skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Why would we embrace this now that a computer can do it and there's a level of deniability?

Generally I don't think people are arguing that copyright law should be more lenient to AI than it is to humans. If your work gets ripped off (a substantially similar copy not covered by fair use) you can sue regardless of tools used in its creation.

Question would be whether machine learning, unlike human learning, should be treated as copyright infringement. There are differences and the law does not inherently need to treat them the same, but it could.

As to why it should: I think there's huge benefit across a large range of industries to web-scale pretraining and foundation models, and I'd like it to remain accessible to open-source groups or smaller companies without huge data moats. Realistically I think the alternative would likely just benefit Getty/Universal with near-identical outcomes for most actual artists.

When the very basis of copyright is for the "progress of sciences and useful arts", it seems backwards to use it in a way that would set back advances in language translation, malware/spam/DDoS filtering, defect detection, voice dictation/transcription, medical image segmentation, etc.
Really? What is the justification for allowing Nintendo titles to use it but not third parties? Security concerns?
What is the role of Prolog in AI in 2024?
Same.

I feel like, outside of the work experience that was baked into my degree, I could've spent those 4 years and all that money in a much more productive way.

(Note: I don't regret it, I had a lot of fun, but in terms of becoming a professional I could've been much more efficient)

As a result, anyone who's come to me asking how they can "break into" programming, I strongly discourage them from University at all.
So did OpenAI and Anthropic and Google. That's what "public" means.
That the subtlety of this post-selection scheme, the state is completely local :
By construction (L37) sela only depends on particle a, and (L38) selb only depends on particle b.

The measurement of a only depend on sela (and not selb), and the measurement of b only depend on selb (and not sela). There is no exchange of information.

The universe already has given you the observations it needed to give you by line 38.
The simulator only used local information to simulate the universe up to this point.

Like in qm once you have written down your measurements, you compare them to count coincidences. Sela just mean you registered a click on detector a, Selb just mean you registered a click on detector b. The logical_and is just you counting the observations as a coincidence or not, aka whether you got a click on both detector simultaneously. You are free to be as non-local as you want here, it is of no importance with regard to the state of the universe, the clicks already happened or not happened.
Ask HN: What are some good papers and textbooks about modern filesystems?
I'm interested to learn about modern high-performance filesystems. Are there some good papers and textbooks that I should read? I'm interested in everything below the filesystem abstraction down to, and including, the physical storage.
> If i look at military power id say Russia is #2

Russia, that just tried to take over a country with 1/14th of the economy and 1/4th of the population, failed, and is at this very moment having its own territory invaded in turn? Meanwhile, China has roughly double the military spending, 50% more active personnel, more weapons, and almost definitely more morale and discipline. And while China's military might be less tested, Russia's was just tested and it broke.

It was also really funny when their elite mercenary corps turned around and bum-rushed Moscow.

> If you mean geopolitical influence, id say the major European countries

China's Exim Bank finances more than the total export financing of the G7, combined[0]. China's foreign aid program rivals members of the G7 as well.

But it's not fair to compare the G7 or the whole European bloc against a single country. So let's say Germany. Sure, they're popular with the US and their continental brethren, but their influence on countries outside that sphere, particularly developing countries, does not match China's.

For instance, they don't have anything like China's $100-billion Belt and Road initiative. China has also invested all over the world in everything from infrastructure to mining projects, even in G7 countries. And in spite of the West's pullback, they're still the "world's factory", while Germany has had difficulty keeping its (recently declining) manufacturing industries competitive against China's[1]. Germany, like many countries in the world, also relies on China as its largest trading partner.

So given the data I've seen, I can't say any one European country, or even a handful, matches up to China. This would make sense given China's much larger population, staggering industrial capacity, aggressive worldwide investment strategies, and leadership among dozens of developing countries.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export%E2%80%93Import_Bank_of_...

[1] https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/german-consumer-is-poo...
Idk I have a lot more confidence because I know what I know, that is, fewer known unknowns, and I have high confidence that there aren't unknown unknowns lurking around corners. This helps me drive decision making across the org.
Well this kind of comment didn’t take long to surface on this post. Ooof.
It's not totally clear to me, but it is telling that the union members specifically say boeing needs to "stop breaking the law" and that the rejected deal included an allegedly large pay increase. 96% turning that down doesn't feel like the increase just wasn't enough to me
Not sure about your school but part of college is a washout tool. Can someone handle BS for 4 years without giving up which is a good indicator of their character. Another is that most of the classes should eventually teach you how to teach yourself. You're given progressively harder challenges but you have to fill the gaps with your own study and research.
> Not knowing your life, it feels like you could have said the same towards people buying pricy concert tickets when there's royalty free music abundantly available.

