skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm less concerned with the AI teams lobotomizing utility, more concerned with damage to language, particularly redefining the term "safe" to mean something like "what we deem suitable".

That said, when zero "safety" is at stake might be the best time to experiment with how to build and where to put safety latches, for when we get to a point we mean actual safety. I'm even OK with models that default to parental control for practice provided it can be switched off.
> Nobody has been able to figure out how such an attack works, but considering RSA is defined for primes, that some non-prime numbers also work is scary.

What do you mean by some non-prime numbers working? Do you mean that instead of picking two primes, p and q, and then e and d such that ed = 1 mod ϕ(pq) one can sometimes pick a prime p and composite q or even composite p and composite q, compute e and d such that ed = 1 mod ϕ(pq), and still get a working RSA system?

If so, that shouldn't actually be scary. Consider a composite positive integer N. The positive integers that are less than N and relatively prime to it form a finite group under multiplication mod N with ϕ(N) elements. For each element a in that group, a^ϕ(N) = 1 mod N. We can raise that to any positive integer power k giving a^(k ϕ(N)) = 1 mod N. Multiply by a giving a^(k ϕ(N) + 1) = a mod N.

If we pick e and d such that ed = k ϕ(N) + 1 for some k, then we will have (a^e)^d = a mod N for all a in the group, i.e., for all a in [1, N) that are relatively prime to N.

That almost gives us RSA E(m) = m^e mod N for encryption and D(m) = m^d mod N for encryption. Given our initial N, e and d are easy to compute because ed = k ϕ(N) + 1 for some k is true for any e, d where ed = 1 mod ϕ(N). So as long as we pick N so that we can easily compute ϕ(N) but someone just given N and e cannot, we are all set--except for one thing.

That one thing is that the above reasoning only shows that it works when m is relatively prime to N. We would like it to work for all messages in [1, N), not just the ones relatively prime to N.

If we pick N = p q where p and q are primes then the messages m that we have to worry about are: p, 2p, ..., (q-1)p and q, 2q, ..., (p-1)q. All the other possible messages will be relatively prime to pq and so are covered by the earlier arguments.

Because (ab)^e = a^e b^e, if our system works for a and b, it will work for ab, so we only need to show it works for p and that will also cover 2p, 3p, ..., (q-1)p, and similarly for q.

To show it works for p, we can consider powers of p mod q. In particular p and q are relatively prime, and p^ϕ(q) = 1 mod q.

Recall that N=pq. ϕ is multiplicative, and so ϕ(q) divides ϕ(N), and so p^ϕ(N) = 1 mod q, or p^(ϕ(N)+1) = p mod q. Note that also p^(ϕ(N)+1) = p mod p (because both sides are 0 mod p). And since p and q are relatively prime, p^(ϕ(N)+1) = p mod pq, or p^(ϕ(N)+1) = p mod N. So our almost RSA does work for p. Similar argument shows it works for N, and or almost RSA turns out to be actual RSA.

What if we try it where N is a product of 3 distinct primes instead of 2? The messages that are not relatively prime to N then will fall into 6 classes: messages where gcd(m,N) = one of the prime factors of N, and messages were gcd(m,N) = the product of two of the prime factors of N.

The above argument to show that a message equal to p is fine when N=pq extends fairly straightforwardly to show that those 6 classes of non-relatively prime messages an N that is a product of 3 distinct primes works.

So as long as your composite N is square free it should be suitable for an RSA system.
Your hosting company is bound by US laws. Their defense for hosting illegal content is the DMCA, which allows them to claim that it is your responsibility (the end-user's).

This is the entire point of DMCA: exempt service providers from indirect liability for content on their network (at the cost of taking action for that content upon receiving notice).

If DMCA applied to them but not to you, how could that possibly work? A US company could host content that no one is responsible for?

In other words: this is not about you but about your hosting company. They are the ones the DMCA apply to, and was written for. This is true no matter where you live, if your hosting company is US.
instead of "expression" you meant "exception", right?
Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18772873 (Dec 2018, 1552 upvote, 631 comments)
More than who? Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.?
Santa Clara-San Jose area is relatively still damn expensive. (Ask me how I know.)

