skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It matters who I build for. Humanity is in trouble. An incomplete list of problems: climate change; war; authoritarianism; genocide; poverty; inequality; surveillance. I shouldn’t waste my time building software for people who are hurting people. I shouldn’t waste my time building software to make the boss rich, even if I’m the boss. There are a lot of jobs where I can use my skills to help people…I should work there if I can!

This. Now, I only need to find a job at some ethically OK company, that is not business bro profit oriented, but mainly orients itself by looking at how it can help people, that also pays acceptable wage for my knowledge and skill level.

I think it is part of a chicken and egg problem. Since we often don't care, too many companies exist, where this is not the case. And since there are not so many companies that care, it is difficult to switch away from ones current job to one at such a company.
The original Olympics were competed in the nude. I'm not saying we need to go that far, but the Olympic committee has a standard pool for all the swimmers, and they could provide standard bikes for all the cyclists.
Is it an idea to publish null results in appendix when a sexy result will be published? Kinda like a Thomas Edison thing. How many ways are there to not make a lightbulb, included with the ways that do make it possible to create one
I don't think this comment deserves to be downvoted. For the specific constraints imposed by embedded environments, a bloom filter seems perfectly cromulent here. The odds of a false positive scale according to the amount of memory that you can afford, and even in the event of a false positive it would fail closed, which is a better security posture than not checking at all.
Most people in the UK live outside of London (87 % as of 2021), so I can't see how that's relevant to anything here.
Title is: FTC, DOJ, and International Enforcers Issue Joint Statement on AI Competition Issues
What is the estimated TNT equivalent of this explosion based on what we can see in this video?
Is there a rough equivalent to Arduino in the RISC-V ecosystem?
I have a production API where sending 401 immediately kills your session and you’re logged out. And 403 doesn’t. We have this as a result of race conditions where the front end incorrectly thinks it still has a valid session. But the back end knows better
It depends on your definition of an element. Is it just a nucleus or does it have to have electrons too? Because if there are electrons, there is a hard limit [1]. The relativistic speed of the electron in the 1s orbital is Z/137 of the speed of light (Z = atomic number).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry
> Inventory has risen the most year over year in the South, according to Realtor.com.

> Inventory remains more limited in the Midwest and Northeast.

Pretty sure it's just regional demand has decreased in certain areas. If you're buying a house in Florida (good luck with insurance) you can get a deal. If you're buying a house in a major metro area, probably still a lot of money.
Yellowstone will not explode and end civilization (or American civilization for that matter) in many many lifetimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypn3Fe_PLts
That's what op is saying, the engine is GPLv2, but the assets are copyrighted. There's Freedoom though and it's pretty good [0].

[0]: https://freedoom.github.io/
I prefer to keep your statement as an open problem: but I stand behind my words.
In basic level, maybe some publications that print these papers would take the registrations, as a precondition to publishing them?

It's not like it couldn't be gamed, but maybe it would incentivize people to also publish null results.
Actually "My cat is funny" was the prompt it continued that. I got to fix some stuff to reflect meta's implementation and also fix the chat mode, then it would be usable. Will take a few days to do that.
This works until relevant information is colocated.
Sometimes though, for example in financial documents, important parts reference each other through keywords etc. That's why you can always try and retrieve not only positionally related chunks but also semantically related ones.

Go for chunk n, n - m, n + p and n' where n' are closest chunks to n semantically.

Moreover you can give this traversal possibility to your LLM to use itself as a tool or w/e whenever it is missing crucial information to answer the question. Thanks to that you don't always retrieve thousands of tokens even when not needed.
There’s a hypothesis that I heard back when I was in high school 40 years ago that maybe the atoms start stabilizing again once you go high enough in the atomic number. It was just a hypothesis but kind of cool to think about.
Its my impression, or cyclists are more competitive to the point of cheating more than most sports?
Not easily for these large scale models, but theoretically maybe
That theorized island is centered around elements we've already discovered though, being in the range of ~110 protons. So element 120, being discussed, is already well past that point.
Agreed. Cabinet (and other) meeting details are generally private, and an FoI request rarely gets anything that's not redacted. There is a vast amount of information in the public domain regarding HS2, and 'vast' is the problem to both the last Government and this one.

Which single person can read and be fully clued up a modern UK infrastructure project? Our infrastructure planning needs an overhaul.

The Lower Thames Crossing is worse than HS2, far worse, and it's not much more than 10 miles.

https://www.cityam.com/lower-thames-crossing-planning-applic...
... and it works on every platform from BlackBerry, iPhone, MacOS, Windows, Linux, desktop, and mobile! Has lots of tools to handle different resolution sizes and alternate languages!

