skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The main issue with publishing research is the cost. Some time ago, I worked in a research lab studying Lupus. Our results were negative, and my initial inclination was not to publish them. However, my Principal Investigator (PI) emphasized that all results, whether positive or negative, should be published. Fortunately, we had the funds to do so. At that time, publishing in a reputable journal cost $2,300.

Not everyone is so fortunate. This lesson has stuck with me, as I have seen or heard from different labs where, unfortunately, they couldn't afford to publish their findings.
> However, recipients reported feeling less heard when they learned a message came from AI.
ELF: Management Time
there was a recent thing where Joey Logano was penalized for driving with a webbed glove. He'd hold it over a gap in the window (open but with a safety net over it) to reduce drag. Lots of drivers use their hand to do that, but the gloves can't have extra webbing. It's kind of shocking how much that matters for drag.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a46973038/nascar-driver-gl...
My one changed from charge card to interest bearing - it is now 704.6% interest rate, so it is still a charge card!
It’s a protected category in my country.

“Software Engineering is the part of Computer Science that is too hard for the Computer Scientist.”
Nice, they finally got the memo that GPT4 exists and include it in their benchmarks.
> Specifically, I question if it is really how most people think in terms of programming.

No, of course not. Algebra is only useful when you want to manipulate that exact thing, and most programmers never do any complex manipulation of types.

Compiler programmers writing powerful type systems do think that way.

> There are algebraic ideas in chemistry, but I would struggle to say how they look the same as this.

Oh no, they don't. The algebra of Quantum Mechanics is way weirder than that. (At least when you move after simple rotations and step-potential wheels.)
> Predictability is great for everyone, from managers to directors to even company investors.

I think it's terrible for the knowledge worker, causing both great emotional turmoil (at the dissonance of expectation versus how they actually perform) and reducing quality of output greatly (by forcing output when more dweel/pondering time is required).

Hammock Driven Development by Rich Hickey was such a an enormous relief of a talk to run into, back in the day, hit upon so many tensions & frustrations I had because business Taylorism expected consistent output, expected me to know the process from a->b and to be able to say at every point I am x% of the way through the journey. The businesses doesn't know what's happening but cares enormously about making sure it's extracting as much consistent "progress" as it can out of me/us.

HDD talked to how analysis & understanding, how development & problem solving iteration really work. And it works nothing like what a business wants. And what a business wants hurts the quality & doesn't permit ideal outcomes to emerge & surface. https://github.com/matthiasn/talk-transcripts/blob/master/Hi...

And the human factors are that dwell and pondering are essential for creative and knowledge work. Time in the hammock opens possibilities, fuels the muses.

> Spend 50% of your time on frontier stuff things that break your comfort zone.

That would be so excellent. I still get that mandate a lot, but so often I see peers whose whole life is cranking out pre-digestrd ready-to-go tickets. I want to see a world where we raise up engineers & engineering, not just ticket technicians.
so this is just a wrapper around gpt-4o mini?
Every day is a good day to be alive whether the sun is shining or not.

I'm with you. One quick look at history shows nothing is set in stone and it can always get worse.
> But that’s missing the point. It still means that the law itself is only available from one source, in one format. And while it has to be “publicly accessible online at no monetary cost,” that does not mean that it has to be publicly accessible in an easy or useful manner. It does not mean that there won’t be limitations on access or usage.

Let's not put the cart before the horse, here. As long as it's freely available, it'll be shared and shared alike by those who DGAF. I'm thinking of the type of people who hosted fake vax check-in websites during peak COVID inanity.
They thought they could predict it with high confidence a couple decades ago and then they learned more and confidence lowered again. That's kind of the nature of science, use what you know to find out what you don't know, and keep adjusting your models as you go.

That's also something of the paradox at work at something like this: you sometimes can't have models that strongly predict interesting or "good" outcomes (such as the "island of stability") without a lot more data from experiments and maybe you aren't running the right experiments because you don't have the right model, but you won't have the right model until you run more experiments.
While it's still not Reddit, but I've been enjoying Lemmy. I have a similar range of communities on each, and other than some annoying groupthink, the content is often similar.

And to me, forgetting to log in to each of them feels similar, too. For what that's worth. (I hate both of them when not logged in.)
Even cows can be dangerous if you make them mad.
>> I've said it before but it bears repeating - replicating published results, and adding the findings to a database, should be a standard part of PhD training programs.

Wait, why should PhD students do that work? That just sounds like pushing more grunt work to the lower rung of the academic hierarchy.

