skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No nvidia makes great tooling. Like as a startup if I had to pick a development tool AmD fails repeatedly while nvida tooling is like matlab level of usefulness.

Those companies have money to make ‘nice’ things which open source software doesn’t have the time to do.

For 100m you could probably make some pretty sweet clones if amd is hiring anybody to man that position.
I would push back on the need for a "paradigm" because as much as lawyers like rules and predictability, the judicial process is ultimately a matter of judgment. Discussion about the "factors" a court should consider is often just that, guidance to other courts about what may or may not be relevant. A decent phrasing of this that kind of puts it into a "paradigm" would be recent 2A cases suggesting courts should look to the "history and tradition." All that's really saying is to do your legal research and make a decision.

As conflicts between reasonable judgments, that's the judicial process. The supreme court can allow circuit splits to exist, or they can express their own opinion. Of course, the Executive is free to make reasonable judgments within their realm. They're free to not prosecute questionable cases, and they're also free to prosecute defendants on cases where the court ultimately disagrees (that the conduct was legal).
I wasn't declaring victory. I think that whole way of thinking about discussions is toxic and stupid. When it turns out that one party hasn't been arguing in good faith and that there isn't much likelihood of anything useful coming from further discussion, no one wins. But that's where we seem to be.
It really shouldn't be surprising that these models fail to do anything that _they weren't trained to do_. It's trivially easy to train a model to count stuff. The wild thing about transformer based models is that their capabilities are _way_ beyond what you'd expect from token prediction. Figuring out what their limitations actually are is interesting because nobody fully knows what their limitations are.
>I could (well actually I can't)

I like the idea that these models are so good at some sort of specific and secret bit of visual processing that things like “counting shapes” and “beating a coin toss for accuracy” shouldn’t be considered when evaluating them.
It's honestly very difficult for me to understand why some people don't prioritize the judiciary's constitutional role in interpreting laws and the separation of powers that prevent executive overreach. Sure, this change might lead to more regulatory lawsuits, and we can address that by hiring more judges or drafting clearer laws. I'd prefer judges interpret laws with the advice of regulatory agency experts, even if it results in the same decisions. The potential increase in government size is a small price to pay for upholding constitutional principles.

In my opinion, the Chevron ruling is not only fundamentally unconstitutional, it is poison to this nation, and this recent decision rightly restores the balance of power.
Can you cite any case that proves this bizarre interpretation? Has the CBP ever been challenged on its practices, and have the case rest on Chevron deference?

As others keep explaining, the Chevron deference never allowed agencies to defy the law. It merely allowed them to have the final word on how an ambiguous law that applied to them should be interpreted. For example, if Congress passed a law saying "there shouldn't be poison in the water", the EPA would have the final word on whether a particular pesticide at a particular level constitutes "poison". A company couldn't sue and say "we think this is actually harmless". But the EPA couldn't say "this law authorizes us to hang anyone that puts poison in water" and get away with it through Chevron deference.
Yes, but in practice regulatory agencies can be fairly non-communicative with the companies that they regulate.

I work in the dietary supplements industry, and while people love to call the space unregulated, it's moreso that regulations remain unenforced. So much so that companies often have to ask the FDA for clarification around ambiguous regulations. And the FDA is often keen on not responding. You often find out because the FDA's decided to enforce a rule, one that the industry will have asked for clarification about countless times beforehand.

If regulatory agencies have ample opportunity to clarify ambiguous regulations, they should be doing so. They should not leave it ambiguous until somebody gets hit with a fine. That does not serve public interest.
George Will has an excellent article that defends the decision

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-c...

And a slightly older article (before the decision) hoping that it would turn out the way that it did:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-d...
Article title: Why every Canadian should learn about this country's 'gay purge', and it was written in 2018 (that's not when the purge happened)
> But in the context of playing a game, if someone presents a challenge with a set of rules, and I see a potential shortcut, I'm going to try it. Reinterpreting rules is fun in its own way.

I used to think this way, then I got bored of hex editing in memory values of games I was playing to cheat.

Is there challenge in hunting down memory locations for important player data? Yes. But it is a different challenge than playing the actual game, and winning at one should not be confused with winning at the other.
Both Supercell and Wolt have their headquarters steadily in Finland. The founders and Finnish early investors have gained hundreds of millions or billions of euros wealth for themselves which they have further spended and invested in Finland. They have paid huge amounts of taxes and keep on doing all of these since they are still located in Finland. It's hard to downplay the value of those IMO. Overall Rovio wasn't a complete disaster either. First made billions of euros for many years and was later sold to Sega for >$700 million. Still has HQ in Finland.