Anywhere with an RTO mandate is a hard pass. If they want to treat their employees like children and waste my time and money on pointless commuting to feel in-control, then count me out.
The shuttle program was killed by costs. Keeping it flying safely was really expensive.

Despite the safety record you mention, it was the best approximation of a spaceship that we, as a human species, ever created.

A spaceship program is something you either fully commit to by spending billions on it, or you abandon it.

Nevertheless, there has been nothing that has come close to it since.
100 missions. Not 100 code executions.
> Though several companies such as Google, Meta and TikTok have been quick to respond by scrutinising and removing flagged posts, X has been less responsive and has kept concerning content up, according to people briefed on its activities.

Basically Google and Meta as usual fell in line and obeyed government orders to censor what it deemed misinformation. And that is somehow commendable these days.
We first built Magic Loops with GPT-4, about a year ago, well before JSON mode was a thing.

We had to a do a bunch of extra prompting to make it work, as GPT would often include backticks or broken JSON (most commonly extra commas). At the time, YAML was a much better approach.

Thankfully we've been able to remove most of these hacks, but we still use a best effort JSON parser[0] to help stream partial UI back to the client.

[0]https://www.npmjs.com/package/best-effort-json-parser
No-panic: Attribute macro to require rustc to prove a function can't ever panic
the first n bytes are likely by far the most often accessed in practices, specifically for sorting & filtering, etc. Storing them inline is likely a huge optimization for little cost.
San Francisco to LA is about a seven hour drive. It’s about 90 minutes flight, plus getting to the airport and getting through security in the airport and all the general airport-induced slowness. Given a top-quality conventional high-speed line (300km/h) it would be two hours (so in practice faster than the flight).
not exactly a coincidence, as the name is meant to imply that it is a castrated version of Multics :)
You can get a 30TB nvme at about $3k. So that’s probably four times that? I would guess around $15k.
IME political exteremists and generally unhappy people like to spam the word.

It's also very much intended to get a reaction, isn't it? Sort of like a swear word for lefties.
Sorry, how could there not be a valid next token? Presumably your interface would generate a state machine with appropriate masking arrays, and iirc generally speaking all 256 byte choices are in the token list. There's no way to get stuck in a place where the JSON is invalid? Can you give an example?

If you want to be really clever about your picker, a deterministic result would blat out the all the known possible strings.

For example, if you had an object with defined a defined set of properties, you could just go ahead and not bother generating tokens for all the properties and just tokenize, E.G. `{"foo":"` (6-ish tokens) without even passing through the LLM. As soon as an unescaped `"` arrives, you know the continuation must be `,"bar":"`, for example

> This greedy algorithm doesn't result in a qualitatively different distribution from a rejection sampling algorithm.

It absolutely will. But so will adding an extra newline in your prompt, for example. That sort of thing is part and parcel of how llms work
The surprise here is that AMD was sponsoring it.
Founder profiles are all public, so you can check for yourself – https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/founders

Or was this just supposed to be snarky?
I've never seen Kubernetes crash. I don't have that much experience with operating k8s clusters, but on those I've seen it just kept on working.
OpenBSD on ThinkPad L13 Gen 2 running KDE 6
Right, but the shuttle failures were not software failures.
You appear to be describing a cult of personality. Cults exist. They're still cults. It takes perspective, common sense, and internal self-worth to not fall for such.
I would expect thermals to be significantly better in a set top box form factor compared to a dongle. My Chromecast with Google TV is often hot to the touch, so I would expect that it spends a lot of time thermally-limited, and not operating at peak frequency. A larger heat sink could make a big difference there.

At the same time, the current generation Apple TV will absolutely smoke this thing in performance, even though the Apple TV is at the end of its refresh cycle.
Keynote Speech to the 1996 Oopsla Convention
A video of this speech, without Jim Coplien's introduction, is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98LdFA-_zfA

>> Please forgive me, I'm going to be very direct and blunt for a horrible second. It could be thought that the technical way in which you currently look at programming is almost as if you were willing to be "guns for hire." In other words, you are the technicians. You know how to make the programs work. "Tell us what to do daddy, and we'll do it." That is the worm in the apple.