Nope. If you want people to do that kind of work that is important to everyone but is not directly conducive to promoting one's research career then the solution is simple: pay them.
They changed it to disallow so that scrapers can't just claim the robots.txt gave them permission.
"It's not the size that matters, but how you use it."
Are you still announcing meals? I know some people use iAPS with no meal announcement which sounds amazing. We are moving our T1D son from OP5 to Loop but would consider iaps in the future. Hoping we can recreate our 92% average time in range with less work needed
clearly some deal was reach between the two parties or we wouldn't be here.

whether or not the deal is exclusive OR companies have to pay to index reddit it's still bad for competition. money has a barrier to entry preventing newcomers.

I can blame reddit for creating the deal and I can blame google for accepting the deal if the effect is bing, ddg and others cannot display reddit results without reaching some deal.
The people I train can certainly use the command line to run Python, create virtual environments, and install packages. (But many of them have never used it previously.)
CrowdStrike offers a $10 apology gift card to say sorry for outage
Presuming your characterization is correct, this sounds like premature automation.

Like optimization, there is a sweet spot.
and even if there is another breakthrough all of these companies will implement it more or less simultaneously and they will remain in a dead heat
Academia - nowadays source is needed is a lot of conferences, but the datasets, depending on where/how it might have be obtained, just can't be used or not available and the exact results can't be reproduced.

Not sure if the code is required under an open source license, but it's the same issue.

---

IMO, source is source and can be used for other datasets. Dataset isn't available, bring your own.

In this case, the source is there. The output is there, and not technically required. What isn't available is the ability to confirm the output comes from that source. That's not required under open source though.

What's disingenuous is the output being called 'open source'.
> But I can understand why they made the change they did. The data was being abused.

Depends how you see it - if you see it as 'their' data (legally true) or if you see it as user content (how their users would likely see it).

If you see it as 'user content', they are actually selling the data to be abused by one company, rather than stopping it being abused at all.

From a commercial 'lets sell user data and make a profit' perspective I get it, although does seem short-sighted to decide to effectively de-list yourself from alternative search engines (guess they just got enough cash to make it worth their while).
their customer service is exceptional compared to almost any other company of any kind I've dealt with
Not being to able to distinguish infinitely many symbols on a single tape does not mean there is a bound on the number of meanings that may be assigned to symbols.
As a researcher that does mostly numerics, I really hope not. This would be a huge bureaucratization of scientific exploration and would slow down progress. I understand why it’s necessary in some fields like medicine, but I don’t think it’s worth the trade off in say theoretical physics.

Imagine the corresponding concept for programmers: you are not allowed to sell or share any software you create unless you pre-register a detailed plan for what code you will write and how it will be used before you write the first line of code. Pretty sure that would reduce the innovation going on in public GitHub repos a lot :)
Flagged because it is a dupe
Thanks for the reference! This looks like an implementation of a disjoint set/union-find data structure. I think it could be an interesting direction to explore by adapting union-find to handle intervals efficiently, or maybe apply some of the union-find amortized operations tricks to another interval-based tree or similar.
Thanks, but I really don’t think this is my case. I have no such strong trauma that I can think of.
I grew up in a relatively high tax country with universal healthcare. My government in particular didn't publish everything I'd need to figure this out, but if they were comparable to similar countries with similar budgets and similar obesity rates, then I'd be paying 100% of my income for about two weeks every year in taxes to pay for the additional healthcare costs caused by obesity.

So if I didn't have to pay for obese people's additional healthcare costs, I could have either gotten myself a rather sizeable tax break, or a couple week of extra holiday free every year.
I suspect this is why OpenAI is going more in the direction of optimising for price / latency / whatever with 4o-mini and whatnot. Presumably they found out long before the rest of us did that models can't really get all that much better than what we're approaching now, and once you're there the only thing you can compete on is how many parameters it takes and how cheaply you can serve that to users.
The author is a known quantity and the phrasing of the title is choice. Do we really need [parody] tags?
> There's zero chance what you suggest will ever take root.

I’ve always wanted to represent my country in the olympics, and maybe one day I will on a standard Olympics bicycle!
From the wording, the GP didn't mean a federal organization.

Does the US have no local trade protection organizations? They are organized in a way that I would expect their states to insist on this.
From my understanding, the protocols for each of these systems are inherently coupled to the internal service characteristics. RabbitMQ and Kafka take very different approaches to messaging. Neither is generally better, and they each make different tradeoffs.

These tradeoffs have real impact on client logic. And in this case, where it's not as simple as a line protocol like http, it may be hard to disentangle the "objects" and the protocols.

With that in mind, I'd choose the one which is most similar to your internal messaging service so there's less impedance mismatch.
The graphs seem to indicate their model trades blows with Llama 3.1 405B, which has more than 3x the number of tokens and (presumably) a much bigger compute budget. It's kind of baffling if this is confirmed.

Apparently Llama 3.1 relied on artificial data, would be very curious about the type of data that Mistral uses.
> I'm not really sure how to even test/use Mistral or Llama for everyday use though.

