skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> there simply isn't much residual variance left for the linear model to explain.

I'd say that there is still quite a lot of residual variance to explain. You need a baseline - the worst choice would be to predict 0 (or 1) and the mean squared error would be 0.5. Using 0.5 as baseline halves the mean squared error to 0.25.
Asking as a newb: Why separate screens? Can you use it as one massive screen but move windows within?

Pushing further - the concept of window doesn't even make sense on such device.
I dont think there is a single button where all the participants have their video off and only audio is on. The current way is to start a FaceTime video chat and then manually turn the video off.
It never made sense to me why they raycast from the car. Humans don't play this way. The car is an abstraction the model doesn't need to care about it.

It literally doesn't matter if it's 1px or 100 meters to the wall, just learn to not hit it.

Instead, measure from the _camera_. That's all that matters. That's what humans do when we play.

Bonus: with this added perspective you'll be able to drive maps with hills and jumps. Not just flat maps.
Hey, welcome to the laid off by OpenText club. fistbump
> whether an effect is statistically significant ("does the effect exist?") and whether it's significant ("does the effect matter?")

The more accurate terms to describe this is whether an effect is significant (i.e., "do we have enough information to be able to claim it is different from zero?") vs. whether an effect is relevant (i.e., "is [our estimate of] the size of the effect meaningfully different from zero?").

Statistics can only address the first issue (effect significance); the second issue (effect relevance) requires domain knowledge beyond statistics (in some contexts, a difference of 0.01 units can be irrelevant, while it may be relevant in other contexts).
Ah, Blanchard's theories on autogynephilia which have been debunked and rejected broadly by the scientific community and are really just a sexist reduction of gender identity, positing that the only possible reason a person born male might want to transition is because they are sexually turned on by the idea of being a woman.

Good of you to not generalise this across all trans women like Blanchard did but still bad of you to even entertain it in this context. I'm sure some people might want to transition for this kind of reason but it's not a pathological root cause of being trans at all.

Just because there may be an element of fetish to some people's lives doesn't mean you can extend to all people who you think bear a resemblance to them. That's very offensive to suggest and is easily debunked by a trans person simply stating they're not doing it because of a sexual fetish. You can choose not to believe them but that really just exposes your bias and transphobia.
5th submission this year

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22No%20way%20to%20prevent%20t...
i wouldnt go for perl...id suggest the better question to be awk vs python, in which case id go for python
Empowering Designers and the Role of Democratizing Research
This style of writing headlines really irks me
I find Organic Maps to be less irritating, but it doesn't always find the address I search for - but once I've found the place and dropped a pin, it's much nicer to work with for walking and cycling.
Astroturfing. Flag
Having lived in apartments on many busy roads in my life the main source of noise from cars is tyre noise, not engine noise.
If we can create a human-level intelligence in the computer - it would already be superintelligence. No human on Earth is capable of reading and remembering Internet scale corpus of data, or doing math at GHz speeds, etc.
Try https://www.sbert.net/

These models are self-hosted and cheap to run. Much smaller than GPT 3 or 4 but trained especially for this purpose.
Equality doesn't mean that everything is equal.

If you are 6'5 heigh equality could mean that smaller people sit or stand in front of you.

For woman it doesn't mean they have to go to military but could.
> The AI probably doesn't hate us

The AI doesn't have to hate us for this outcome. In fact it might be done to cocoon and "protect" us. It just has different idea from us what needs to be protected and how. Or alternatively it can serve (perfectly or in a faulty way) the aims of its masters. A few lords reigning over suffering masses.

> If you are deeply morally concerned about this, and consider it likely, then you might want to consider getting to work on building an AI which merely causes extinction, ASAP, before we reinvent that one sci-fi novel.