>> What I am proposing here is something a little bit different from that. It is a view of programming as the natural genetic infrastructure of a living world which you/we are capable of creating, managing, making available, and which could then have the result that a living structure in our towns, houses, work places, cities, becomes an attainable thing. That would be remarkable. It would turn the world around, and make living structure the norm once again, throughout society, and make the world worth living in again.
Even just in the US that's not the case in Montana AIUI.
expression as-in s-expression (ex: lisp)
Why was Space Shuttle code so good and the engineering so bad? The thing was expensive and shit and had a 1.5% catastrophic failure rate for passenger transport. Soyuz was two orders of magnitude better.

Russia/USSR have reputation for McGyvering things and US has reputation for gold-plating but US ship is killing people every 65 flights and Russian ship has over 1500 launches without death.

Maybe engineers should learn from either Soviet/Russian engineers or from NASA software engineers. Both are making more reliable things.
Because sometimes, there's "No Other Way(TM)".

Arbitrary line limits tend to unnecessary fragmentation. Add includes, licenses, glue code and comment; and you have an unapproachable spaghetti.

Try to keep methods to 200 lines in high performance code, and see your performance crash and burn like Icarus' flight.

When you read the comments in the code, you can see that they simplified the code to a single module, and embedded enormous amount of know-how to keep the code approachable and more importantly, sustainable.

For someone who doesn't know the language or the logic in a piece of code, the set of comments which outline what the code does is very helpful. In six months, your code will be foreign to you, so it's useful for you, too.

Comments are part of the code and the codebase. If you're not updating them as you update the code around them, you're introducing documentation bugs into your code. Just because the compiler doesn't act on them doesn't mean they are not functional parts of your code. In essence they're your knowledge, and lab notebook embedded in your code, and it's way more valuable in maintaining the code you wrote. They are more valuable than the code which is executed by the computer.

Best practices are guidelines, not laws or strict rules. You apply them as they fit to your codebase. Do not obey them blindly and create problematic codebases.

Sometimes you have to bend the rules and make your own, and it's totally acceptable when you know what you're doing.
What about their right to free speech (including silence if they choose)?
Source for this submission: https://x.com/kupiakos/status/1820897820255338899 which links to a different crate; I selected this crate because it has orders of magnitude more downloads.

> With the right tooling, Rust would make a big difference [to the CrowdStrike situation]. You can forbid panics in an entire binary (e.g. https://docs.rs/panic-never/0.1.0/panic_never) and that would statically require that that code explicitly handle the case of unexpected size…
The Last Survivors of an Atomic Bomb Have a Story to Tell
I'm assuming you mean "non-exception". Apologies if I assume incorrectly.

In case I'm correct, this is from Andrew Gerrand, one of the creators of Go:

The reason we didn't include exceptions in Go is not because of expense. It's because exceptions thread an invisible second control flow through your programs making them less readable and harder to reason about.

In Go the code does what it says. The error is handled or it is not. You may find Go's error handling verbose, but a lot of programmers find this a great relief.

In short, we didn't include exceptions because we don't need them. Why add all that complexity for such contentious gains?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4159672
I have a VPS running BGP, along with my own ASN and a /24 block. My home network is tunneling out to the VPS from a VM and routing the /24 over wireguard. The /24 is then made available on its own VLAN.

No doubt all this stuff is a violation of residential TOS agreements.
Same. Pods will crash, run out of memory, fail to get scheduled, etc... but I have never seen kube itself crash.
Wait, they already ran away with it. ChatGPT.
> The space shuttle became obsolete technology after all those years. Would've needed a redesign.

Are people aware of how old the technology is that's currently putting objects and people into space? No, the space shuttle was not obsolete. It was expensive... very expensive. To this day, we still don't have a replacement for it's capabilities though.
https://archive.ph/sUyVf
> about the future direction of my business, which already has revenue.