Both Mistral and Meta offer their own hosted versions of their models to try out.

https://chat.mistral.ai

https://meta.ai

You have to sign into the first one to do anything at all, and you have to sign into the second one if you want access to the new, larger 405B model.

Llama 3.1 is certainly going to be available through other platforms in a matter of days. Groq supposedly offered Llama 3.1 405B yesterday, but I never once got it to respond, and now it’s just gone from their website. Llama 3.1 70B does work there, but 405B is the one that’s supposed to be comparable to GPT-4o and the like.
I still wouldn't call that "scanning", I'd just call it "two photos".

The quality/accuracy is not like an actual 3D scan.

But I'll certainly place it in an intermediate category... either "stereoscopic photos" or "spatial photos" if you want to use Apple's name for it.

I just think "scanning" should be reserved for, you know, the things we traditionally call scanning. That are more than just photos -- stereoscopic/spatial or not.
This isn't you defeating the system it's the system working as intended. They want to weed out people with better options, people with any sort of leverage, people who can afford to walk away. This will be used for low wage low prestige hourly labor, to find people who will accept poor treatment at work because they have to. The same way drug tests and long behavioral questionnaires are used now.
Our vocabulary is only statistically finite. Number of words in a dictionary is finite. Number of words used to all speakers is not.
200W at 300g is realistic for a modern BLDC motor. The article states that Maxon was the motor supplier so they likely used the EC-4pole series, I'm guessing it's one of these.

https://www.maxongroup.us/medias/sys_master/root/88825569607...

It's 30mm diameter to fit in a down-tube, 200W, and 300g. But just because it's 200W doesn't mean you have to run it at maximum capacity, there's no reason you couldn't run it at 5-50W.
I did it (fairly simple really) but found most of my (unsophisticated) coding these days to go through Aider [1] paired with Sonnet, for UX reasons mostly. It is easier to just prompt over the entire codebase, vs Cursor way of working with text selections.

[1] https://aider.chat
Site seems to be overwhelmed - archive: https://archive.is/yQhw3
The code tells you what the code _does_. The documentation (which can include comments in the code) tell you what the code is intended to do. Either one of those can be wrong. If the code doesn't match the documentation, then there is a bug in the system.

Not having documentation just removes the ability to determine if what the code _does_ is what the code is _intended to do_.
60 Minutes: Russian doping at Sochi Winter Olympics exposed (2016) [video]
This seems like a trojan horse to blow away the EPA and Endangered Species Act entirely.
Hiding Linux Processes with Bind Mounts
Yeah, aliexpress returns real money.
Presuming the breakthrough is openly shared. It remains surprising how transparent many of these companies are about new approaches that push the SoTa forward, and I suspect we're going to see a change. That companies won't reveal the secret sauce so readily.

e.g. Almost the entire market relies upon Attention Is All You Need paper detailing transformers, and it would be an entirely different market if Google had held that as a trade secret.
The Vox article refers to an Algorithmic Justice League[1] article which footnotes the TSA article that says you can opt out [2]. I have to fly next week and if I have the guts to try this I'll definitely have the TSA article handy, not, er, the Vox article.

[1] https://www.ajl.org/campaigns/fly

[2] https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/facial-recognition...
> Knowing ahead of time which functions are async is a feature.

It can be, but this fact doesn't always scale well to larger APIs over time.

If you see that a function is async, any of these could be true:

1. The function does some asynchronous work.

2. The function did some asynchronous work at some point in the past, but does no longer, but changing the signature is a breaking API change, so it still looks async.

3. The function does no asynchronous work, but it's a public API and the library maintainer thinks there is a good chance it may need to do async work in the future so made it async today to reserve the right to make that change without breaking the API.

4. The function may or may not do asynchronous work, but it's part of an interface that others are allowed to implement and the designer of the interface wants to give implementers the freedom to make their implementations async if they want.

5. The function is higher-order and wants to be able to accept callbacks that are themselves async.

There are probably others I'm forgetting.

This all sounds hypothetical but it's really not. If you maintain any widely-used long-lived package, you run into design questions like this all the time.

There is always a tension between an API consumer wanting to know what a function "really" does versus the API author wanting some abstraction so that implementation details can be changed over time without breaking users.

Asynchrony is one kind of effect or observable behavior that a user/maintainer of an API may or may not want to encapsulate, but it's not the only one. The C++ standard library documents and commits to the algorithmic complexity of most functions. Haskell function signatures pin down whether or not a function does IO. Statically typed languages pin down the types parameters must be.

Pinning down more of this stuff gives the API consumer some more information, but it's not always a pure win. It calcifies the behavior of the function in ways that can harm its evolution or interact poorly with higher-order code or polymorphism. There's no silver bullet.

