skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> During rush hour most people are going from their homes to places of employment, which are generally highly concentrated.

That used to be true in the US. But over the past 50 years, the dominance of the automobile combined with traffic patterns (and related real estate trends) have incentivized the opposite to happen. Suburban commercial development facilitates easier parking, and quicker commutes over secondary highways rather than the traditional congested main arterials into city centers. Many cities in the US already have or are starting to "doughnut". While post-war suburbanites absolutely did commute into the city, many contemporary suburbanites live, work, and shop in surburbs.

I remember a time when shopping at an American department store meant you had to "go into the city" to a place like this:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dc/99/a2/dc99a2e79cac5ab0fe5f...

Now, when they want to go to a department store, many Americans drive to somewhere like this, closer to their homes:

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/11/60/12/19333814/3/1200x0.jpg

The same trend has also happened to many other industries across the board.
Why vilify the oil and gas industry?
I do find citations helpful because I can check if the LLM just hallucinated.

It's not that seeing a citation makes me trust it, it's that I can fact check it.

Kagi's FastGPT is the first LLM I've enjoyed using because I can treat it as a summary of sources and then confirm at a primary source. Rather than sifting through increasingly irrelevant sources that pollute the internet.
There's a great Dr Who episode (Listen) that hypothesized this very thing.
I don't code in JS very often, so there's that.

Both sets of code were fine, but I understood the loop variant instantly, while it took me a bit longer with the FP code.

As a side note: The only real JS I did was optimising some performance critical code, and I did have to refactor a number of FP chains back to loops. This was because the FP way keeps constructing a new list for each step which was slow.
It was originally the name of a popular CD burning application for the Mac. Only much later, following the discovery of bread, did the term become popular for describing a slice browned by radiant heat.
Happy to try building one to free you from complaint-driven motivation.
A grade A implementation would keep a local state that syncs to the server, indicates a sync is in progress, possibly stacks changes to reduce latency if there are a lot of changes + a slow connection and, to a user, gives me utmost confidence that I’m not going to lose data.

Now my presence is to use this grade A type of implementation because I like very solid software and I’ve done it so many times now that I can bang it out in a coding interview. Or explain it to a team so they can implement it.

But your average app is like a grade D. Even Instagram or Snapchat where I’m never too sure if my stories are going to be in order if my connection fails or even though it lets me cancel an upload, if I do it slightly too late the app fails to cancel because it can’t keep track of its own state through a state transition.

So for 99% of apps, I want them to put a redundant toast. I do not believe they can build solid software with proper state management. At least the redundant toast lets me know it did go through. A lack of toast doesn’t mean it went through because some people barely can implement error handling.
Injuries are way more common than death.

[edit] Forbes: an estimated 800,000 people each year must seek medical attention after a bite. Hospital bills can be very expensive, and an ER visit could necessitate a dog bite lawsuit in order to recover monetary compensation for damages.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-b...

My sister in law was one of them, when she was five or so. Unprovoked run-up-and-bite from an off-leash dog. Had to have a tear duct rerouted and other work on her face. Messed up their finances really bad for a couple years, like “parents not eating dinner tonight, because there’s only one can of spaghetti-o’s” bad (they were fairly poor to begin with)
Anger over sale of George Orwell archive
This is my experience with trying to use AI for coding tasks too. I've had back-and-forths with AI that involve me trying to get it to fix things to get a final working function, but since it doesn't actually understand the code, it fails to implement the fixes correctly.

Meanwhile, the stuff you find through a traditional web search tends to either be from a blog post where someone is posting actual working code snippets, or from StackOverflow where the code tends to be untested initially but then gets comments, votes, and updates over time that help boost confidence in the code. It's far more reliable to do a web search.
A decent security scanner allows you to exclude informational vulnerabilities. When I rolled out Wazuh in an org, it allowed for said function. And I still, personally, wanted to know about it at least once.
I wish I could remember the specifics, but I have had cases where the compiler accepted `.none` but not `nil`. It's possible this has since been cleaned up, though.
> this time there exist a bunch of clear products

Really? I work in AI and my biggest concern is that I don't see any real products coming out of this space. I work closer to the models, and people in this specific area are making progress, but when I look at what's being done down stream I see nothing, save demos that don't scale beyond a few examples.

> in the 80s there were less defined products, amd most everything was a prototype that needed just a bit more research to be commercially viable.

This is literally all I see right now. There's some really fun hobbyist stuff happening in the image gen area that I think is here to stay, but LLMs haven't broken out of the "autocomplete on steroids" use cases.

> today's stuff is useful now

Can you give me examples of 5, non-coding assistant, profitable use cases for LLMs that aren't still in the "needed just a bit more research to be commercially viable" stage?