Then maybe their response was spot on. You’re already making revenue. Get back to it.

Maybe you’re making it loud and clear you’re not a good fit for the program.
I see, I see... I wonder why we (as in me) don't hear anything about Brainfuck anymore.
I kind of see it as a 20th century meme language that proves boomers were trying as hard as they could to make it work, basically what I call a living example. I (100%) believe your JIT story.
As far as we know, software never caused any dangerous incidents for the shuttle. You can't say that about Arianespace (Ariane 4 #1) or SpaceX (a couple of crashes while trying to land - low stakes though) or Airbus ("just" some bad UX in critical situations) or Boeing (software basically killed a few hundred people).
So you are complaining that you filled out an application and they didn't ghost you? And actually offered some meaningful advice even though you were rejected?
“Joining another startup as CTO”

Here is what that means to my ears:

1) I joined as cofounder. Cofounder can and do take whatever title they want. Great!

2) I joined at CTO because there are 500 engineers and it needs an office of the CTO. Let’s not call it a startup, and YC has nothing to offer you. Great!

3) I joined a small startup and they gave me the CTO title. Yikes!

Bad signal. Don’t have much confidence in the CEO after hearing that and I assume the company will fold.

Or if it succeeds—prepare to be fired. No room to hire above you. Even as a VP, a CEO could hire a CTO. But even better if no title inflation at all. No one like a demotion, so if you aren’t perfect then you are gone. And you will take a lot of (now dead) equity with you.

I guess YC would teach you these things…
There's nothing inherently wrong with a 200-line-long method. If the code inside is linear and keeps the same level of abstraction - it can be the best option.

The alternative (let's say 40 5-line-long methods) can be worse (because you have to jump from place to place to understand everything, and you can mess up the order in which they should be called - there's 40! permutations to choose from).
https://archive.ph/BBl38
Did the amount of time spent on code formatting incur an opportunity cost for more impactful engineering safety investments?
AI SDK 3.3: Tracing, multi-modal file attachments
'I'm afraid I can't do that': Should killer robots be allowed to disobey orders?
You appear to have misread "expression" as "exception"; this is completely unrelated. An expression-based language is one that lets you do `let blah = if foo then bar else baz`, for example.
But in neither case was it due to a code failure that put the shuttle into an unrecoverable state, but rather one the falls into materials and/or mechanical engineering.
Dang, in general this is a good guideline that you enforce.

In this particular article, though, I think the OP's comment is relevant. "Gross" sums up pretty much how many of us feel about the quoted assertion and the overall tone of the article.

Let's put it another way. Think about an hypothetical article relevant to HN (say, something about how you can "hack" a human's response to suggestions using pheromones or whatnot) analyzing how a famous rapist used these techniques, and included the statement "Was this person a rapist? Yes. But wouldn't most of us want to use these techniques on women? Sure!".

Wouldn't it be appropriate to call such a statement gross, and wouldn't it also overshadow the rest of the article?
Trust is a complex thing. It's much more than a rational,
game-theoretic or economic equation, it's emotional. Nobody "trusts"
Microsoft.

People need it. People fear it, or fear losing it. People suffer
it. Or they have no choice due to pressure or policy. Or they don't
know any better. Or they are tricked into believing something about
it. But in the end, the often forced choice to use Microsoft is a
strategically created imposition by a company with billions to spend
on manipulation and political manoeuvring.
I have been doing something similar for New Zealand since the start of the year with Playwright/Typescript dumping parquet files to cloud storage. I've just collecting the data I have not yet displayed it. Most of the work is getting around the reverse proxy services like Akamai and Cloudflare.