Personally, I've never found "does this function suspend" to be a particularly interesting effect for a function to have to commit to and the fact that it poisons the entire callstack makes it very difficult to work with in practice.
the US already pays for 2+ aws region for cia/dod. why not pay for a region that is only available to researchers?
You can use the Messages app on your MacBook Air to send and receive texts and calls too.

When texting Android users, don't use reactions. It spams them with an additional text saying "Soandso liked your post blah blah." They don't share a compatible messaging protocol.

"Find My" with precision finding can be useful for locating your devices or wallet (with an Airtag).

If your iPhone has a lidar, you can have some fun with photogrammetry apps. It's like a Kinect in your phone.

-------

Those are just the random things I'm jealous of as an Android user. Had an iPhone for a while but couldn't get used to it.
Given we don’t know precisely what’s happening in the black box we can say that spec tech doesn’t give you the full picture of the experience … Apple style
Perhaps it's not sufficiently complete yet for CrowdStrike to use it, but Microsoft has been developing eBPF support for Windows since 2019:

https://github.com/microsoft/ebpf-for-windows/
[Article author here]

No, not really. The first reasons that spring to mind:

- No source for most of it available, so governments can't take, adapt and use it like they can Linux.

- Needs Apple (or for older stuff, Intel x86) hardware. This is about hardware and software independence.

- Apple sales still officially barred in Russia I think -- although that's only a mild hindrance, I'm sure.

- Apple has little to no presence in the server space.
I think it starts with educating youth, with proper campaigns. Make it clear living as an addict is not something you want.

The legal aspect is a very difficult discussion, and it's more based on opinions than facts.

But at start we need to decide if we want these drugs in our society or not. And I'm always surprised at how the HN crowd is: taking drugs are awesome, we want it in our society.
The thing I don't understand is why everyone is throwing money at LLMs for language, when there are much simpler use cases which are more useful?

For example, has anyone ever attempted image -> html/css model? Seems like it be great if I can draw something on a piece of paper and have it generate a website view for me.
I know people will hate to hear this, but Reddit it's not important to the A well being of the Internet.
> think of North Korea, Russia etc level of evilness and what they can do whit that.

To date, I have not seen any "evil" applications of AI, let alone dangerous or even useful ones. If Russia or North Korea get their hands on a modern AI model, the CIA will get their "Red Mercury" call: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury
Show HN: YouTube Player App in the Browser
The app bypasses ads and age-gating. Very fast.

This is just a scaled-down sample taken from a larger project.

For more information: https://8chananon.github.io
Also, to follow up, the question is speed in what domain?

Speed reading, speed computation, speed memorization, there are many domains of the mind in which the question of speed could be applied.
I still prefer ChatGPT-4o and use Claude if I have issues but never does any better
Not saying you're wrong, I only want to add to your context by saying (in my experience) within higher education SAML is the way federated identity is done. InCommon has been around for a long time and makes it pretty easy, and Shibboleth is very popular. Have a great day!
Why Paper Checks Refuse to Die
The recent TV box I have has 8 GB of RAM and 64 GB of ROM. Will this still be insufficient to play games?

As a hardcore gamer, how many games would you install at a time? How much could the total size of those installed games be?
I like it principle, but after watching the situation with Twitter clones, I'm not too optimistic on federated services taking off.

I would like to see a wikipedia-style system for Twitter/Reddit: open access data, non-profit.
Reddit is 100x from being a trillion-dollar company, and is not profitable.
Sure they are.

So let's say I claim that the sun goes in a circle in the sky in the morning. The null hypothesis is that it doesn't do that. Perform experiment. Null hypothesis wins. Write up paper! This is a negative result.

The point is that for every result where the alternative hypothesis wins, there are a massive, if not infinite, number of results where the null hypothesis will win. Are these publishable?
The banks are liable if they don’t police their users, just like you would be liable if you in turn gave your credentials out to someone else.

Society apparently has deemed those beneficial at large as there is not a critical mass of opposition to get representatives to push for changes. In this case I’m equating special interest groups and PAC’s with money to spend to influence as also beneficial to society as they have been allowed to prosper.
Given there are thousands of papers written on this over the past half century due to the complexity of human behaviour, I'm not sure you'd be able to fit this into one paper. There are too many topics to discuss. Individual side, organizational side, and then it spiders from there. Cognition and psychology, culture, corporate governance, and much more, it's endless.

But to be simplistic, you could just count the co-authors on all those thousands of papers, take the average, and there's your answer. Draw up histograms along various independent variables if you want a bit more nuance.
All 3 models you ranked cannot get "how many r's are in strawberry?" correct. They all claim 2 r's unless you press them. With all the training data I'm surprised none of them fixed this yet.
Great, can I bring my AI interviewing assistant too?
Indeed, it used to output all the code I needed but now it only outputs a draft of the code with prompts telling me to fill in the rest. If I wanted to fill in the rest, I wouldn't have asked you now, would've I?