Wow, What a great analogy. That really is almost the same except not with music but sexual attraction.
> I worked in the CC system; but, they were primarily focused on getting students to take their generals (call it what it is: an Undecided major). While this is great and all, most companies are expecting even their interns to have a 'hit the ground running' ability; right or wrong.

I haven't worked in the CC system, but I've been around the Belleuve/Seattle area CCs for many years.

And at least for those, there are broadly 2 tracks. The first is what you say - the first 2 years of a bachelor's degree track.

The 2nd track is a variety of certifications. Sometimes these are industry certs like Microsoft, Cisco, etc. And some of them are CC certs. But they aim to get people productive in 2 years.
There's a fun retrospective PoV which is that Silicon Valley has been through a sequence of consecutive hype waves, each of which has been viewed with derision as mega-scale fraud or brainrot:

- Video games (epic waste of time and moral debasement) gave us GPUs and NVIDIA

- Social media (rage bait-fueled argument machine and cat pic repository) gave us a huge corpus of text on which to train language models. Yes scientific papers and Wikipedia are necessary but probably not sufficient?

- Crypto (fraud, giant waste of resources) gave us a generation of young people who were comfortable building ludicrously oversized GPU clusters, and to some extent funded NVIDIA and TSMC R&D

all of which led to where we are with AI, which is that it is making (in my humble opinion) impressive dents in the problem of solving intelligence -- cue HN commenters telling me that AI is a giant fraud and waste of resources also :)
The negotiating team has to be pretty out of touch with the members to reach a deal that's rejected with 96% of the vote.
Specifically, what "facts" did Chacon get wrong?

From the article I'm going to quote Google Code mentions.

There are other assertions about Google's internal adoption of Git, but these seem to be backed up by e.g. the email he screenshotted.

Furthermore, the players (Sourceforge, Google
Code, etc) who eventually did care, after seeing
Git and GitHub rising in popularity, simply had
no taste.

This is a subjective and opinionated statement, for sure. It doesn't seem like an assertion of fact to me.

In 2011, both Google Code and BitBucket added Git
support, which I’ll mark as the year that the nail
was in the Mercurial coffin.

First part fact, second part clearly opinion.

Just 4 years later, in 2015, Google Code just
completely gave up and shut it’s service down. In the
email they sent out, they basically said “just move to
GitHub”.

What is non-factual here? He screencaps the email.

So, Why Not Google Code?

This section is really about what Github achieved, no direct Google Code assertions.

The original article is correct, the other
hosts focused on distribution and revenue streams.
We cared about developers.

Well, this is a speculation that (according to one Google Code member) is not correct - "DannyBee" claims they just wanted to avoid a SourceForge monoculture.

Is this really the point of contention?

I read the article in the context of "a guy who worked at Github talking about his experience at Github, which unavoidably will also mention externalities like the competition" and not at all in the context of "hey! this is the inside scoop on google! I got facts about Google's inner workings!"

I just don't think there's a reasonable assumption that this should have been like, a rigorously fact-checked statement.

Expecting a personal blog to adhere to the standards of some other kind of publishing is misguided and unrealistic. This is clearly a personal account and I'm just baffled that anybody would confuse a personal account like this with capital-j Journalism.

This probably reads as pedantry (if anybody actually reads this post) but it's really, an honest attempt to understand.
Well, just as another perspective...

I'm not convinced that the philosophy of copyright is a net positive for society. From a certain perspective, all art is theft, and all creativity builds upon preexisting social influences. That's how genres develop, periods, styles... and yes, blatant ripoffs and copycats too.

If the underlying goal is to be able to feed creators, maybe society needs better funding models...? The current one isn't great anyway, with 99% of artists starving and 1% of them becoming billionaires.

I'd much prefer something more like the model we have for some open-source projects, where an employer (or other sponsors) pays the living wage for the creator, but the resulting work is then reusable by all. Many works of the federal government are similarly funded, where a government employee is paid by your taxes but their resulting work automatically goes into the public domain without copyright.