I love working in AI, think the technology is amazing, and do think there are some under exploited (though less exciting) use cases, but all I see if big promises with under delivery. I would love to be proven wrong.
As noted, there are years of such complaints. Evince internet search competence.
East German culture has been ignored for too long
Are there any pics or videos of said water spout?
Do you feel yourself becoming disconnected from your skills? I used gpt extensively at one stage and I felt very rusty getting my hands dirty in code again.
Sorry but it'll happen regardless since the incentives are too strong. Imagine highway lanes in the future that only allow cars that support communication protocols – say goodbye traffic.
> yet their company is barely even leveraging it

...do you not see the obnoxious CoPilot(TM) buttons and ads everywhere? It's even infected the Azure Portal - and every time I use it to answer a genuine question I have I get factually-incorrect responses (granted, I don't ask it trivial or introductory-level questions...).
I agree, I am also not interested in a system that replaces humans. I am interested in a system that automates the boring parts and makes SWE simpler and closer to classical engineering disciplines while keeping humans in the loop.

That is, an engineer would design and decompose the problem and the system would help to fill in the gaps in proofs. Sometimes this won't be possible, so the human engineer will need to redefine specifications or insert some intermediate lemmas.
It's not that it wouldn't be applied to the whole codebase, it's that it wouldn't be applied to the whole codebase __at once__. You have to start somewhere and new features are a good place to start new patterns. Older code can be refactored piece by piece.
That was possible before when targeting RV32. If I understand correctly, this makes it possible for LLVM to use all RISC-V extensions supported by the core with a simple command line (the patch describes what features the core supports), resulting in better-optimized code.

However, to run any language on the Pi Pico, that language still needs to interop with Pico's SDK, which you'd have to do manually if no one created bindings yet.
Something thats always bugged me about relational database modelling is how you have to use table relationships for everything. Humans have a special category for ownership (eg Order owns DeliveryAddress), which works differently from other kinds of relationships. Eg Order references Products.

This problem is heightened by the fact that a SQL table typically can't store composite types. Like, you can't make a column of lists-of-strings. Every modelling problem is solved by using more tables. And any nontrivial application ends up with a table explosion. You have to study your database very closely, then write complex, slow, join-heavy queries, just to get the information about simple stuff - like an order.

Solving every problem with tables might seem clever from a technical perspective, but its just not how humans think. There's a reason document databases like mongodb are popular. Even if they are worse technically, they're much easier to use and reason about.

There's no reason SQL databases couldn't support nested data. Postgres sort of does already via JSON fields. But it feels like you have to fight the database to do it.
I sometimes worry that, as a country, we hoard historical artifacts.

We can't live in the past.

Maybe the best thing to do is to take what monies are available, cut a part out, and put it somewhere its wanted. Otherwise, just accept that holding on to this ship is hoarding, and we need to dispose of it.
Related: https://www.brendangregg.com/Perf/linux_observability_tools....

Usually people who ask questions like this are debugging IO performance issues. That image shows the relevant layers and the tools you use to find issues like write amplification
The intersection of paths taken by pedestrians and trains is much more limited than that for pedestrians and cars.

And notably, trains don't stop for pedestrians.

Or another way:

Roads are a shared resource. Train tracks are not.
If you change the polynomial, you change the order of calculations and hence change behaviour. You might get overflows in case of integers or different precision in case of floats.

Nice to learn where the word originates from. Often the meaning of words change over time. E.g. today no horses need involved in bootstrapping.
Yeah except Bob, your uncle, is working from home and therefore needs to care about his home network security.
That was already true given that the main RP2350 cores are just normal Cortex-M33s. The Hazard3 cores are just selectable replacements, and this is mostly just adding support for the specific set of RISC-V oddities taped out into Hazard3 on the RP2350 (this class of issue is going to be a big issue for the RISC-V ecosystem moving forward, imo).

But yes, normally when a new LLVM backend lands most frontends will immediately gain support; this is the goal of the LLVM architecture. Peripheral drivers and a standard library that functions on a given hardware target are an exercise for the reader, although most LLVM frontend languages can bridge to C in some way or another.
You're certainly right about authors and peer-reviewers, but are you sure that editors don't get paid with some of that money?
Given the heat, you basically need to start your walk or whatever before 8am. Visited my brother in Michigan earlier this summer; it was lovely. But I grew up in the north. Winters were not lovely.
"AGI" means many different things to many different people: to me any AI which is general is an AGI so GPT-3.5 counts; to OpenAI it has to be economically transformative to count; to some commentators here it has to be superhuman to count.

I think that none of the initials are boolean; things can be degrees of artificial, degrees of general, and degrees of intelligent.