What a weird response. Like one can't be concerned about two ( (or more!) things simultaneously? Talk about "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face"
Good alternatives to bats if you want to write portable test suites that target many shells:

- https://github.com/shellspec
- https://github.com/kward/shunit2
Ironically it could also be said OpenFlow was not generic enough. More and more networking hardware continues to move towards having a fully programmable pipeline but OpenFlow isn't the most flexible way to define a completely arbitrary pipeline.

https://opennetworking.org/news-and-events/blog/clarifying-t...
We understand some of it but who can say we understand the majority of it ? We might be at 0.1% of understanding the reality without be able to state this. Just as a worm surely « understand » some of it to differentiate and process it’s surroundings.
Thanks for the pointer, didn't know that Quora had threaded discussions.

Excerpt from Alan Kay's answer:

One big distinction in the 1962 time period is that they thought of “machine intelligence” as being a kind of complimentary set of thinking tools that could be “symbiotic” to how humans were able to think. They were not at all thinking about something like a slave or a major domo, but something more like a research assistant or a “Memex” (the latter was a big influence on Doug’s thinking).

In the very late 60s the “official AI researchers” started to think that something like “intelligent Greek slaves” were needed for the “Romans” (Americans), and became rivals to Doug’s notion of elevating human thinking rather than just elevating power. This was a bad idea then … and it’s a bad idea today.
Grafana Alloy: OTel collector and OpenMetrics scraper
> about how to solve np-hard problems there instantly. ... without losing safety. Ex: leapfrog the concolic execution papers via a fast oracle

Just want to point out to unknowing readers: none of this is true and the author of these comments is "talking his book".

Source: do I really need to explain how LLMs do not solve NP-hard problems "instantly"?
Yes I am trying my best to be empathic.
You know you're old when...your first reaction to that headline is "obviously a faster-spinning Earth would get more heat from friction against the luminiferous aether".
Wow, that's pretty cool. Where is this offered?

But have you invested in 5Gbps+ networking gear to actually take advantage of the offer? 10 Gbps Nics have become super affordable (~20$) by the way.
My point is that, with the exception of food and possibly medicine, this reasoning applies to basically everything.

As an exercise of thought, if we magically stopped the economy now like, everyone stopped working and paying for housing and credit and given a magic influx of food, most humans in the world would not need anything else to be happy for a long time.

Of course it’s just an exercice of thought, we do need to replace some objects sometimes, we do need people to fix things. But apart from food, there is barely any object that we would need that isn’t already available somewhere in the world.

The thing is, mostly nobody is a farmer : most people in the world are producing or helping producing things we already have.
In general some of the Intel Atom CPUs intended for embedded applications support the so-called In-Band ECC, where a part of the memory is reserved for storing ECC codes.

Two of the three ODROID H4 variants use the "Intel Processor N97" CPU, which is intended for embedded applications and it appears to support In-Band ECC, even if this is not clearly advertised on Intel Ark (i.e. at other CPUs of the Alder Lake N family, like i3-N305, at ECC Support it says "No", but at N97 it says neither "Yes" nor "No", but it is mentioned that it is intended for embedded applications, not for consumer applications, and the embedded models normally support In-Band ECC).

The ODROID H4 BIOS allows to enable In-Band ECC on ODROID H4 or ODROID H4+ (the latter is slightly more expensive at $139, but it has more I/O, including two 2.5 Gb/s Ethernet ports and four SATA ports; to the bare board you must add between $10 and $20 for the case, depending on its size, and a few other $ for SATA cables, RTC battery and optionally a cooling fan; you must also buy one 16 GB or 32 GB DDR5-4800 SODIMM, so after adding shipping and taxes a NAS would cost a little more than $200, besides the SSDs or HDDs).

You can see test results with ECC enabled at:

https://www.cnx-software.com/2024/05/26/odroid-h4-plus-revie...
> JS is supposed to be a productivity gain over compiled languages. But with ultra slow builds that goes out of the window.

But what business problem are we solving? Why do we need compiles, transpiles and so, in a dynamic language in the first place¹? And if so, is compiling the right solution to that problem?

