skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hey Hacker News!

Exciting news: our first testing phase is live! All registered users will score a one-month Wizzl PRO+ subscription.

We've completely revamped our concept, and now we have a brand-new, improved chat application. It's packed with features and ready for you to explore!

Yes, there are still bugs and some features that might not work perfectly, but the majority of functionalities are good to go. Dive into the global chat with this invite link after you sign up:

https://join.wizzl.app/global
I am aware of a municipality local to me that, as part of a franchise agreement for a new ISP entering the community, had the ISP run fiber to every traffic cabinet. They're connected back to the city network in a VLAN that's "behind the firewall". >sigh<
It isn't a problem. The text is the UX.

What else would you have proposed, or would propose?
Indeed, this is something they changed in the 3.1 version of the license.

Regardless, the license [1] still has many restrictions, such as the acceptable use policy [2].

[1] https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B/blob/mai...

[2] https://llama.meta.com/llama3_1/use-policy
As for pulling an Intel, they kind of did with 5000 series pricing iirc.
WireGuard and Linux Network Namespaces
I wish it were possible, but I have a sneaking suspicion that types like PrimeNuber or TotalProgram, are beyond the realm of possibility.
It’s an article about how violence against women is increasing.

How is violence against men relevant here?

Do you consider the needs of women so little, that you consider discussion of issues involving them irrelevant unless in the context of how they compare to the issues of men?
You actually get a tax break after $168,600. After that you no longer get taxed for Social Security.
I haven't tried roaring bitmaps on this problem yet. I think it's generally fairly dense so that's why I tried dense bitsets first, but it's a fair point. It might still be beneficial to go with a sparse representation depending on the interval lengths for example.

I also didn't have a good way to measure runs from roaring bitmap's Rust API (https://github.com/RoaringBitmap/roaring-rs/issues/274) which makes it hard to track interval duration, but would be interested to compare this approach.
"I left this shotgun here, kids need to learn that shooting yourself in the foot really hurts."
At another thread in this page, I wrote more about this, but in summary; we also like k8s-based managed Postgres solutions. They are quite useful if you are running Postgres for yourself. In managed Postgres services offered by hyperscalers or companies like Crunchy though, it is not used very commonly.
They really aren't different at all though, they only look different because of the finish on the plywood.
I work for a manufacturer of audio gear and we have a product with capacitive controls .. which we thought was quite nifty when released, but .. given the customer demand for a mode which completely disables capacitive control over the audio device features .. we have since learned is a very uncomfortable device to use for many people.

So much so that we had to release a version of the firmware that allows the capacitive controls to be completely disabled, and its become quite popular among the user base.

I think it makes sense for a lot of things - high-performance control surfaces that will be engaged by the user constantly and with intent - but for the one-off features that are only seldom referenced by the user, it can be a real detriment to user satisfaction, especially when accidentally/unintentionally activated.

We've learned the lesson and only plan to integrate capacitive features where its needed most - for performance-oriented devices.
like a wiki-blog? But then, when is a refinement to something a new work (like a part 2), a small refinement to the original, or a noteworthy modification e.g. such that subscribers would be notified of the change?

You don't need dated entries, just a topic name, a few subheadings for different parts of related text, and a history page; but presenting update notifications can still be a problem? maybe different levels of notification, or subscribing to specific articles(subheading)/topics?
Is that what you meant? I don't think releasing the sequence of steps required to produce the model satisfies "open source", which is how I interpreted you, because there is still no source code for the model.
Obvious strategy to reduce legaö risks like the postmaster debacle.
Choosing some arbitrarily small segment of the population and saying "See, they don't have enough money to fund this program" is not the steelman you seem to think it is. Instead, try discussing something serious, like a plausible adjustment to the progressive tax system.
It would be probably cheaper to negate some IP. There are quite some projects and initiatives to make CUDA code run on AMD for example, but as far as I know, they all stopped at some point, probably because of fear of being sued into oblivion.
> If anyone thinks they deserve a L6/L7 role with less than a decade of experience at peer companies they need to adjust their expectations or remain unemployed

I think a lot of HN commenters simply assume that every role at these companies is L6/L7+ and pays $1M/yr or whatever the meme is currently. Like it's the default for "Software Engineer" at these companies. In reality, these roles are exceedingly rare. You won't even often see them publicly posted, simply because there are just not many of them.

People see one example of this kind of compensation and declare, "See, it is possible to make this money at a FAANG." which is true, but in the same sense that it is technically possible to get struck by lightning. Your median FAANG employee is probably L4 and not making $1M/yr in compensation. They're probably not even making $150K, depending on their location.
> That's not nearly enough to sustain a competent developer

It doesn't have to be enough to sustain a developer, only enough to attract a developer who would have otherwise not bothered.