I think most would assert that humans count as a "general" intelligence, even if they disagree about most of the other things I've put in this comment.
We're still in the very early stages of rolling this out (alpha), so I'm not going to overthink it right now given we have a solution to disabling it. But I think your proposal might be a good idea once we come out of alpha, so I'll put that in our roadmap.

Very much appreciate the feedback
Hmm, I've definitely always used paid copilot models.

Perhaps it's my language of choice (Elixir)? Claude absolutely nails it, rarely gives me code with compilation errors, seems to know and leverage the standard library very well, idiomatic. Not the same with GPTs.
Very well put imo!
The reality is much simpler than the article would have you believe. The article goes through all these convoluted explanations about value add but the simple fact of the matter is that SSO is the one differentiator that businesses will guarantee pay for. The other features are often unknown to stakeholders outside of the internal champion and need explanation oftentimes. But SSO, enterprises always need at a certain scale. So it’s incredibly effective because it’s the one feature that every single enterprise that wants to purchase your product cannot do without.

In fact, the exact opposite conclusion of the article is reached if we follow this logic. One of the taglines reads: Buyers want different things. Well, maybe the stakeholder/champion actually using your software might. But often they are not the ones that are making the money decision in an organization. The people who ARE making that decision, however, do not want different things. They probably could care less about different things. They want SSO.
No no, I have them memorized.
I wonder how far California could go on its own in destroying the journal cartels. They really are a parasitic racket, and I don't think the average voter understand how bad it really is.

I feel like one basic ballot measure to the effect of "All state funded research shall be released to the public domain, and all prior contract terms to the contrary are hereby void" might be enough to knock over the first domino, hopefully culminating in it being made a federal regulation.
I adopt older rescue dogs which tend to be anxious and reactive with strange dogs. Sometimes when I go to a public place where dogs are required to be leashed, an unleashed dog will charge or approach my leashed dog who reacts violently and I have to intervene- often lifting my dog in the air while trying to fight off the unleashed dog with my legs. These off leash dog people are creating a huge hazard, and making it unsafe for people to walk reactive or anxious dogs. There are also many people that are terrified of even a “friendly” off leash dog, and are being terrorized and unable to escape. They will chant “he’s friendly, he’s friendly” instead of getting control of their dog.

Even the most friendly and easygoing dog becomes violent when they approach another dog and it lashes out.

If I have to kill or harm your “friendly” illegally unleashed dog to keep me and my dog safe I will- luckily I have not had to. Please leash your dog.
Why Rexx? (A) Used it for decades. (B) The latest Object Oriented Rexx has some nice things, e.g., SysFileTree to get a nice file of all the names in a directory tree. (C) Yup, I agree that could use more tools and not have to roll my own. (D) Sure, looked at PowerShell: Looks like it has some nice powerful features but a, uh, goofy syntax -- intend to do more, maybe a lot more, with it. (E) Lots of people are taking Python seriously, and for more than just a scripting language, e.g., maybe all the software for a significant Web site. Intend to devote a weekend to Python.

One little thing I did recently with Rexx was take an email message, all in just text, that had a Web page, as a MIME (multi-media Internet Mail Extensions or some such) Part, get the MIME part with the HTML, fix the email '=' characters used for splitting long lines, replaced some uses of special characters, and did get a Web page that Firefox would read. Worked? Yup. Elegant? Nope.
It’s fine in my backyard, but nearly every public playground barely gets enough attention as it is.
A good dog prefers to be on a leash.

c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Bark
Similar experience.

In fields I have less experience with it seems feasible. In fields I am an expert in, I know it's dangerous. That makes me worry about the applicability of the former and people's critical evaluation ability of the whole idea.

I err on the side of "run away".
Maybe I missed the meaning, but with all of the other threads about connected cars, it's all about connected to the internet.

Broadcasting current mode of operation doesn't really seem connected in the same way to me. Sure, it might be a way to "attack" another car by sending the same signal, but that's totally different from someone accessing the car remotely for other purposes. If you fake a hard braking signal, to my car, then my car will respond by slowing down and then transmitting that as well to other cars.
The article suggests the contrary: 4.8% use in US companies, down from 5.4%. (I would wish I would have gotten these numbers, but for a tech company founded in 2015 these are not remarkable).
I wrote the transducers srfi.

I don't really mind schemes monomorphic nature and chose to adhere to it and leave a generic transduce form for whenever there is a good way to implement it in a portable way. There is really nothing stopping anyone from extending SRFI-171 with a generic transduce form (and some more transducers that I left out because didn't really think it through). Such a project has my blessing and I would be happy to mark the SRFI as superseded.

