skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I do hope (perhaps naively) that this (security code reviews) is something AI can get really good at in the future, because that would be a real value add IMHO.

It would offer a good solution, and one that would scale.-

(Until, of course, the AI systems themselves become compromised or weaponized ...

But that is a few arms race cycles away yet.-
Universal Basic Water would be a great achievement!
Why do you want to control the lives of others?
It seems like their criteria for quality of life are poorly chosen if Texas is the worst quality of life state and is also the one with the most people moving to it.
And you can self host it on your own computer with 1-click [1]

[1] https://github.com/ipv6rslimited/cloudseeder
> So, your 1% figure was Bitcoin in general, not Lightning, and you intentionally used the wrong value to be misleading.

You cannot use Lightning without using Bitcoin. And nobody is actually planning to change that so far as I know. I said that the "base system", which is Bitcoin, was what was using the power. I do expect that people reading technical discussions have some minimal knowledge of the systems involved.

> What does "caught on" mean? Show us the math, because you clearly can't be trusted to be truthful.

Bitcoin can do, charitably, six TPS, and there is massive community resistance to changing that.

It takes a minimum of two on-chain transactions to be able to use Lightning: one to get the Bitcoin to fund a channel (it is not legitimate to assume many people already have Bitcoin, because they don't), and a second to actually open the channel. In reality, anybody who used Lightning on a regular basis would also do multiple other on-chain transactions, to change the funding level, eventually to close the channel, probably to have multiple channels, and occasionally to lock in balances when counterparties misbehaved or were suspected of misbehaving.

But let's pretend it's just two. That means that, even if Lightning uses the entire capacity of the Bitcoin block chain, freezing out all other transactions. it can create at most three channels per second, worldwide.

According to Wikipedia, the New York Times has 9.9 million online subscribers. It would take 3.3 million seconds, (917 hours, 38 days) to onboard all the subscribers of that one Web site, if the Bitcoin chain were doing nothing else. And the fees would of course spike through the roof if that actually happened.

Now suppose this thing caught on to the level of, say, Instagram, which supposedly has 2.4 billion user accounts. I picked Instagram as an example of a "middling" platform, before I looked at any user numbers from any service. Let's be nice to you and say that people have three Instagram accounts apiece (they don't), but for some inexplicable reason each of them would only have one Lightning channel. Let's further say that only half of them would join "the micropayments system" (micropayments have no prayer of working if there are more than one or two systems with significant use). That's 400 million channels. Creating them would take 1543 days, or over four years, of the full capacity of the Bitcoin chain.

And, again, all of that is based on a bunch of rosy assumptions I made to rule out typical Bitcoin-lover objections. Ten times that would be more realistic.

This should be intuitively obvious to anybody who has even the slightest idea how Bitcoin and/or Lightning work.
> My apologies for previously taking your question at face value and bothering to answer.

That’s a weird response on account I didn’t ask a question, you apparently replied to my comment answering a question that never existed.

> I did no intend to bruise anyone’s ego.

Far from it, I am a corporate transactional attorney that structures holding companies and drafts the licensing agreements you were attempting to mansplain as you confused that with the practice of domain leasing.

Good luck to you.
It’s hard to give that answer because after a security breach has happened, you know you made the wrong choice. It’s a tradeoff, as you said, for practicality.

Sometimes you gamble and lose. The bank doesn’t care that “well there was a good chance I was going to be fine” when it comes time to pay your mortgage.

“But I’m the only one that knows the floor plan!” doesn’t quite cut it. Exit the premises and get some therapy.
Because it's September, 1993.
It is a social medium by definition, tbf.
Funny how everyone's competent in hindsight and eager to share that.
It’s mostly AT&Ts fault but it’s sort of a side effect of Snowflake making their product easy to use and most of the industry overlooking credential reuse risks.

Databases are not historically internet facing so data compromise also meant getting network access. But Snowflake provided web access to your database so they were “easy to use” database as a service (“cloud data warehouse”). Snowflake did not offer you a way to host data within your network or within your dedicated subnets within a cloud provider, so companies could not solely rely on those networking barriers to limit malicious counterparties.

Snowflake has apparently begun requiring MFA for new accounts since this incident I’ve heard. If shutting the gate after the horses have left implies culpability, Snowflake has some.
Still most of the facts remain obscured. At least the sweep under the rug bandwagon has been outed.
really cool, love it!
There's no "demand". Basic means setting a base income level. That's it. It's disingenuous to assert that you can't have UBI below some threshold.

You could set UBI at $50 per month ($300 per year). By itself, this isn't enough to survive on in a developed country, and the amount would be negligible for almost everybody. But if you're in a situation where $50 per month is going to make a material impact to your life, then you really need it. UBI disproportionately helps the most desperate. That's the point.
Scanning a venmo qr code with my phone is not an improvement.
But he's not really wrong, either.

