been in the Senate since 2013, and he is absolutely one of the problematic members. Former President Trump is similarly anti-compromise and similarly a bomb-thrower rather than a politicker.

The main problem as I see it is that to many people have entered their own little political bubbles (a problem on both the major parties), and that on one side it has become common to lie outrageously (election denial, "Biden Crime Family", etc...) and to baselessly vilify their opponents in unfair and repugnant ways ("groomers", "killing babies after birth", etc...).

There is a real historical parallel to this: the U.S. Civil War. In the run-up to the election of Abraham Lincoln the Southern Democrats absolutely vilified him, saying things like he was going to free the black slaves (not his plans at all at that point) and make slaves of poor white folks. Many of these species were made on the floors of the House and Senate to be picked up in the newspapers in their home districts.

When Lincoln won (largely because the Southern Democrats split their vote), this rhetoric had taken on a life of its own and the populace was so enraged that it would have taken real leadership in the south to prevent war. And so we went to war with ourselves.

And about what really? Certainly slavery was the over-arching issue, but what specifically about it? Lincoln won on a platform of status-quo. There was to be no effort at freeing slaves (there were 4 slave-owning states in the Union, and slavery happened in a number of new territories like California during the war), and the only anti-slavery thing Lincoln committed to was to no expand slavery into the new territories: something that had already been agreed to.

The U.S. Civil War started because a failed political strategy to lie to their own voters got away from the Southern Democrats.

I am truly scared that we are approaching that today. There is no-one with any integrity left in Republican leadership. Their voters have been lied to so much and so long that the idea that the leaders of the Democratic Party both are tying to "groom" children and to literally suck their blood in some ritual to live longer are nearly main-stream within Republican circles. And Republican leadership is alright with that, so long as they think it will get them elected.
correction!

> although i've been collaborating with him; his priorities for the zorchpad

should be

> although i've been collaborating with them; their priorities for the zorchpad
>Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes...

Why not? Why can't Congress write complete regulatory statutes? Isn't that literally their job? Yes, it is. "Chevron defense" has been a way for Congress to shirk its duty for decades. If the law is ambiguous, courts must resolve the ambiguity. That is exactly what courts are for. To say that it would be better for an opaque, appeal-proof bureaucracy to have the final say was a ludicrous step on the path to our ever-growing executive tumor.

The tone of your quotes from Kagan give the impression that federal agencies are "responsible" and able to use "discretion". But agencies are political animals, subject to the whims of the current president, who can potentially change every four years. Courts are much slower to change, and much less vulnerable to the political whims of the current administration.

So many people are polarized and focused on winning presidential elections so they have their hands on the levers, that they never question whether the levers should be there in the first place. Perhaps politics would not be so polarized if the President did not have so much power, and the stakes were not so high.
So it would be a monopoly if it's largest competition with a huge stake of the market disappeared tomorrow is your retort to me challenging accusations of having a monopoly?
Then the voters should kick the bastards out. That's the biggest check on the legislative branch, it has pretty fast turnover.

Now, if you have a population that doesn't want to elect lawmakers who will actually pass laws...well, that sucks, but it's kind of working as designed.
* https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch16.html

* https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch17.html