skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's sort of what happens with named return value optimization. You write this:

bar foo() {bar baz; ...; return baz;}

bar qux = foo();

'baz' is constructed directly in the space allocated for 'qux'.

Implementation notes: the complex value is never returned but rather the caller passes the address of a space where the return value should be constructed. Inside the function, the compiler notes that baz is returned and allocates it in the return value space.

This optimization is guaranteed to occur. Compilers which don't do this are nonconforming.
This keeps emerging again an again, and the answers are pretty generic.

1. Large language models as a concept are not going anywhere anytime soon for any reason. Simply because there's no other source with a huge slice of human psyche encoded into it than the language itself and the corpus of texts in it. Humanity collectively did a massive amount of gradient descent on the language over generations, and it will stay as the primary source. That doesn't mean that other sources don't exist, of course.

2. Dataset quality matters at least as much as the architecture. There's plenty of low-hanging fruit available in preprocessing the data and "textbooks for models". You learn to count in a decimal system from both memorizing the number sequence and the explanation of the algorithm, not just by looking at millions of examples! There's plenty of a bit higher-hanging fruit available in hardware improvements and optimizations.

3. Calling a transformer a token predictor, stochastic parrot, autocomplete on steroids, etc. is of course right but kind of misses the point, like calling human brain a nerve impulse predictor (and the brain also has no "inherent way of verifying whether their predictions are correct", using the definition from the article). Reasoning about this in ill-defined terms like "understanding" or "knowledge" or "intelligence" is not useful at all. There are many differences between humans and LLMs, but the most high-level one is that humans are autonomous agents that exist in continuous time, and transformer's lifetime is the time required to compute a single token. Repeat the process for multiple tokens and you have something more complex. Add an external loopback, and you have a chatbot with memory, partly capable of doing things unexpected of a "word predictor". Make the loopback more complex, and you suddenly have an... autonomous system that exists in continuous time. Sure, it's extremely crude and primitive, and that loopback probably also needs to be replaced by something way more advanced in the future, and, and, and, and...

4. Reasoning and symbolic computation comparable to human abilities (which are also pretty spotty and error-prone) might or might not emerge as a result of scale and simple loopback mechanisms in models. You might or might not need an external symbolic engine as the author says, or maybe you can reduce it to another model of a different type, or maybe it's all wrong. Current models are still orders of magnitude smaller and simpler than the human nervous system, and plenty of things in LLMs already changed by simply increasing the scale.

5. Other than all of the above, sure - transformers or another flavor-of-the-year architecture might give way to more advanced ones. But the basic principles will remain, and language models are not going anywhere.
Do you still have an Advanced class license?
I think that Advanced class is the only license that is currently around (and able to be renewed) that required a code test.

The Novice test was something else. 20 questions. 5 WPM code. I was thrilled when it came in the mail. 40 Meter CW, look out.
Well it doesn't get you there because shared-mutable-safe doesn't exist, at least I doubt it can without major tradeoffs. You either err on the side of complete safety with a system that is borderline unusable for anything practical, or you let people do whatever they want and let them deal with their problems once they actually have them.

> either way that's a huge blow to 'shared' if you are only allowed one writer

Yeah for full N thread reading and editing you'd need N vars per var which is annoying, but that kind of every-thread-is-main setup is something that is exceedingly rare. There's almost always a few fixed main ones and lots running specific tasks that don't really need to know about all the other ones.
Login-walled.

https://archive.is/WtTae

https://x0.at/0CCD.png
It is a similar thing with climate change to be honest. We have been spending at a pace we cannot keep up with. In my mind, of course we won't have the same luxuries as our parents, they bought that life with CO2 debt.
What’s a dumb way to do computation? Using objects? I’m generally suspicious of divergence from the ideal form of computation (math, applied to a big dumb array) but C++ is quite popular.
Greece would lend money to itself given Greece is the currency issuer of the Drachma.

That happens automatically when government makes a payment
Ask HN: How do you choose a hostname for personal devices?
I just built a new PC and I'm having trouble deciding on a hostname. I used to name them after the CPU inside, but my last PC got a CPU upgrade halfway through so the name didn't make sense anymore. So I guess I need a new system.

What are some naming systems you all use?
Michael and Denise Okuda Collection
> I recommend sticking with push_back for day-to-day use.

This Google tip of the week gives a good explanation (explicit vs implicit) for why to prefer push back vs emplace if you don't need the benefit of emplace: https://abseil.io/tips/112

In particular:

> Let me answer that question by asking another: what do these two lines of code do?

vec1.push_back(1<<20);
vec2.emplace_back(1<<20);

> The first line is quite straightforward: it adds the number 1048576 to the end of the vector. The second, however, is not so clear. Without knowing the type of the vector, we don’t know what constructor it’s invoking, so we can’t really say what that line is doing
Piraeus Lion
> This one at least, and probably all of them is stuff that already happens

Yes. The system incentives against it, yet and it still happens. Redesign the system so that it incentivizes for it and it'll happen way, way more.