In the Netherlands we have a marginal tax rate, so every Euro over X gets taxed 10%, everything over Y gets taxed 15% etc. (simplified numbers obviously).

However, often times it's better to stay in the top of a lower bracket because of tangentially-related benefits, such as healthcare subsidies, rent subsidies and other things like that. If you go from tax bracket 1 -> 2 because you get a 100 euro raise, sure you'll get 100 euros more (well, more like 95 but whatever), but you also lose out on more than that in the form of a loss in other benefits.

My partner went through this recently, she got a raise at work, but as a result she actually lost the subsidized rent money she got from the gov't. She had to request her workplace lower her wage so she was under the limit, because otherwise she couldn't have afforded rent on her own, and if the raise was even 2 euros/hr higher, she might've even been kicked out of her social housing situation.

That's because the benefits aren't marginal, they work on a hard cut-off limit. Anything over X amount and you're just cut off, you're not gradually weened off it until you're at a high enough income to not require gov't help.
>Technology fails to distinguish between artistic nudity and real photographs

And what about the artistic value of real, fine art photographs?
> My view is that UBI will have a effect similar to minimim wages: it will raise prices by raising demand against a fixed (or falling supply), and it will do this by stealing from people that are productive

We have a UBI program already running in America - Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend

It has been shown that "the dividend had no effect on employment and increased part-time work by 1.8 percentage points" [0] and has lifted 25,000 Alaskans out of poverty in 2015 alone [1]

[0] - https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20190299

[1] - https://iseralaska.org/static/legacy_publication_links/2016_...
Am I? I don’t think so. Please describe for me a situation where the simple possession of money, absent any potential for that money to flow, causes work to happen.

If you can, you’ve described nothing less than perpetual motion.
Wow, I can't imagine why the person sent these anonymously, lol.

Them to Sender: "Where did you get these from? It is very important!"

Them to Public: "We want to remind everyone that metal detecting for something like this is illegal and will be fined!"

Also Them to Sender: "Oh...err...but we won't apply that to you!" wink wink
This program seems fragile and too eager to break longstanding system ABI --- for example, silently turning O_RDWR into O_WRONLY, prohibiting PROT_EXEC on memfds, and, well,

> Syd also blocks executable+anonymous memory

> In the operation of Syd, certain system calls are not fully emulated due to seccomp(2) limitations, resulting in the sandbox process continuing these calls directly. These include execve(2), execveat(2) for execution, chdir(2), fchdir(2) for directory changes, and open(2) operations with O_PATH flag. Consequently, this behavior exposes vulnerabilities to time-of-check to time-of-use attacks, allowing for the circumvention of Exec Sandboxing and Force Sandboxing to execute denylisted paths, the bypass of Stat Sandboxing for unauthorised directory access without disclosing directory contents (owing to getdents(2) call emulation), and the detection of hidden files without revealing file metadata, as stat(2) calls are emulated

> As of version 3.19.0, Syd turns the "O_PATH" flag in open(2) system call arguments to the "O_RDONLY" flag and emulates the system call as usual which avoids the TOCTOU vector

When you see hacks piled on top of hacks this way, there's usually something wrong with the fundamental architecture of the system. I think I'd rather just use bwrap, a LSM, or a VM.

That said, there are a few nuggets of good ideas in here, e.g. disabling TIOCSTI and rate-limiting launches of programs that die with SIGSEGV. These enhancements should be in the core system, not a launcher utility.
I can see how this might seem like an obvious solution at first glance, but all it would do is make the problem of amateurs destroying the context of finds worse, and by a lot. This kind of incentive will provide for many artifacts and little knowledge, as most artifacts are useless without the context in which they were found.

It is of course appealing if you think that all an artifact is good for is looking nice in a glass case. But if you want to gain knowledge about the past, this would certainly be the worst policy you could implement (apart from obviously insane ones, such as a bounty for destroying artifacts on sight, of course).

But I already wrote an extensive rant about this in another comment, which you might find interesting if you are curious about the topic. If so, sorry about the bad writing style and potentially divisive rhetoric, I'm supposed to be working decided to take a quick peek at hn where I found some discussion about a pet peeve of mine, which is of course a recipe for disaster.
(Opinion) Crypto mining is nonessential and is killing our climate
Don't get me wrong, block chain has some wonderful applications. But at some point, crypto currencies veered off the idealistic track.

Let's spare ourselves the analogies of crypto mining consuming amounts of energy comparable to small nations, and realize the fact that it consumes a tremendous amount of electricity. This, as we all sit here in the sweltering heat, should make us angry.

I propose that, in theory, we have mined all the crypto we need. Further mining will only empower those with the means to continue mining, which is contrary to the objectives of a distributed block chain, particularly a zero-trust currency. Look no further than the large donations being made by Andreessen and Horowitz to their politician of choice (Donald Trump), mostly because they believe his administration will give them more power with crypto.