My point was mostly to question if we are solving the right problem. And if the direction in which we are solving it, is the right one. After some 20+ years we still haven't converged around a single solution. But instead we keep firing out "new" solutions and solutions to the problems that those solutions then introduce on an almost weekly basis.

To me that shows we are either simply looking in the wrong place, or have a much deeper, fundamental problem that simply cannot be solved. And should probably either stop looking for the solution or just abandon the whole stack.

¹ I'm not looking for an answer to this question. I know several reasons why we build, compile, transpile, minify and whatnot in JS. But all those are also solutions to deeper problems. Problem's that can be solved in several ways, only one of which is "compile pipelines".
Apple bows to Kremlin pressure to remove leading VPNs from Russian AppStore
Sure thing, goes for folks reading this too.
Wow, how much fun times my friends and I had with Glider. We probably could not possibly thank you enough for making something that caused us to spend so much time together. If only I had more rubber bands...
And create a housing crisis which is deadly - I cannot imagine the carnage that a major fire or earthquake would cause in a Kowloon Walled City like environment.

But I do think that some building regulations need a rethink - I believe there is a requirement in many American cities/states to have two staircases in apartment buildings, which really restricts how you can organise the building
anti-social vehicles
I had a huge complex in my youth , I simply couldn’t read as fast as my peers. Now, I realize that I was going too fast, and by slowing down, taking my time and reading slowly I could absorb more, and understand, and I had this amazing ability to never forget anything I did read (at least for an extended period of maybe 2-3 years). I realized over time that going fast isn’t for me. Better to go slow absorb, digest and ultimately retain more would get me where I needed to be. Never did well in school in terms of grades but ultimately I got better and better doing a masters and actually got sponsored to do my PhD. Many years I read but could not understand, but ultimately it was the joy of reading slow that got me further than the joy of reading and not understanding.
React chaos in mid and large web apps: Any different experiences?
> It doesn't let you avoid a road or favour another

This might be a computational cost thing. Modern routing algorithms preprocess the graph to find the optimal route orders of magnitude faster than you normally would without preprocessing. If you let each person customize the graph then such queries would be much more costly.

Then again, I'm sure there are lots of other complications already and that most users wouldn't want alternate routes, so maybe the marginal cost here is irrelevant?
Even if it does only cause psychosis in people who have a disposition to psychotic illness, why is that fine?
Similarly, there was a time when my daughter got very car sick, and I desperately wanted an "avoid roundabouts" option!
Or those on network volumes or removable media. When somebody else on other machine removes them, your local database is out of sync pronto.
> 40% are getting paid at least 10% less

That statement is wrong either way. Looking at the graph, ~22% got a >10% cut while ~36% got a >10% raise. Overall ~43% got a cut while ~57% got a raise. And if there’s any doubt, later on they dropped the “at least 10% less” qualifier for the 40% figure in text:

> But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers who had gotten an unannounced pay cut through a black box transition.

Can’t believe they (accidentally? intentionally?) screwed up the very first concrete figure given in the article. Guess what, discussion is now based on the wrong figure.

Also, the y-axis of the plot is labeled “number of workers” when it should be “percentage of participating workers”, unless they had exactly 100 participants (they say they had 200+). Lousy presentation.

I’m all for transparency, obviously.

Edit: In addition, since participation is entirely voluntary, common sense tells me that the data they gather should skew more negative, since people negatively affected are much more likely to participate.
Context switching is considered harmful (2012)
> considering that we can understand what constituent things would make up a superintelligence

Can we? What constituent things would make up a superintelligence? Who's to say that our answer to that question is what is actually true in the case of a real superintelligence?

> Both seem to rely more on defining concepts first and then assuming their existence as a consequence.