The idea that the idle poor are running around "improving their communities is obviously bullshit. The poor already work fewer hours per person, and their communities are universally the most neglected.

> UBI compensates all work

Capitalism compensates work that someone is willing to pay for--i.e. work that consumers find valuable. UBI compensates "work" playing video games and sleeping until noon. Pretending that the latter is more moral than the former is positively asinine.
Yeah, I don’t see how one can blame Microsoft in this scenario. If you choose to run buggy kernel-level code, that’s on you, not the publisher of the kernel/OS. Especially when the code you’re running is a replacement for functionality already provided by the OS. It’s hard to argue that MS could be negligent for “not having a good enough AV/endpoint protection solution” or “allowing customers to run kernel-level code.”
Gerald Weinberg was a prolific author in the tech consultancy space, and most of his writing consists of anecdotes like this. He explains his theories by telling stories, the veracity of which isn’t the point.

On the specific note, I frequently make these mistakes, despite having read his books and knowing the problem to which he’s referring. I say “could you just…” and “we should really do x today”. In the abstract, we can all see the problem, yet it’s easy to forget in reality.
Lending in Drachma to Greece is very different to lending dollars to Argentina.

It’s a category mistake to conflate the two
If my family has owned this house for multiple generations, why should I give it up to at best be resettled in a 2 bedroom apartment in the boonies?

There is no good answer to that.

Either you accept civil liberties of which property ownership is a critical part or you accept that civil liberties like ownership do not matter.

Owning property is a right every human agrees with (it's literally article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). This is why you either need to compensate exhorbitantly or threaten to break a few legs and skulls in order to gain property.

The mass urban housing projects of the 30s to 60s were literally built by mass demolishing black neighborhoods - look at Central Boston's redevelopment for example, as well as Cincinnati's.

And that's why these projects ended once the Civil Rights movement succeeded - why should black residents lose their property and intergenerational wealth to urban projects built by governments that didn't care for them.

Look at how the 1968 DC Riots and 1967 Detroit Riots were exacerbated by HUD plans to revitalize "slums" (black majority neighborhoods) like Capitol Hill and Lafayette Park

> Besides do people really own land when the government demands rent in the form of property taxes

In return for those taxes they get piped water, roads, police, local schools, sewers, garbage collection, and other basic services.

> resulting pervasive homelessness and rent seeking capitalism applied to shelter

Mass Eminent domain of land only leads to crony capitalism anyhow. Either way it's the same contractors and builders who are doing development - the difference is now instead of wooing voters you just woo the political class instead.

Nor is there actually a need for mass development to alleviate homelessness - housing subsidies can and do help, as SLC and Houston have both shown as well as Section 8.

That said, you will have to follow the law - meaning no substance abuse or criminal activity.
Do you mean over* polling (instead of polling)? Polling (repeatedly asking the server) and pushing (the server telling you directly) are two different things; polling over WebSocket seems sort of weird.
If you'll forgive the meta:

As long as nitter.net was a thing I could tolerate twitter threads. All I had to do was change the address and then I could read the thread.

Now that it's gone, I sincerely think it's time to ban twitter threads from HN. Here's all I have for this content:

* A headline that admittedly sounds terrible.

* An introduction, presumably to a series of tweets, explaining that this person earned a bounty from discord.

* A screenshot of the bounty.

Did Discord's CEO leak PII? I can't tell. This headline will get a lot of upvotes in its own right but doesn't reflect the content that I see, and I can't validate it because I don't have a twitter account.

We need to stop encouraging tweetstorms as a source of information.
There’s actually quite a lot of furry events happening in Melbourne. They just aren’t very visible. You have to be in the space to be told when and where stuff is happening.
CLion does the correct replacement on it's right click fix actions. Just if anyone using is reading.
Not exactly, but close. You need to balance against the dollar value of savings from attacks they've stopped BUT that their competitors would not have.

Just comparing against the attacks they stopped is a naive and gross overestimation because it requires an assumption that if a customer did not use CrowdStrike they did not use _any_ alternative. In reality, Crowdstrikes customers would have used some other product. So the attacks that competitors could have also defended against cannot be accurately attributed to Crowdstrike. i.e. if Edison didn't invent the light bulb someone else would have. We know this because he didn't invent it, though he did make the first practical version[0].

But since we're on topic, I'd call what I suggested a "good enough" estimation. We have a reasonable estimate under reasonable constraints. It's more complex, but the amount of accuracy gained is tremendous. Arguably the other model is so inaccurate it is less than meaningless (it isn't even "back of the envelope") because its conclusions would lead us to believe things that are not true, and far from the truth. But if we want to talk about _actual perfectionism_, well this gets much more complicated much more quickly. In fact, gets exponentially complex in exponential time.