A vector-reduce form would be trivial but icky, and I chose not to do it to not have to have the continuation safety discussion. I have an idea to make thread and continuation safe transducers with immutable and visible state, but the first PoC was pretty slow. (I am going to say it... I miss c++ move semantics. Ouch)

Anyway, if I read things correctly the complaint that srfi-171 has delete dupes and delete neighbor dupes forgets that transducers are not always used to or from a data structure. They are oblivious to context. That is why both are necessary.

The SRFI document was written for someone who already knows what a transducer is, and specifies an API that implementers are to follow. I did not intend for it to be user documentation. User documentation is severely lacking. I was hoping for it to make it into r7rs-large (hubris. I know) and then I would make some kind of push to document it better. As it is now I have very little computer time.

Regarding why transducers are faster I am still pretty certain it has to do with mutation and boxing. Looking at the assembly generated by srfi-171 in chez I don't really see that much aggressive inlining - and I don't think chez would fare much worse with srfi-158. Generators and accumulators use set! everywhere, meaning chez (and guile) doesn't really try to keep the values unboxed or typed. That incurs quite a slowdown. It does use more state though.

Sorry about the messy response. Typing this while walking home.

In short: his library looks fine. Use it. From what I can see the only differences are ordering of clauses to make the transduce form generic and naming conventions. His library shadows a bunch of bindings in a non-compatible way. The transduce form is still not generic but moves the list-, vector-, generator- part of transduce into a "folder". Which is fine. But a generic dispatch would be nicer.

Ask me anything I guess.
> I really don't understand why anyone expects LLM citations to be correct

It can be done if you do something like:

1. Take user’s prompt, ask LLM to convert the prompt into a elastic search query (for example)

2. Use elastic search (or similar) to find sources that contain the keywords

3. Ask LLM to limit its response to information on that page

4. Insert the citations based on step 2 which you know are real sources

Or at least that’s my naive way of how I would design it.

The key is limiting the LLM’s knowledge to information in the source. Then the only real concern is hallucination and the value of the information surfaced by Elastic Search

I realize this approach also ignores benefits (maybe?) of allowing it full reign on the entire corpus of information, though.
I said leveraging, not hawking!
Academia's Ticketmaster
Indeed, "data cartels"; if interested, there is a book that talks about this in detail: https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=33205
'Unauthorised access': Parents hack selective school results website
This is why I keep a buffer if 20k emails of junk. Goodluck finding out anything, I can't.
The clearances in Texas are taller than ones I've seen in other states. The national standard is 17 feet, but Texas often uses 18 feet (5.4 meters) or more. Bridges on the East coast interstates sometimes don't even make 17 feet (they often predate many standards).

The theories I've heard as to why TXDOT does this include: they wanted sufficient clearance for mobile oil drilling rigs, military vehicles[0], "just in case", and of course, bragging rights.

You can zoom in and click on the blue dots to see clearances on major TXDOT bridges here:

https://gis-txdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/0126e7969bfb4...

[0] The US interstate system wasn't really planned for use by the Department of Defense in time of war, but the bill was named "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" to help it get passed in Congress. This isn't to say that during a national emergency, the highways couldn't be cleared of civilian traffic.

https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/5...
I use Kate on Windows as well.

I really love the Documents Tree plugin and could never go back to old style tabs.
Easier to reason about in that they don't force you to clarify your thoughts, which will come back to bite your head off. And there's a pretty significant long term price to be paid. I would rather write Cobol than deal with MongoDB.
You can also be murdered by the police for holding a candy bar, or not holding anything all, or just be home asleep in bed. So many reasons you can be murdered by police, just as the constitution intended.
I don't see the problem here. What's wrong with that? Tools are supposed to make your life easier.
Never try to fit in after being acquired. Be what they acquired.
I don't. But that's probably because I'm very opinionated about the implementation details, so I'm scrutinizing and tweaking its output a lot.
They need to communicate somehow. That is a large a attack surface and bad actors could inflict a whole lot of damage. I'd say we take it slowly before we jump headfirst into this.
Apart from whether or not it's really something new to users, it'd be interesting how many are actually concerned with the concept Google/YouTube has analyzed the content of videos it serves vs interested in what things that means are done (automatic video sections, better find in video, automatic summaries, whatever it is someone might want).

The biggest issues tend to be when "Big Brother" style companies perform that kind of analysis on your content like the Microsoft AI screenshotting backlash.
What an excellent idea. I'd even go so far as to call for a nationwide ban.

I walk to work and some days I feel it may be the most dangerous thing I do. It's certainly the most dangerous part of an ordinary day. Drivers turning right often do not stop at all. When they do stop, they often drive straight through the crosswalk before stopping. As far as I can tell the average driver does not even look for pedestrians.

A small inconvenience of having to wait for a green light to turn puts the right turn on equal footing with going straight. If you can wait to go straight, you can wait to change direction.