Unlike religious philosophers like Anselm of Canterbury and Descartes and their ontological argument for the existence of a supreme being merely by imagining it, I don't believe anyone in the study of superintelligence is presupposing that they exist, or even can exist, they only presuppose how one might hypothetically exist.
Interesting. Could you share what are you interested in at the moment?
It's been a while, so I'm a bit hazy on the details. Every iteration of the code had the scanner+parser approach. The real problems started when testing the parser (because that was the double-encapsulated `Parser<Scanner<IO>>`). This means that in order to test the parser I had to mock complete VT100 data streams (`&mut &[u8]` - `&mut b"foo"` - is fortunately a Reader, so that was one saving grace). They were by all standards integration tests, which are annoying to write. Past experiences with fighting the borrow-checker taught me that severe friction (and lack of enjoyment) is a signal that you might be doing something wrong even if you can still get it to work, which is why I kept iterating.

My first few parser designs also took a handler trait (the Alacritty VT100 stuff does this if you want a living example). Because, you know, encapsulate and DI all the things! Async traits weren't a thing at the time (at least without async-trait/boxing/allocation in a hot loop), so fn coloring was a very real problem for me.

The new approach (partial, I haven't started the parser) is:

input.read(&mut data);
tokens = scanner.push(&data);
ops = parser.push(&tokens);

Maybe you can see from that how much simpler it would be to unit test the parser, I can pass it mock token streams instead of bytes. I can also assert the incremental results of it without having to have some mock handler trait impl that remembers what fns were invoked.

I'm not sure if that really answers your question, but as I mentioned: it's been a while. And good luck with the learning!
IDLE power optimizations are pretty low on my list when I look for an SBS/SOC, I must admit.

Do you have a list of remaining, large deficits in Linux power management, because I'm not finding many urgent open issues in that area?
That could be the reason, why the contract tries lock me in.
Equity is granted alongside a commitment to stick with the effort through at least some ups and downs. The cliff forces that commitment. It is not just an alternate payment to cash for startups who want to keep payroll down.

If you want to work a series of short-term gigs, for equity, then just be a consultant and negotiate that as your payment. I've known people who have done that over the years, collecting lots of small bits of equity. They've been pleased with their results over time.
It is a samba feature, called veto. You can define there, what you don't want on your shares, starting from .DS_Store and Thumbs.db, to *.mp3, for example.
> frankly written in a very tedious way.

Ok? I don't see the contradiction. When I say "It is written in a very accessible way" I mean to say "you will understand it". Even if you don't have years of philosophy education. Which is sadly not a given in this day and age. "frankly written in a very tedious way" seems to be talking about how much fun you will have while reading it. That is an orthogonal concern.

> He says in around 300 pages what should have been an essay.

Looking forward to your essay.

> I also found some of his arguments laughably bad.

Didn't say that I agree with everything written in it. But if you want to understand what the heck people mean by AI safety, and why they think it is important then it has the answers.

> He mentions that AI might create a world of a handful of trillionaires, but doesn’t seem to see this extreme inequality as an issue or existential threat in and of itself.

So wait. Is your problem that the argument is bad, or that it doesn't cover everything? I'm sure your essay will do a better job.
I've noticed it's necessary to cut long audio into sections, otherwise it starts getting confused and repeating itself. The output token limit only lets you transcribe a few pages at a time anyway.
My boss says our goal is to make quality products, but often we don't even have time to check the parts.