Of course it's often a little less performant and requires Learning New Things. But generally the trade-off is worth it for the significant benefits if you want to share it with the most people.
> It's interesting how so many people have an aversion to being a business owner / entrepreneur

It’s not like nobody wants that, the scarce thing is having a good business idea unless you want to go into consulting.

> And the ceiling is limited as an employee, whereas it's virtually unlimited as a business owner.

That’s kinda stretching it. Higher FAANG-level salaries are enough to reach financial independence, which is pretty much „unlimited“ territory for most normal people. On the other hand, most businesses are not hyper successful. It‘s not like becoming a millionaire entrepreneur can be taken for granted.

It’s interesting that you don’t seem to understand this. Survivorship bias or something else?
Thanks, I'll read it up. Interesting.
Very weak article, lot's of out of context sentences and missing arguments.

For example the rant about "capital gains taxes" doesn't include the reason why you can't tax something that is not sold yet. It is wrong on so many levels. Suppose you have a home that is going up 10% and is worth +50000 USD. You haven't sold it yet, but you owe a tax out of the blue. Isn't that a bad idea?

The out of context part for this particular issue is the qualification of Marc about "yes we know that 100 million looks like a lot, but they won't be able to raise the money they hope and will be forced to lower the threshold". Also she didn't mentioned that 50% of all tax receipts in CA are from the wealthy. So every 50 cent on the dollar are already collected from the most mobile population and they'd leave and this measure won't work at all.

You'd find nothing on that in the article.
This reminded me of a web dev competition's task I saw once where the instructions said both "Always use semantic HTML for proper accessibility" and "In this exercise, you must create the table using grid and flexbox".

I thought that was weird, but now I think you might be right - if you use <table> and add display: grid to it then it might preserve the default role="row" and similar accessibility things.
Wow lots of detail!
Interesting they chose Zephyr, haven’t heard a lot of good things about it, NuttX seems to be preferred. Never used them myself but that is the sentiment I get.
That link is absolutely fascinating, and would definitely make for a great sci-fi concept!
I'm hugely grateful for this article: it's the first I've seen that explains JWTs end-to-end with the technical details of how to implement and inspect them on the browser side, including storage.

I haven't needed to understand JWTs in depth, so have never spent the time to do a deep technical dive, but I'd still like to understand how they work. Every time I see a JWT article pass by, I'll jump in and find the general concepts explained but with enough technical gaps that I couldn't understand them in practical terms, especially when compared to my years of previous web-dev experience with cookies.

Also thanks to @unscaled for pointing out PASETO, which aims to fix some of the many problems with JWTs: https://paseto.io/
I always love this topic.

> Nat = 1 + Nat. This equation is clearly inconsistent, since x=1+x is false for all possible values of x.

Ah, but no, my friend. That equation is false merely for all possible finite values of x. But why impose such a constraint? We've already been identifying a correspondence between certain types and the number of inhabitants they have. Nat has countably many inhabitants. And one more than countably infinite is countably infinite!
I agree, most production RAG systems have been doing this since last year
CSS can impact screen reader accessibility. Most obviously ‘display: none’ will remove the element from the outline

From a quick google it appears the article is correct: https://www.tpgi.com/short-note-on-what-css-display-properti...

You can return the structure with judicious use of role attributes, but it’s surely easier to just keep a table a table.
Understanding Function Calling in LLMs and Its Difference to RAG
A solution I've used is to limit the number of table rows displayed to fit vertically within the browser viewport. This way the horizontal scrollbar at the bottom of the table is always visible without having to scroll vertically.

This does require:

0. Pagination.

1. Each table row must have the same height.

2. Use of javascript to calculate the max number of rows that will fit vertically in the viewport (and don't forget to include the height of the table header and pagination buttons in the calculation).

3. Send ajax request with row limit to server to retrieve and render the data.

You can see an example here: https://wee.domains
How does shopping with one even work in practice? Most items I buy on Amazon require careful scrutiny to make sure I’m getting the right thing. What I want is almost never the first result. This is true even in areas that feel like they should be easy, like video games.
I'm T1D and currently working on something like this because diabetes healthcare in the UK is effectively non-existent past diagnosis.

Managing the condition isn't too difficult after 30 years of it, but dealing with the politics of NHS diabetes care is astronomically more difficult than it was in any decade previously. In my experience, if you are not pregnant, or you aren't at risk of passing out in the next 15 minutes, they don't care. Whatever long term consequences you experience are another department's responsibility.

A trend I've seen is that younger diabetes nurses and doctors are extremely dependant on tech (CGMs, insulin pumps), but don't comprehend how they work or what the data means. They don't know what patterns to look for beyond a 24hr window and generally seem to think everything is a bolus ratio or basal problem, overlooking other settings such as correction factor, duration, etc.