A true analysis needs to consider the counterfactual question of what if Crowdstrike did not exist at all. This is far more complicated and contains many subltities that could dramatically change the results. Because we need to understand things like how other companies would have advanced and developer were the money/manpower/resources that were allocated to CrowdStrike were allocated to others. To understand how CrowdStrike both creates and discourages competition in the space. Systems like these are (mathematically) chaotic. Who knows, maybe a manager at Crowdstrike pissed off an employee who then turned blackhat. But maybe Crowdstrike gave a job to someone who would have turned black hat would they not have gotten hired. Maybe because they were laid off from a competitor! Realistically performing these calculations to a solution that is accurate (which would still be probabilistic in nature) is intractable. Of course we can improve our earlier model by using some of these factors, but I want to illustrate that there's a difference in perfectionism which is unachievable from being reasonably accurate ("good enough").

[0] Left unknown is how quickly someone else would have come to similar practicality but my best understanding of this specific story is that it would not have been long. This is not an uncommon story in science and technology and if you look hard enough you'll almost always find that any discovery or invention was also being pursued by another group. There are exceptions, but they are rare. You just never hear about the other groups, but you can confirm this by watching advancements that happen while we're alive and can see the competition in real time. Specifically in domains where you are close to.
Nice job and congratulations on building this! It looks like your copy is missing a word in the first paragraph:

> Opslane is a tool that helps (make) the on-call experience less stressful.
i think the 2000-2010 period was so magical because of the democratisation of the music creation process. FL studio had just hit a few years before, was famously pirated, and was in wide use in the (imo) heartland of electronic music - the UK -- in the afformentioned genres Dubstep, and previously Grime (UK garage was previous to these two and was very much living in Logic/Cubase with hardware at the forefront).

I think rampant piracy of an easy to use - gamified production environment pushed music forward in a big way. Renoise did similar things for the mid-2000s North American breakcore scene, and its much prettier sibling IDM was more in-love with MAX/MSP, Csound, Pure Data and so on.

After this period - i think Trap kicked everyone aside in conjunction with Soundcloud becoming the defacto standard for music sharing - vinyl was STILL very much en-vogue in 2000-2010 period. Trap was also accompanied by De-constructed club (ala Sophie) as the new hotness. One of the big draws in this period was complete irreverence for tradition, and lineage. The avante garde and pop world very much were co-mingling. This peaked with hyperpop being coined as a genre.

Right now?? I think "global bass" is the new-ness. UK and the USA have been sidelined imo - South Africa (qgom and related) and Nigeria with their local styles - Afrobeats, amapiano and others I cannot remember for the life of me...check out labels like Nyege Nyege, Hakuna Kalula and so on...It's really all about Africa right now. And music consumption via viral tiktok is very very much on-trend (sadly)

And even more recently? most likely BR Funk (Brazilian) is making waves. You know its making waves because - low sound quality has in my opinion always been a marker of something new. Trap was pretty aweful sounding until it got its bearings.

As a side - i think a KEY to these strong musical movements is a strong geographical identity...whenever music styles are exported, something is lost. What made (early) dubstep special was the influences of the kids living in those areas - SE Asian supermarkets, traditional SE Asian musics (as samples), and the UK hardcore continuum together are a beautiful thing :)
I’ve been using sci-fi authors. My laptop is “lem”, the cluster is “Gibson” with machines numbered from zero. The Mac Mini is “harlan” after Harlan Ellison (didn’t want it to be confused with that Oracle guy). The Windows machine is named “Brian” after Brian Herbert, because he is a terrible writer. There’s also Douglas Adams, Arthur Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Charlie Stross, and many others.
Other than a couple police officers how widespread is this issue?
nitter.poast.org still works, and occasionally threadreaderapp.com
"Show me your tits, and I'll show you my tats."
Maybe rename it to "Load an Example" or something. Not a clear name.
I'm going to be the controversial one here and say that, as bad as CrowdStrike was, the alternative of having only Microsoft be able to decide what people can do is far worse. I've already seen many others trying to use this incident to advocate for digital totalitarianism.
Yeah, Twitter was always a subpar experience for sharing information online, but since the acquisition it has been simply abysmal and overran with bots, shitty ads, and terrible quality content, with a quicky degrading user experience too. It's an active battle to access any content on it nowadays.

Just leave it alone to die a slow death.
I guess the idea would be to send FTL probes into space in all directions, so they can see the light heading our way from novas and report back.

However, accomplishing this seems considerably more difficult than finding an underwater buoy.
Use farside.link to find working instances. I refreshed three times and got three working instances:

- https://nitter.poast.org/hackermondev/status/181662535705258...

- https://nitter.lucabased.xyz/hackermondev/status/18166253570...