There's plenty of interesting and fast growing startups still left here. For example Supermetrics, Varjo, Smartly, Iceye, Aiven to name a few. IMO you are being pessimistic.
Even without Chevron, Congress can still explicitly delegate something like that to an agency.
Is it still the case that cpal doesn't support "synchronous" duplex audio where the program inputs audio from a source and outputs it to a sink (either with feedback or outputting unrelated audio), with an integer number of periods (as little as 2) of software-level latency if you copy source buffers to the sink? Last time I used it, each stream is opened in input or output mode and opening both does not run with any guaranteed timing relation.
you might not know, but the science on this method is settled. economists have run so many trials and experiments on this.
The Story of Why
"For iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone SE (1st generation), iPhone 7, and iPhone 7 Plus, iOS dynamically manages performance peaks to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down, so you can still use your iPhone."

It was limited to certain models, which makes sense because personally, I've never seen an older iPhone (≤5) shut off randomly. Apple didn't say what the affected models have in common.
The ACA (affordable care act) was pretty gargantuan because the healthcare system itself is gargantuan. Trying to address all the issues in all the facets of the law resulted in a multi-thousand page bill. It attempted to do what you ask for -- and the result was it was endlessly attacked for being huge, an example of how Washington is out of control.

The problem you complain has been there since the very start, in our constitution. There has been 250 years of court cases trying to determine exactly what the boundary of those vague rules state.
How about calming down and keeping your emotions in check?
Your whole comment is triggered by a wrong idea of what I meant and who I am. It is also ignorant of all the data that exists about gender inequality and the root causes. It is not something that you can learn from a single link to statistics. You need to do your own research, read some books and meet gender equality advocates to understand better the world in which your daughter lives.

Individual free choices are valid and as a father you did a good job showing the opportunities you know about and then not pushing towards certain career. A woman absolutely can and should be able to choose to be an engineer, a nurse or a fulltime mother and housekeeper, as long as this is free choice. All those jobs are important and respected.

However I’m not talking about them or diminishing them. I’m talking about the society as a whole and sexism so deeply rooted in the culture that even with proper education it is still not easy to uncover and combat all biases. Gender discrimination starts very early when metaphorically speaking boys get cars and girls get dolls. Children are programmed by the society to have certain interests and play certain gender roles. The share of girls who will choose a profession traditionally dominated by men is already lower because of that. Then it extends to university and first career steps. Women too often have to deal with sexism and harassment in academia or on workplace. Too often they are told (still!) that men can do better. Choosing a more traditional role they avoid it, but is it really a freedom of choice? And we even have not started talking about childcare where exists institutional disparity forcing to make a choice between the family and career. For example, how long was your parental leave compared to your wife?
Freedom for all but white men in countries like America is only theoretical. On practice the circumstances of life do not leave many women a choice. The outcomes are speaking for themselves. There are many women who are perfectly fit for the most sophisticated jobs, yet there are only few who make it there. In Germany we at least had Merkel. America, the so-called leader of the free world, never had a woman as a president. Fortune 500 CEOs? Startup founders? Billionaires? Nobel prize winners? You can easily find those numbers. There’s no genetic predisposition for women to not being able to get there. There’s only ignorance of people like you who think that they have done enough and it’s the matter of choice.
I don't know if I put much stock in that. It is well known that powerful interests choose the most sympathetic litigant possible when they want to see the court make a ruling that will ultimately be in their benefit.
In what way is VSCode comparable to enslaving human beings?
Language is always vague and ambiguous or it becomes highly technical and incomprehensible.
In the short term maybe. The whole point is that Congress should actually write the laws they want implemented instead of writing the politically expedient extremely vague thing and just hoping we don't end up with the law changing every four years with the administration.
Yes, like any other statutory interpretation case, which judges hear all the time in a thousand different contexts of state and federal law, some highly technical.

A good example from a few terms ago is Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on what is or is not a money order:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/145orig_kjfl.pdf

The oral argument was quite entertaining, IIRC:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22O145
> They have background in interpreting the law and in listening to and evaluating expert testimony

They don't have expertise in evaluating scientific studies or the fields those studies cover at all. At best they can decide who they believe more and there's an endless well of industry backed experts available to preach the company line. It's also far less predictable because the outcomes will be massively different depending on the judge involved. It'd be circuit split city if all the cases we're going to be filed in the 5th which is wildly pro business.