> but it is enough to make a project feel like work to a hobbyist

I really don't see how anyone would do something but then decide not to once they found out there is a reward.
One of the problems in having a single gitignore to ignore all the possible things that there's no strict superset without overlaps. Visual Studio uses files called .user that contain user-specific metadata that should never be committed to source control and other systems might use .user for components that should be committed to source control. Breaking it down by language ecosystem seems an adequate compromise as few repos use multiple languages and when they do there's often a folder hierarchy to respect with nested gitignores.
See also, gov.uk: https://github.com/alphagov

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/be-open-and-use-open-source
OTOY Presents "2001: Creating Kubrick's Space Odyssey" Documentary
It’s easy to support open source AI when the code is 1,000 lines and the execution costs $100,000,000 of electricity.

Only the big players can afford to push go, and FB would love to see OpenAI’s code so they can point it to their proprietary user data.
FROM 2020
> I’d honestly be super happy if someone I interact with for work asked me about something I wrote

As a student (who also has no corporate experience), I share this feeling. The few times I've been asked by other students about my blog, I've always been excited (perhaps a little too much) to share my thoughts and opinions in a conservation.
The directory they're stored in needs Administrator access, but the kernel runs with SYSTEM level permissions. Administrator is an account, SYSTEM is a security principal. SYSTEM level processes can access domain servers in the context of the computer's domain account, while Administrators can't do so unless they provide explicit credentials (or share a password with an Administrator account on the domain). So this could be used as a way to elevate access from local Administrator up to whatever that computer can do on a connected domain server!
This is indeed a valid approach, yet I think these methods can be complementary. Sandboxing will never entirely prevent bad things from happening (the iOS exploit scene is a good example of this); it merely makes an attacker’s life more complicated. What we aim to provide are meaningful security logs that can be used to detect ongoing or past compromises (if logs are archived). Imagine the following simple security incident: your SSH key or credentials are leaked/stolen and someone uses them to log in and start using your server for any purpose (install malware, serve files ...). Just having sandboxing in place would be fairly useless, as SSH would be allowed to do almost anything. Moreover, having such a source of logs for post-mortem analysis by incident responders is very valuable, as they can help you understand in detail what was going on. This is why, in my opinion, both sandboxing and monitoring are valuable when used together.

A small remark on the sandboxing configuration aspect: I personally think it is not trivial to achieve properly, as it requires very precise scoping of every single application/service running, and this needs to be maintained across software updates to prevent breaking functionalities. I personally use such sandboxing on my workstation, and even on a single machine, it can sometimes be a burden. I can't really imagine maintaining this across a whole heterogeneous infrastructure of servers and services. I am pretty sure it is possible, but it is not easy and probably not doable in terms of resources for every sysadmin team.
Is this true in Germany? As an American, I was always of the impression that in continental Europe, tips were as a rule a much smaller part of compensation.
One or more nuclear powers has been at war for basically the entire nuclear era. They have all had wars in which they have "lost more troops than in any war since WWII". Even if this is the end of the Putin regime, this wouldn't even be the first time that the Soviet Union/Russia collapsed. I don't know what the path you think you see from where we are now to "full scale nuclear war", but it seems incredibly silly to suggest "the situation is more tense than it ever has been before", especially after you have already name checked Able Archer and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
You can build a machine that will run the 405b model for much, much less, if you're willing to accept the following caveats:

* You'll be running a Q5(ish) quantized model, not the full model

* You're OK with buying used hardware

* You have two separate 120v circuits available to plug it into (I assume you're in the US), or alternatively a single 240v dryer/oven/RV-style plug.

The build would look something like (approximate secondary market prices in parentheses):

* Asrock ROMED8-2T motherboard ($700)

* A used Epyc Rome CPU ($300-$1000 depending on how many cores you want)

* 256GB of DDR4, 8x 32GB modules ($550)

* nvme boot drive ($100)

* Ten RTX 3090 cards ($700 each, $7000 total)

* Two 1500 watt power supplies. One will power the mobo and four GPUs, and the other will power the remaining six GPUs ($500 total)

* An open frame case, the kind made for crypto miners ($100?)

* PCIe splitters, cables, screws, fans, other misc parts ($500)

Total is about $10k, give or take. You'll be limiting the GPUs (using `nvidia-smi` or similar) to run at 200-225W each, which drastically reduces their top-end power draw for a minimal drop in performance. Plug each power supply into a different AC circuit, or use a dual 120V adapter with a 240V outlet to effectively accomplish the same thing.

When actively running inference you'll likely be pulling ~2500-2800W from the wall, but at idle, the whole system should use about a tenth of that.