Because they are tech illiterate, vendor lock-in is becoming an issue, as no health tech companies want you using another tool except the one they get paid for. So I find myself being swapped from platform to platform as they change my devices every year or so, each one being less workable than the last. Glooko only allows 6 months of historic data to be viewed, and only through their web UI. Abbot refused to let me download my data after I was forced off their platform to Glooko. I was happy on Tidepool, but it doesn't work with my current set of devices.

No, more funding will not fix this. Threats of criminal punishments for lazy medical professionals and unlimited fines for anti-competitive behaviour from diabetes tech manufacturers will.
This year has been an emotional rollercoaster beyond anything I have experienced before. The details of which are far too personal for me to feel comfortable sharing publicly, but I have been thinking a lot about how I can be the person that I want to be.

I have spent a lot of time journaling in the last year. That has helped me clearly define my values, and helped me define what "the person that I want to be" even is.

On personal projects: myself and a few other people local to me have started up a computer lab at our local makerspace, which has been pretty rad. Looking forward to taking and teaching classes in there :)
How scalable is this one? Hated airflow for the scalability issues.
If 20 different people all conduct the same experiment, and the 19 negative results are never published, there is no fraud involved when the 20th person publishes his positive result without realizing it is a 5% statistical anomaly. That person probably has no idea that 19 other people tried and failed at near-identical experiments.

This seems like such an obvious problem in the way science is currently done. Are people so focused on their own individual fields that they aren't thinking about and fixing such glaring meta problems?
Hmm yeah, it started as fork of karpathy's llama2.c and some experiments. So it is an abomination I agree.
It's a wild false equivalency to imply that using GTOw or Pio as a study tool is the same as using them for real time assistance.

And even if bots are imperfect, people and especially recreational players, don't sign up to real money poker sites to play against bots. Everyone knows intuitively they're at a massive disadvantage over a bot that can execute any strategy perfectly ad infinitum, even if the strategy itself is imperfect.

If you're going to be cheating scum, just own up to the fact that you're a bad guy; don't make intellectually dishonest justifications for it.
> opaque government-facilitated denial of service without due process

That's not what the report is about.

Banks and financial institutions are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and Suspicious Transaction Report (STRs). Filing such a report doesn't stop a transaction from happening.

The report suggests that banks think they could improve the usefulness of these reports and reduce the number of false positives, if they had more freedom to choose the criteria.
Providing _places_ to publish the result is only part of the problem. The other part is incentivizing scientists to do so. And similarly, Nature itself is responding to incentives. The core problem is that scientists themselves, the individuals, do not mostly display much interest (in a revealed preference kind of way) for null results. If scientists were interested and wanted to read articles about null results, then either journals like Nature would do so, or the numerous examples of journals like yours that have come and gone over the years would have been more succesful and widespread.

Because of this revealed lack of interest, high tier journals don't tend to take of them (correctly responding to the lack of demand), and journals like your that specifically target these kinds of articles A) struggle to succeed and B) remain relatively "low impact", which means that the professional rewards to publishing in them are not very high, which means that the return on effort of publishing such a work is lower.

Don't get me wrong, the scientific community could do a lot more to combat this issue, but the core problem is that right now, the "market" is just following the incentives, and the incentives show that, despite what the stream of articles like this one over the past few decades is that most scientists don't seem to actually have an interest in reading null-result papers.
# Welcome to Reddit's robots.txt
# Reddit believes in an open internet, but not the misuse of public content.
# See https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/26410290525844-Public-Content-Policy Reddit's Public Content Policy for access and use restrictions to Reddit content.
# See https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit4researchers/ for details on how Reddit continues to support research and non-commercial use.
# policy: https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/26410290525844-Public-Content-Policy

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

Source: https://www.reddit.com/robots.txt
> I would assume that most important results are replicated.

GP is pointing out that the incentive structure makes this an invalid assumption. If publications reward hype and novelty when deciding what to publish, then there is no point spending your limited resources replicating other peoples' results, they won't get published anyway. And experiments that give a null result won't be published anyway. What's left are one-off results that showed something surprising simply by chance and don't replicate...but then, we generally will never know that they don't replicate, because the replication experiment is not novel, has a low chance of being published, and hence isn't worth spending limited resources on.

Basically the publication process introduces selection bias into the types of research that are even attempted, which then filters down into the conclusions we take from it. A cornerstone of the scientific method is random sampling, but as long as the results that get disseminated are chosen by a non-random process, it introduces bias.
There are high level competitive sports leagues that effectively allow doping. Pro bodybuilding is probably the most obvious. There are tested federations, but they're virtually ignored because the guys competing are half the size of the guys doing drugs. Powerlifting also has untested federations, and strongman I think might do token testing just to appease law enforcement since you can't openly allow something that is illegal is most jurisdictions, but it's designed to be easy to beat and everyone is well aware that the top competitors are not only using drugs but have to use drugs to do what they're doing.