At the time I wrote it I thought nobody else was doing but now I know of at least 3 start ups doing the same in NZ. It seems the the inflation really stoked a lot of innovation here. The patterns are about what you'd expect. Supermarkets are up to the usual tricks of arbitrary making pricing as complicated as possible using 'sawtooth' methods to segment time-poor people from poor people. Often they'll segment on brand loyalty vs price sensitive people; There might be 3 popular brands of chocolate and every week only one of them will be sold at a fair price.
Totally agree, this annoys me to. The gaps between sentences make speech easier to listen to and digest.
Here's one for you: I can't remember the exact details, but I was trying to get do something with a samba share folder via systemd unit file and the way systemd handles the escape characters used by the samba client was not compatible for windows network shares that used spaces in the name.
Do you think purchasers within enterprises especially care if it's a proprietary or commercially-supported FOSS offering?
Yes it's a thing people do. We tax oil and cigarettes and people understand it makes people not want to buy oil and cigarettes anymore. Tax something good like working in SF, people don't seem to understand it has the same effect.
This works well when you can take time away from the crisis. If you have a family member who is having crisis for many years, you will eventually have to talk to them about your own experiences or lose close connection that you used to have.
We were all remote and cut together separate videos when we did it in W15. 1 data point, but I know it's not a dealbreaker.
> a system that is no longer operational due to its poor safety record

the safety problems with the shuttle were, broadly speaking, hardware problems and not software problems.

from "Appendix F - Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle" [0], which was Richard Feynman's appendix to the report on the 1986 Challenger disaster:

> To summarize then, the computer software checking system and attitude is of the highest quality. There appears to be no process of gradually fooling oneself while degrading standards so characteristic of the Solid Rocket Booster or Space Shuttle Main Engine safety systems.

he specifically highlighted the quality of the avionics software as an example of how engineering on a project like the Shuttle could be done well, and wasn't doomed to be low-quality and unsafe simply by virtue of being a large complicated government project.

0: https://www.nasa.gov/history/rogersrep/v2appf.htm
>The Ukrainians will decide for themselves

Does not seem like it. They are not asked. They are banned from leaving the country. They are captured right on the streets and forcefully, under threat of death, sent to fight in war.

> They will also decide -- for themselves -- whether the losses they are taking are sustainable, or "worth" the just end to this war that they seek.

No, it's already decided for them - and decided otherwise. That's the reason borders are closed and Ukrainians are sent to frontlines against their will

> Your idea of what they "need", what is worth dying for
That's not my idea, that's their idea - otherwise there would be no need for closed borders and forced conscription.
I tried this for about an hour. I got to a point where I assumed it's a hardware defect. The only situations where I really need a camera would be an interview.

I guess later Asus might release updated drivers though... It's possible they just pre-install them on the OEM SDD( I swapped in my 4TB SSD) and don't have them on Windows update yet.
I’ve especially noticed this with gpt-4o-mini [1], and it’s a big problem. My particular use case involves keeping a running summary of a conversation between a user and the LLM, and 4o-mini has a really bad tendency of inventing details in order to hit the desired summary word limit. I didn’t see this with 4o or earlier models

Fwiw my subjective experience has been that non-technical stakeholders tend to be more impressed with / agreeable to longer AI outputs, regardless of underlying quality. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve been asked to make outputs longer. Maybe this is just OpenAI responding to what users want?

[1] https://sophiabits.com/blog/new-llms-arent-always-better#exa...
Companies Are Slashing Management Roles, Is Unbossing a Career Killer?
Bonus points for those that use alt or ctrl just to add to the confusion.
Space Shuttle was part of "Star Wars" project to bring down the Soviet Union. It met its goals by being super expensive.

Space flights were just side project...
Why is it impossible in Rust? Do you have any source for that?
> 99.9% of them are from followers deluded into thinking that Elon is a champion of free speech and he is saving democracy

99% of them have nothing to do with the article of even the man, but some totem constructed to be loved or hated.
> He also said "kind of" and "probably".

Those are "probably" "kind of" weasel words to make the assertion seem less gross when it is, indeed, very gross.

This is not like dreaming of getting a Lamborghini for free. It's like "kind of" dreaming of living the life of a successful drug cartel boss. Gross.
To clarify, yes, by flamebait I meant the latter (this action and other recent changes). Added that to the original comment now.