Mining crypto is really just a gamified incentive structure intended to motivate sys admins to run nodes on the network. These nodes have become so expensive to operate, the power over the network has collapsed onto a few nodes ... the network effect.

One possible solution is to bundle small transactions into a settlement period, similar to trading markets in the classical financial system. Then these transactions can be settled at the end of the settlement period (24 hours, for example). The problem is that we would need some central authority to collect and bundle transactions, which would require some level of trust.

Is there a centralization/trust tradeoff to be made here against centralization of power and climate damage?
Maybe you were not using IE at that time, but surely you had to create IE compatible content if you worked as a web developer, and this was really hell. If window.forms, if ie6 if opera, if ns6 - ifing hell there was I tell you!
This.-

PS. And, for some people it might undoubtedly be *all* their "social" ...
> It is illegal to use a metal detector to search for archaeological objects anywhere in the Republic of Ireland, unless you have written permission from the government.
> Those convicted of the offence can face a fine ranging to more than €63,000 (£53,000).

No wonder they donated anonymously, what an insane law.
you'll learn how it's just a tool for inferior men to abuse people in order to compensate for a very specific but acquirable lack of adaptivity to the real world, a growing world population and eventual colonization of space
> When my office is just another room in the house, it's far easier to be stuck in that work mindset.

I can see how this can happen, but at the same time it seems like there's such an easy fix: just stop doing it.

But it may actually be a form of addiction, so maybe eaiser said than done. I could probably say the same thing about someone who wants to quit smoking but can't. People that smoke typically enjoy smoking, though, so they probably don't actually want to give it up, they only try to stop because they know it's bad for them. This may be the case here as well: maybe you have a hard time disconnecting from work because you actually want to work.

I'm WFH and I have absolutely zero problem flipping the switch at the end of the day, notifications off, done. I didn't sign up to work nights and weekends and it's not something I want to do, so I'm simply not going to do it (unless it's an emergency).
Because they care very little for the society and just care for their shareholders? This is the same VC firm that supported the massive digital coin speculation because they figured out they can steal money from the common people in a legal way.
Yeah that's what I don't get about this from the start. Accounting software is not a source of truth. It reflects reality. If there is a discrepancy, then you audit the accounts by comparing to reality, e.g. paper sales receipts.
Time to repost my favourite Greg Egan short, Crystal Nights:

https://www.gregegan.net/MISC/CRYSTAL/Crystal.html

“What created the only example of consciousness we know of?” Daniel asked.

“Evolution.”

“Exactly. But I don’t want to wait three billion years, so I need to make the selection process a great deal more refined, and the sources of variation more targeted.”

Julie digested this. “You want to try to evolve true AI? Conscious, human-level AI?”

“Yes.” Daniel saw her mouth tightening, saw her struggling to measure her words before speaking.

“With respect,” she said, “I don’t think you’ve thought that through.”
I’ve had the same question. We saw this, to some degree with the stimulus checks during the pandemic. Initially people got all this money and reports were that savings rates had never been higher… but most of the world was also shut down. As things opened up, or people simply got bored at home, what did we see? People spent everything they were given, and more. Personal debt is now at an all time high, and we’ve seen a bunch of inflation (for various reasons). Most people are in a worse place now.

Financial literacy is extremely important. Giving more money to people who don’t know how to handle money, allows them to dig bigger holes.

That said, everyone’s investments and 401ks are reliant on this reckless spending to keep returns high.
From the artists biography.
Launch HN: Traceloop (YC W23) – Detecting LLM Hallucinations with OpenTelemetry
Hey everyone, we are Nir and Gal from Traceloop (https://www.traceloop.com). We help teams understand when their LLM apps are failing or hallucinating at scale. See a demo: https://www.traceloop.com/video or try it yourself at https://www.traceloop.com/docs/demo.

When moving your LLM app to production, significant scale makes it harder for engineers and data scientists alike to understand when their LLM is hallucinating or returning malformed responses. When you get to millions of calls to OpenAI a month, methods like “LLM as a judge” can’t work at a reasonable cost or latency. So, what most people we talked to usually do is sample some generations by hand, maybe for some specific important customers, and manually look for errors or hallucinations.

Traceloop is a monitoring platform that detects when your LLM app fails. Under the hood, we built real-time versions of known metrics like faithfulness, relevancy, redundancy, and many others. These are loosely based on some well-known NLP metrics that work well for LLM-generated texts. We correlate them with changes we detect in your system - like updates to prompts or to the model you’re using - to detect regressions automatically.

Here are some cool examples we’ve seen with our customers -

1. Applying our QA relevancy metric to an entity extraction task, we managed to discover issues where the model was not extracting the right entities (like an address instead of a person’s name); or returning random answers like “I’m here! What can I help you with today?”.