It will heat up the room it's in, especially if you use it frequently, but since it's in an open frame case there are lots of options for cooling.

I realize that this setup is still out of the reach of the "average Joe" but for a dedicated (high-end) hobbyist or someone who wants to build a business, this is a surprisingly reasonable cost.

Edit: the other cool thing is that if you use fast DDR4 and populate all 8 RAM slots as I recommend above, the memory bandwidth of this system is competitive with that of Apple silicon -- 204.8GB/sec, with DDR4-3200. Combined with a 32+ core Epyc, you could experiment with running many models completely on the CPU, though Lllama 405b will probably still be excruciatingly slow.
100 Means 100 percent done, right? [audio]
"When are we getting dark mode on HN?"
Since 2016 I publish a new blog post once a month. A long lost friend (20 years no contact) found it, read a handful of my deep dives and then offered me what I consider a dream job based on my content and perceived writing ability. I got to jump from an IC track to an executive role. My then company of 15 years did not offer that opportunity. I recommend a blog just to show the world your chops. You don't know who might read it.
Rented an ID, and also a Cupra (same design) a few times as they're some of the care share cares where I lived. Later when buying a car and living in a smaller city (no car shares there, a great concept I miss), the capacitive buttons were actually one of the reasons we skipped on VW. Had so much problems activating and adjusting cruise control, infuriating driving experience. Rest of the car was great, so too bad they ruined with such a small thing.
Meta makes their money off advertising, which means they profit from attention.

This means they need content that will grab attention, and creating open source models that allow anyone to create any content on their own becomes good for Meta. The users of the models can post it to their Instagram/FB/Threads account.

Releasing an open model also releases Meta from the burden of having to police the content the model generates, once the open source community fine-tunes the models.

Overall, this move is good business move for Meta - the post doesn't really talk about the true benefit, instead moralizing about open source, but this is a sound business move for Meta.
Requirements change, things evolve. Having bounds in the type system is too restrictive.

Even history of "required", rather simple restriction on the value, is showing that putting that logic into type system is too much of a burden.

https://capnproto.org/faq.html#how-do-i-make-a-field-require...
It’s such a weird unforced error on Vows part. If they’d have just shipped the id4 with standard controls and CarPlay it would have been a huge hit honestly, since almost all criticism relates to software and controls. I also own one, and honestly if VW would just let owners have a normal wheel and window/ac controls for $500 I’d pay it.
> (believe it or not, in some localities a "red clearance" time - all red - is not required and lights will go from yellow in one direction to green in another.)

This was definitely true in the past, I feel like the concept of a 'red clearance time' is something that only became common within the last 5-10 years. Do you think it has become (with rare exceptions) ubiquitous at this point?
Not sure about US culture, but this seems to carry a peculiar assumption that men should date around same age? Because I doubt most 20yo women in "midwest" are married with a kid or two. Maybe some bits of cultural bagage you need to shed there.
I use resume all the time - the first example that comes to mind is that cruise control won’t stop at a red light (obviously), so I’ll brake to a stop, then all I need to do is start taking off again and hit resume. No need to think.
>what is being sold is not and cannot become smart in the way it's being sold by x-risk stans

Do you have actual evidence for this astonishing take? Because I'm sure the entire field would be entranced by your genius here. It's actually completely UN-clear what the limits to LLMs are and it's completely ridiculous to say otherwise.

>starting from the actual point of disagreement is probably a better play

Fundamentally most e/accs or other anti-doom stans believe that AGI/ASI are actually impossible, that nothing can be smarter than humans and that human brains constitute special magic meat. Almost all of their other wrong beliefs stem from those.
This morning I read three papers that won "best papers" awards in ICML 2024. Shockingly, two of the three papers contained serious theoretical errors(, and the third didn't include any theorems).

In one paper, Theorem 3.4 was simply incorrect, and the proof provided was little more than scribbles. In another, the authors conflated two distributions ($\sigma$ and $\sigma_{SMC}$), ignored the bias introduced by normalizing weights in importance sampling, and erroneously claimed their estimator was unbiased.

It's yet more evidence that the quality of peer review in machine learning is abysmal.

I had hoped these top conferences would be venues for the community to share "what is correct, novel, and useful" and correct is the basic requirements of good science. Instead, what I see is an obsession with proving "I deserve a larger slice of the cake, because I won a game called ICML/NeurIPS/etc."

I get the appeal of this game. Since the top conferences now accept certain percentage of submitted papers, you can boost your odds by submitting a ton of papers. And with metrics to quantify your success, these conferences provides a clear scorecard for academia and industry.

The problem is that the errors in these papers get copied by others who reuse and build off that work, guaranteeing their results won't be any worse than the flawed "best paper" they're copying. No one wants to point out errors in famous papers out of politeness and fear of revenge.
In my 1984 Honda, the resume button brings me back to the speed I was set at before I hit the brakes.
I don't find this argument super convincing.