- https://nitter.privacydev.net/hackermondev/status/1816625357...
Idk, this is the decade of history in the making every week. And companies have long since stopped hiding under a mask of politeness. I wouldn't trust past trends to determine this decade's fate.
California Governor*
Agreed. Fixed! Thank you.
> Having WhatsApp may be wrong for you but it may be less wrong than leaving your friends groups.

If friends can't install another app to talk to you, maybe they don't really wanna keep in touch.

When I moved to Telegram I told family and friends where I'd be and they all installed Telegram and actually liked it so they stayed.

It's been 3 years now and I haven't touched WhatsApp.

My words have no value if I can't even follow them. Cognitive dissonance comes cheap, but we can all try to be a bit better than that.
Currently, I compare the previous & current answers (with clue) and send both to the LLM to determine if an alert is required for the given alert-task (question + Clue). I should admit that in some corner cases, such as when comparing list page answers, it is not working as expected. I suppose to parse those list as pre-processing step. The alert is triggered on the clue that you give while creating alert.
Another factor to keep in mind is that life expectancy has changed dramatically since the introduction of these programs, which is ultimately good if you're pro-humans-living.

When SS was formed in 1935, average life expectancy at birth was just 60, whereas the full retirement age was 65. In effect, this resulted in close to 150 people paying in for every 1 recipient.

These days, full retirement age is almost done being hiked to 67, while life expectancy at birth was up to 78 the last time I checked. This results in fewer than 3 people paying into the program for every 1 recipient.

If the full retirement age was simply indexed to (life expectancy at birth + 5), that would also solve the fiscal problems with Social Security, though it's a political impossibility.

I think people forget that the actual name of the "Social Security" program that people think of as "retirement" is OASI - Old Age Survivorship Insurance. I use Social Security in quotes because there are other components too, like DI - disability insurance, though that's negligible compared to OASI.

It was never meant be a retirement program, it was meant to be insurance in case you accidentally lived for a lot longer than you were expected to.
What alternative solution do you propose?
I believe this is what I was thinking of : https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07508

The author is Jonathan Gorard, who is one of the people associated with “The Wolfram Physics Project”, and checking the references, it does cite at least one document/paper that is part of the “wolfram physics project”,

But I don’t know for sure whether it exactly uses the central framework of the project.
It doesn’t matter if you are doing full Fault Isolation with XFI. I recommend reading the paper here https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/osdi06/tech/full_papers/...
in this case a satellite enabled candybar. the disaster recovery policy and budget should be applicable here. make sure its able to share xg and satellite tunnel for maximum value. ensure the reporting system is satellite enabled also. added points if its sending alerts 2 your handy byod. Disaster recovery is a big deal in 2024. All sorts of factors make satellite redundancy valuable in todays reality: Coworkers on a hike or a boat, random 0-day stuff, and war can cut your normal internet.. i have experienced all of these and only in the last 4 years and more than 1 time on each topic. Train your users to destroy it in case of war as its trackable by military tech. Put a sticker on it. Check out stackexchange for questions like this tho?
> later than anticipated.

No, this is when they said it would be arriving.
Predigested bs for people to ruminate about. Rather watch Tom & Jerry, that has much more profound thoughts.
The "collapse" is more metaphorical, but real. Job security is non-existant, and wages aren't even keeping up with rent in some areas. People don't unionize and they are literally left out on the streets, for no fault of their own.

It's not manslaughter, but it certainly is still abuse. Collective bargaining seems to be an inevitably in such a situation.
I name my machines after Neutral Milk Hotel song titles and lyrics
Here is the Nature paper that confirms the claim: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16771

Fantastic!
Speak for yourself. There are still companies who don't treat their employees like idiots and actually trust them. Let's not normalise pervasive surveillance.
I tried to sign up but never got a confirmation email.
This is great to see.. A few friends do a lot of player statistics and analytics for fun mostly and this would be an amazing addition. Any documentation on what the week process went and challenges that you ran into?
> Was it a disaster? My wife and I thought it was lovely and pretty cool.

On television perhaps. For anyone that was actually there…

* https://blog.jeffcable.com/2024/07/the-opening-ceremony-of-p...
>There are still companies who don't treat their employees like idiots and actually trust them.

Yeah sure, but wow many of those are large non-tech companies?

You massively overestimate the tech competency of the average PC user if you think it's normal in most companies to not have security monitoring solutions in place or over the internat activity. In our latest phishing test IT did, several users fell for the trap, despite it being a tech company. There's always gonna be someone careless one day and companies want insurance policies against that.

Having such solutions in place doesn't mean the company doesn't trust you, it's more like that old Russian proverb, "trust but verify", and for ticking security compliance boxing as an insurance policy.

Everyone makes mistakes, it's only human. So more like, speak for yourself, if you think your internet activity at work isn't logged anywhere.