> short-lived experts appointed by an executive who cycles out the rules every four years

That's not what happens though, the rules are relatively stable and have legislatively required notice and comment periods where industry can challenge and prepare for coming rules. And once in place they generally remain the same because there's the same process for removing the rules as creating them. Congress also has the ultimate power over these as they can directly write new laws addressing over reaches as they find them.
IANAL, but my understanding is that chevron interacts weirdly with the administrative procedures act.

So, one of the big problems with chevron deference is that when the laws says XYZ to be determined by agency ABC and agency ABC determines Q, but an election happens, the president gets up and makes a big populist speech, issues an executive order and now agency ABC determines R instead. This is a problem because under chevron + APA, the agency determination of both Q and R which may be contradictory both have the force of law and the courts were bound to simply defer to the interpretation.

You have agency making rules which have the force of law but the "law" is changing without the authorizing statute having changed and the courts' hands were tied by chevron. This is especially problematic when the rulemaking has associated criminal penalties.

Now, just because chevron deference no longer exists doesn't mean that agencies cannot make rules, but it does mean that if an agency makes a wild swing in rulemaking without a change in the underlying statute then its much easier to challenge that action. Ultimately, we want these things in the hands of the representative branch of the legislature anyway. One can dream anyway...
Here's a better example.

~50 years ago, laws were written that stated "all communication companies are consider utilities and as such, all utilities should have common access to 'telephone' poles for use to lay down cable" (I'm paraphrasing).

Up to this point, "communication" just means copper lines for telephone (voice).

Then, in the 1980s - the Internet launched.

New companies are now wanting to lay down Fiber optic cables to use for the Internet, and they want the same "common access" to these telephone poles.

But it's ambiguous, what is a "communication company".

This was well understand in the 60s and 70s to mean telco ... but should that definition now be expanded?

So an agency comes in, and say "yes, fiber is consider communication - fiber companies get access to telephone pols to lay fiber down".

When this law was originally written, it's was clear. But then new technology challenged what the meaning & intent of the law meant.
Ask HN: Enterprise Solution Similar to Kagi?
Hello,

I do IT and Cybersecurity for an organization where the employees have an average age of 65. We've recently had a major uptick in the amount of scareware pop-ups they are getting off of Google search results. We have AdBlock Plus installed on most systems, but that hasn't stopped the predatory Google ads from coming up. We're in the process of switching to UBlock Origin, but I don't know if it will help. Our employees get trained not to click on ads, but clearly they are. I use Kagi personally and would like to get us on something similar, but Kagi doesn't offer any enterprise plans. The closest is a 6 person family plan. We have about 150 users, so that's not going to cut it. Does anyone know of a similar service?

The scareware doesn't really cause harm, but it is eating up productivity for a small IT team that's already stretched thin.
Congress apparently feels a need for "reaffirmation" of SLS rocket
Interesting. I expected it to be near instant without syntax highlighting but it's still slow.
What makes the judges - who are also frequently appointed by an executive and who often hold the position for life regardlesss of their performance - better?

It's not as if judges are bound by expert testimony.
I was watching a Sabine Hossenfelder youtube "Capitalism is good. Let me explain"

where she argues advances in capitalism predated and caused the industrial revolution and scientific progress. It's an interesting hypothesis.

Relevant bit in vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRPHp2EjNR8&t=275s

The first British government bonds and companies going public were about 1693 and a little after and we had a proper market bubble and crash in 1720 so that stuff was well developed by the time of steam engines.
Seems to be documented, surprisingly: https://<INSTANCE>.service-now.com/cancel_my_transaction.do

https://support.servicenow.com/kb?id=kb_article_view&sysparm...

Or you can type “cancel_my_transaction.do” in the navigator filter bar. Related tip: you can quickly bring up any table by typing “table_name.list” (s/.do/.list/ from the single-item url) there instead of poking around for a link. “sys_user.list” is probably the one I use most often.
Cynical take: Selling software to developers is hard partly because the customer is more likely to notice when the product functionality (as opposed to marketing) doesn't really do what they need.
No it didn't. This is another nonsense defense of an extreme activist conservative court just like when they decided to take away people's rights to choose solely didn't like Abortion without any reason (Roe vs Wades logic hasn't changed, merely the number of exteemly conservative judges on the court). They don't like regulations so they'll blow up the ways regulations have worked even though it will make a huge mess and overload the already way too busy courts.
One potential positive is that it may help foster actual cooperation between the parties when a new problem arises that really needs some solution not covered by existing law instead of just relying on the executive to fix things. Once you start cooperating on some things, it's much easier to cooperate on more difficult issues.