There's a pretty clear difference between the 'finetuning' offered via API by GPT4 and the ability to do whatever sort of finetuning you want and get the weights at the end that you can do with open weights models.

"Brute forcing" is not the correct language to use for describing fine-tuning. It is not as if you are trying weights randomly and seeing which ones work on your dataset - you are following a gradient.
> Please read through their "acceptable use" policy before you decide whether this is really in line with open source

I'm not taking a specific posiion on this license. I haven't read it closely. My broad point is simply that open source AI, as a term, cannot practically require the training data be made available.
Tips for SOCLess Oncall
You’d need a monitoring solution for that, your web server won’t just send you a mail when it’s cert got revoked.

The client does that for you, by checking back at the CA. No need for any configuration server side.
Of course it could be practical - provide the data. The fact of that society is a dystopian nightmare controlled by a few megacorporations that don't want free information does not justify outright changing the meaning of the language.
Yeah, like the shares being transfered under duress. It's not like that can't be undone. The only thing this would achieve is a bunch of prison time and possibly destruction if data.

Not to mention that modern-day IT systems are such a mess that you'd need a crazy amount if time to find and access them all.
Quite excited about Prompt Guard as well!
I think it's a reasonable claim. But I would agree that it's worthy of more detailed investigation.
One word. Hardware.

There is limitless opportunity outside of the webtech/adtech bullshit bubble. Go create a hardware startup, it's never been easier. It's still harder than adtech bullshit was 10 years ago, but the turnkey manufacturing industry is faaaar better than all the "hardware is hard" weekly blogspam would lead you to believe.
After removing the noise you can distill the semantic stuff where ever possible, like meta-deta from images, buttons, etc, and see some structures emerge like footers and nav and body..
And many times for the sake of SEO and accessibility, websites do adopt quite a bit of semantic HTML elements and annotations in respective tags..
source available is absolutely not the same as open source

you are playing very loosely with terms that have specific, widely accepted definitions (e.g. https://opensource.org/osd )

I don't get why you think it would be useful to call LLMs with published weights "open source"
Because it's a lot more predictable. Put in the necessary effort and you are almost guaranteed to get a FAANG job. And the best part, it's completely clear where that effort needs to be directed. Yes, you need to have the smarts, but for a business that pays as much you need to have a lot more than that, plus luck. I'm all for entrepreneurship and personally couldn't work for one of those companies, but with FAANG salaries being this high I don't think those people are making an irrational choice at all.
Because of course a controller for a traffic light needs gigabit fiber internet connectivity....
The US government, especially the military, is largely allergic to software. This is slowly starting to change, but only in small pockets. I am aware of three software teams in the military but they are highly specialized with small dedicated customers.

I have tried several times to get Node.js into the military on approved software lists for internal development and its a huge struggle. I suspect the main culprits are due to valid security concerns regarding package managers like NPM and old ignorant thinking about open source being either immature or open software being a wide open exploitation vector. That is really tough because there aren't official binaries of Node without NPM and ignorant thinking about open source is really persistent.
This is really good news. Zuck sees the inevitability of it and the dystopian regulatory landscape and decided to go all in.

This also has the important effect of neutralizing the critique of US Government AI regulation because it will democratize "frontier" models and make enforcement nearly impossible. Thank you, Zuck, this is an important and historic move.

It also opens up the market to a lot more entry in the area of "ancillary services to support the effective use of frontier models" (including safety-oriented concerns), which should really be the larger market segment.
Meta is, fundamentally, a user-generated-content distribution company.

Meta wants to make sure they commoditize their complements: they don’t want a world where OpenAI captures all the value of content generation, they want the cost of producing the best content to be as close to free as possible.
> One of my [Mark Zuckerberg, ed.] formative experiences has been building our services constrained by what Apple will let us build on their platforms. Between the way they tax developers, the arbitrary rules they apply, and all the product innovations they block from shipping, it’s clear that Meta and many other companies would be freed up to build much better services for people if we could build the best versions of our products and competitors were not able to constrain what we could build.

This is hard to disagree with.
Income taxes wouldn't need to-- nevermind.

Okay. Please stop nitpicking and either defend your claim about "100% socialization of income" or admit you were wrong.

Sorry for saying irrelevant words, I will try to minimize them.

A flat tax increase of 20% of income minus 12k would be far from ideal, but anyone making less than 60k would have less taxes, anyone making 60k-120k would have a 0-10% of income increase, and super high cost of living places could use different numbers.

The exact details don't matter because I only made that scenario to prove your claim wrong. Because it's wrong.