Once there was a problem that machine didn't make good enough surface finish, but boss just said it's fine, let it run.
Turns out it wasn't fine and we had to fix 3000 parts with hand sander. That's why I don't like to cut corners.
If we can match our existing intelligence (but it’s a jagged border of capabilities), our progress in creating superintelligence won’t matter because we won’t be the ones making it.
"to tell crawler to not crawl" which can be ignored AFAIK
You are not comparing apples to apples.
BTC is comparable to gold or US treasuries. How often do you transact in physical gold? What is time taken from a piece of gold in your pocket to cash to coffee? However, you can transact in paper gold eg the ETF GLD in microseconds with comparatively much lower transaction costs (settlement is still not immediate).
How often do you transact in treasury bonds? Try paying for a coffee with your treasury bond. Let’s see how many days that takes.
Comparison with USD (ultimately representing US treasuries) on number of transactions basis is not useful.
I currently build commercial and b2b audio products, and have had to explain far too many times, that .. yes indeed .. there are only 2 USB ports on your laptop which will work properly with the device .. and yes .. I know you have 5 USB ports .. only 2 of them will properly power the device .. yes .. the specs do state you need a powered hub, most of the time .. grr ..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "government debt" the sum total of currency issued, rather than being like the balance on a credit card? It's better thought of as a measure of the size of the economy being governed. What you want to keep an eye on is the total inflation-adjusted 'value' of the economy, if this starts reducing then that's not good.
this, I like Fastmail, but their app being online-only is a shame
Those with "Intel Processor N97", i.e. ODROID H4 and ODROID H4+.
No I don't. The FriendlyElec NanoPI R6C can be brought to 1W Idle including NVMe SSD and 2.5GBe (and REAL transfer rates of >200MB/s). It's more expensive, but totally worth it in my opinion. See https://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/threads/ultra-low-powe...

Since it has neither ECC nor support for common Open Source NAS Operating Systems, I still would not buy it as my daily driver. I just don't think that a difference of 5W Idle Power is worth the effort of milling out stuff, using USB-Storage and the additional maintenance effort keeping this system up to date.
Ah, thanks for the correction. I saw the title and remembered the earlier discussion - only paid attention to the github repo and not that the link led to a different pdf. I also missed 'review' mentioned here in the title.
What if there's discrimination built in to the system? Maybe a business is willing to pay white people more, or women less. They can do that while still following your framework. Is that moral?
How do you distinguish data shuffling from computation? What’s actual computation from this perspective?
Good points.

I didn’t actually specify it out, but my third backup is an offline SSD that I plug in every once in a while and store at my office. I only mentioned the RAID for local redundancy reasons.

You are right about the data being corrupted, either maliciously or bitrot. The NAS is not accessible outside my home network, so I think I am ok there.

Bitrot would require snapshots and full backups stored over time, which I could do fairly easily but I am currently not.
If it's not an art then if we make the best example of something, what would that example be the state of?
Haskell's speed can be competitive with systems languages but keep in mind that its killer feature is ease of abstraction.

The idea is that it is simple to assemble multiple parts into a coherent, well organised program. Which is important for the entirety of the program, no just the tight loop.

So, with the nice FFI Haskell has, you can always drop down to languages without a GC for inherently imperative optimisations. Then you wrap that into a library with nice types and you can now leverage that raw power anywhere in your Haskell code where the types will match.

I worked at Meta in a high performance Haskell application and that's what we did. Wrote beautiful, large, fast Haskell programs which in some specialised parts had C++ building blocks. 99% of the time was spent on Haskell land composing things into more and more useful applications.
I believe they refer to something similar to this: https://youtu.be/y2RAsubSDAk?si=anuRAPCCI9Z0NQMJ&t=144

Sorry, for the obnoxious video. I couldn't find another quick example.
This, of course, will depend on how you code your variables, but if you try to fit a null, intercept-only and predictor-only model, you get this as residual variance:

> data <- data.frame(state = c(0, 1), pref = c(0.45, 0.55))

> sum(residuals(lm(pref ~ 0, data = data))^2) # null model

[1] 0.505

> sum(residuals(lm(pref ~ 1, data = data))^2) # intercept-only model

[1] 0.005

> sum(residuals(lm(pref ~ state + 0, data = data))^2) # predictor-only model

[1] 0.2025

So, it seems clear that you only get a "perfect" prediction with the full (intercept + predictor) model mostly because of the intercept (which explains (0.505-0.005)/0.505 = 0.99 = 99% of the variance).

Thus, it makes sense that the predictor is only explaining the rest (i.e. 1%) of the variance... hence, the R^2 = 0.01