Most politicians are not extremists who would rather see the US become a failed state than cooperate with their political opponents. It would be like a (mentally healthy) married couple choosing homelessness because they disagree over what color the walls should be.
Calling it a lower bar is a completely disingenuous interpretation, when the reason for such policies in the first place is that the bar for entry is much higher for minority groups to be hired.
> This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place

Respectfully, language like this makes you look very partisan. Of course it could be challenged. How do you think Chevron got thrown out? Because something concerning it was challenged.

Still, it doesn't support your claim that Chevron means that an agency can interpret the constitution. That's not at all what Chevron says and it isn't true.
Yes, I use dark mode as my standard theme.
Based on https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ I tend to think that a pool would be safer than out of the water in the event of radiation being a problem:)
I thought they have 60 days to report trades [1] and there are a bunch of stock-based investments that explicitly don't require reporting (EIF's)? Sure, if somebody decides to voluntarily file on day 1, or buy stock "raw" that's cool, but in general there should be quite significant lag or gaps (to the point where short/medium-term there's no signal basically).

[1] https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/docume...
> moving money around today is not like it use to be 20 years ago.

How true that is depends on where you look. Behind the scenes, a large amount of banking is little different now than it was decades ago.
It's an acquisition, usually for patents/IP. There will be layoffs.
These protections are fun, but not adequate really. I enjoyed the game from the perspective of making it tell me who the killer is. It took about 7 messages to force it out (unless it's lying).
> I'll see you in a few years with the outcome of this prediction, but I'm personally not a big believer in single pillars that hold up entire 350-million person systems.

Oh, don't worry. Republicans are undermining the other pillars. The judicial system is already strained, and if Trump wins, it'll collapse completely.

And unfortunately, the effects won't be visible immediately. It'll be like the US healthcare system: steadily growing more and more expensive, decade after decade, due to systemic issues.
Kenza Layli – the winner of the first Miss AI beauty pageant
>This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place.

That's just not correct.
It's a lot easier to more or less accidentally create something quirky than it is to create a second quirk-for-quirk compatible system.
It wouldn't be a single pillar if Congress functioned but they haven't at least since the 90s and there's little chance of that changing. It will be a huge mess.
Yeah, collecting fees is easy money.
I don't share the idea that seems pervasive in tech circles that technological development and use is inevitable. There are many, many cases where we have the technology to do a thing but have decided to forbid our institutions from using it, to varying levels of success. Chemical warfare springs to mind: relatively simple to use but we've collectively decided we shouldn't (except tear gassing demonstrators?).
> I mean, arguably it worked better during the years before the decision

Yeah. Some rivers caught fire here and there, but otherwise it had been OK.
The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

?

This recent change in the supreme court was made with the intent of letting huge corporations bully the EPA and the like. It will not help anyone at the border being bullied by law enforcement.
I wouldn't really put real estate in the group of investments that's OK, depending on details.

There's plenty of stories of well-connected people frontrunning government endeavors that require lots of land. Sometimes that has positive results: civic minded person buys up land without raising eyebrows, then sells it to government for a song; sometimes it's negative: less civic minded person buys up land and then sells it to government or others for much more than they purchased it for, in large part because of official decisions they participated in.

I know some states have part time legislatures, so the members often have other jobs, but a federal office is a full time job, year round, regardless of recesses. I don't think it's unreasonable to demand that office holders avoid potential conflicts of interest by avoiding any sort of investment outside of personal residences and well diversified mutual funds (and well diversified ETFs). Plus or minus rental housing owned prior to office.

It's not that big of an imposition, unless your spouse is an active stock trader (for work or hobby), but in that case... Sometimes you have to make sacrifices for a spouse's career.
Should be working now and way faster! Had to upgrade the server to increased number of workers
It’s part of the job. That’s one of the things I’m paid for.
They co-author the definitive CUDA textbook, and it's based on their sponsored class (You can find the story in the intro of the book.)
https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Massively-Parallel-Proces...
The great silence: Just 4 in 10k galaxies may host intelligent aliens
Those don't really have anything to do with fine detail/nearsightedness. What they measured is valid/interesting - what they concluded is unrelated.
Thanks for clarifying. The terms are highly ambigious (see the sibling answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40930298), that's why I asked. Personally, I would rather use the terms "audio pipeline" or "audio graph" instead of the generic "bus".

> In all these cases, you need to assume that all processing code that isn't yours needs all the time that you can leave for it and just make your own code as efficient as is reasonable.

Yes. For audio programmers that is obvious, in particular when it comes to plugins, but for novices it might be worth pointing out!