Notably, this is probably part of why the Olympics doesn't have bodybuilding, powerlifting, or strongman on the program, as sports need to have a WADA-approved antidoping program to qualify.

Also, the Olympics itself from the 50s to the 80s basically was what you're asking for. This is the time between when synthetic steroids were first widely available and when tests for them became possible. In the meantime, with no way to catch anyone, it was anything goes. I wouldn't say that led to pretty outcomes. Records that stood for 40 years, sure, but eastern bloc nations with mandatory athletics camps were injecting 12 year-old girls with testosterone and telling them it was vitamins. At a reasonable dose, most performance enhancing drugs are fairly safe for men but virtually none of them are safe for women because of the masculinizing effects. The changes to a female body are permanent.
I think a large part of it is that it's fashionable in the industry to pretty much just produce software that does the bare minimum necessary. It's a cost reduction exercise. That it makes software less useful and often ignores user needs doesn't factor in on that spreadsheet.
The example null correlation sure sounds as significant as any correlation.
Thanks for the info!
I think implementing both an usage based version for example on the API access and a flat fee for let's say the webapp can be a way to go, to increase flexibility, but is a personal opinion. I like Perplexity model which is like that, I can use the webapp for daily quick searches and use the API for more programmatical access with a more granular price control. Of course then is up to you, anyway I find this to be a great way to do it.
Nuclear war is the one situation Putin can't guarantee his own survival, which is ultimately the only metric he cares about.

The chances of a Russian fizzle are very high given the maintenance issues with the regular army, but nobody wants to take that bet.
Common sense for one isn't so common for another.

When knowledge is implied, what happens when someone new comes in? How do they find out this hidden knowledge?
When my wife was diagnosed with T2D, we went through the typical process many do - meet with a dietician, learn what to eat and how much, learn about insulin types and injections, etc. etc. She followed the process to the letter, and what we saw was the insulin injections make you gain weight, weight gain causes more insulin resistance, more insulin resistance means more insulin, more insulin means more weight gain, and on and on you go in this cycle that gets worse over time.

We researched more and more and found cutting out carbs heavily helped more than anything else, but she still needed some insulin. When mounjaro started getting a lot of attention, she tried that along with metformin. With those two drugs combined, she was able to get completely off insulin. She lost the weight gain from the 2 years of insulin, which reduced her resistance. She started having hypoglycemia and was able to reduce the metformin by half to get back to normal levels.

Her A1C is now 5.5 and has been < 6 for over a year now. Although the metformin was recommended by her endocrinologist, both the carb change in diet and trying mounjaro was something she had to take upon herself, none of her docs told us about this.

It's an absolute shame, and it feels like you're meant to be kept sick if you go strictly by the guidance from the ADA and even the doctors.
That stuff looks fucking terrifying. Incredibly potent and super lipophilic so long-acting...
Thank you! I should have clarified that my map does currently store free time slots instead of booked time slots, but either representation would be ok if it would be beneficial for the data structure.
don't care about bit arrangements.

Not every scenario cares about bit arrangements but they are still there.

You seem to just be shifting around and coming up with new, more abstract arguments that drift further from whatever point you originally had.

You said

"Shape and structure are behavior."

One is data, one is execution. These are two different things.

The more they are conflated together, the more problems people have with their programs.

Not separating them and letting them mix is a huge part of bad software architecture and leads to lots of unnecessary complexity.
I guess it's because people are not using tools enough yet. In my tests giving LLM access to tools for retrieval works much better then trying to guess what the RAG would need to answer. ie. LLM decides if it has all of the necessary information to answer the question. If not, let it search for it. If it still fails than let it search more :D
It's funny that we only apply this "more data = bad" logic to things that aren't readily visible.

If you have a palpable or visible likely-benign condition that isn't causing symptoms, such as a mole, rash, or lump, every doctor will recommend getting that checked out. Most of the time it'll turn out to be completely innocuous, but you'll go to the doctor and they'll decide between it's fine, monitoring, invasive investigation, and urgent treatment.

Obviously if the test itself is invasive (e.g. has a dose of radiation) then that is something that needs to be compared against the potential benefit. I certainly would not have a preventative head CT scan.

However if we're talking about things like an MRI, urine/stool test, or even something like a blood panel that has extremely low risks for most apparently healthy people (I donate blood 6x a year anyway - why not take some of that and test it), then why is it so different to a skin check, besides the cost?