2. Our soft-faithfulness metric was able to detect cases in summarization tasks where a model was completely making up stuff that never appeared in the original text.

One of the challenges we faced was figuring out how to collect the data that we need from our customers' LLM apps. That’s where OpenTelemetry came in handy. We built OpenLLMetry (https://github.com/traceloop/openllmetry), and announced it here almost a year ago. It standardized the use of OpenTelemetry to observe LLM apps. We realized that the concepts of traces, spans, metrics, and logs that were standardized with OpenTelemetry can easily extend to gen AI. We partnered with 20+ observability platforms to make sure that OpenLLMetry becomes the standard for GenAI observability and that the data that we collect can be sent to other platforms as well.

We plan to extend the metrics we provide to support agents that use tools, vision models, and other amazing developments in our fast-paced industry.

We invite you to give Traceloop a spin and are eager for your feedback! How do you track and debug hallucinations? How much has that been an issue for you? What types of hallucinations have you encountered?
Imo it should just be called a "Direct Benefits Transfer" instead of "Universal Basic Income".

The "income" terminology gets confused as "salary" by those who aren't well versed with these kinds of programs.
I'd be really curious to know if this could be use case for AI code generation tools using speech recognition. I don't know of any, but this could be very interesting.
Was there a root cause ever published?
Just p*rn?
You can consider yourself lucky.
One week after publishing my own public instance of an IMGUR-like, I woke up with +150 emails from my host provider and a final one telling me that they had shutdown my server.

Someone had posted ~500 pictures of "naked kids", a Canadian bot had found them and notified my host provider, who automatically took action.

Everything happened in less than 30 minutes, between the first picture being uploaded and the server being shutdown.

First I tried to restart the server and clean it, but I received new notifications as soon as it was online. So I just restored the last backup before it all started.
And I removed the ability for public users to upload pictures.

I will never ever publish a service allowing user to upload publicly any content.
All gov welfare leads to the conclusion of the GP.
Why do you think that? ~60% of consumption in the US is for goods that adjust supply relatively well: food, clothing, material goods, services et cetera.

The other 40% is the cost of housing. UBI could help tremendously here. The US has really cheap housing in places with no jobs and expensive housing in places with jobs. UBI would allow those without jobs to move to the cheap places. UBI is unlikely to be generous so if you want to live off UBI without a job it would almost force you to either supplement with a job or move to a place with cheap housing.
I don't have strong feelings about this, but can someone please change the emoji palette in Teams? I feel like I'm typing in Club Penguin chat.
In this case it doesn't matter whether it's C or Rust. Both languages, if using their default string formatting facilities, are vulnerable.
It definitely makes the first couple of years in university that much easier, although limited to the science and engineering disciplines.
Comparing the Performance of OpenCL, CUDA, and Hip
Only 1kg for an entire year?
Why is it key? What does it being truly universal unlock that being means tested does not?
Apparently this post was brought back and I'm just now seeing the traffic.
In case you are not aware, there is tooling to help with GitLab to GitHub actions migration, but I have not tested on anything complex so YMMV

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/migrating-to-github-actio...
What you're thinking of is called Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice"
Which model did you own? I haven't bought one but had been considering buying an almost unitasker because the reviews from trusted sources seemed very good. Serious Eats in particular seems to love the brand.
This is much more common than one would think.

This is a classic thing with Industry, they qualify a process that is working and shows good performance, but this process needs to be changed for reason XYZ, often because it is maybe a bit too expensive or doesn't align with the rest of their processes. The small change in the process wasn't that small and takes a little while to be identified because by the time you catch it you might be further down the line and this would be caught by a QA process and not a QC process, that might have deemed at that point not necessary because you had no reason to fault the part.

The second part is that some things are rated and verified but not tested extensively, since you might have prototype you might misdiagnose a failure of a component for a behaviour of your prototype, when in fact you had a deeper problem, but timelines with the added fact that so far you didn't think about that problem because it shouldn't have been a problem can catch you really off guard. This is usually where people testing the same thing in an exotic environment can ring alarm bells for others and that often happens at conferences...

People often under estimate how much you can get bitten in the back by such little details that become huge details.

Depending on the electronics and where the MOSFETS are, I would be them I would probably trash the electronics, take the spare that they had, validate components that get in and rebuild a control box and re-integrate it, provided that this is doable. It's expensive but provided that you have no choice that gives you a backup system that you can test code on before pushing it on the actual probe and might help for problem solving by being able to do measurements and test on the actual setup... Provided that they have the time and resources. Otherwise I wouldn't YOLO it given the fact that it might just straight up not work at the moment you need it the most and a little delay is better than nothing and they can spend the time re-checking part of the design that might also be weaker...

But heh, who am I but a random guy on the internet...