I don't buy the argument that nobody would make things if they weren't copyrightable/paid directly. Wikipedia, OSM, etc. are all living proof that many people will volunteer their time to produce creative things without any hope of ever getting paid. As a frequent contributor to those and also open-source code, Creative Commons photography, etc., a large part of the joy for me is seeing how my work gets reused, transformed, and sometimes stolen by others (credit is always nice, but even when they don't mention me, at least I know the work I'm doing is useful to people).

But the difference for me is that I don't rely on those works to put food on the table. I have a day job and can afford to produce those works in my spare time.

I wish all would-be creators would have such a luxury, either via an employer relationship or perhaps art grants and the such. I wonder how other societies handle this... back in the day, I guess there were rich patrons, while some communities sponsor their artists for communal benefit. Not sure what works best, but copyright doesn't have to be the only way society could see creative outputs.
> Treat it as a naive but intelligent intern.

I've found an amazing amount of success with a three step prompting method that appears to create incredibly deep subject matter experts who then collaborate with the user directly.

1) Tell the LLM that it is a method actor,
2) Tell the method actor they are playing the role of a subject matter expert,
3) At each step, 1 and 2, use the technical language of that type of expert; method actors have their own technical terminology, use it when describing the characteristics of the method actor, and likewise use the scientific/programming/whatever technical jargon of the subject matter expert your method actor is playing.

Then, in the system prompt or whatever logical wrapper the LLM operates through for the user, instruct the "method actor" like you are the film director trying to get your subject matter expert performance out of them.

I offer this because I've found it works very well. It's all about crafting the context in which the LLM operates, and this appears to cause the subject matter expert to be deeper, more useful, smarter.
That's what they claim, but ultimately it's their thing, so they do with it whatever they like.
Why Cloud Migrations Fail
Totally speculating, but I’d hope so. After all the prior zero-click image attachment related exploits, which I think lockdown mode was built to address, I’d figure all files are treated in that manner.
There is plenty of live streaming porn as well. Not to mention live sex shows.
From what I've seen, things haven't hit dot-bomb nuclear winter. But at that time there were a lot of IT workers in the would you like fries with that category who never got back into the profession. I was very lucky to get rehired shortly after 9/11 but, to be honest, didn't really get a well-paying position until years later.
> That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied.

You could make the same argument about paper. "That's just how photocopiers work! If you don't want your creations to be endlessly duplicated and sold, don't write them down!" Heck, you could make the same argument about leaving the house. "That's just how guns work! Don't go out in public if you don't want to take the risk of getting shot!"

But it's a bad argument every time. That something is technically possible doesn't make it morally right. It's true that a big point of technology is to increase an individual's power. But I'd say that increased power doesn't diminish our responsibility for our actions. It increases it.
Older Americans Are About to Lose a Lot of Weight
I would share a car I had rights to, and download a car made free to me. Facebook would certainly sue me if it were their car, they should thus be held to that standard in my personal opinion.
Books do not biodegrade in a timeline we'll ever see in our lives unless there's water damage. Which is relatively rare.

It is very much not uncommon to see books several decades old in libraries. And I suppose it is survivorship bias in the most literal sense, but that's because there's so many survivors. It's practically the rule.
Like the other commenters have mentioned, if the premise is to prevent the child from going online, I am not sure if I agree with this approach...

But to answer your question as stated: it looks like the Sony Walkman models NWZ-Z1040/Z1050/Z1060 runs (ran?) android and has a GPS receiver, but no cellular capability.

https://helpguide.sony.net/gbmig/44361551/v1/eng/contents/07...

I can't find any newer Walkmans that have GPS receivers, but you might want to look there. I know everyone is telling you to use a old phone, but I am sure that you can find a device to suit your needs. Good luck!

(If you are handy, you can also use an old phone, open it up, and physically destroy the antennas, although this might hurt the battery life if the firmware decides to crank up the transmission power to maximum, if it cannot "see" any networks or towers).

But for maximum street cred, I'd go with two devices: a 'vintage' mp3 player and a 'vintage' or rugged GPS receiver. The more obscure the better. Those things are cool now!

Edit: The Garmin iQue were also Palm PDAs that had a GPS receiver and a headphone jack. They also look pretty rad and turn-of-the-century :) But remember, at some point children establish their own tastes and identities partially defined /against/ their parents, so just because you might think that something is cool doesn't mean that they would.
>Our social programs matter more to our citizens

Partially correct. Given the US taxpayer funding Europe's defense, the European public wants social programs rather than spending their own gold on their own defense.

Europe's security needs are being met, so they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security.

>And the US doesn't want to see

Yes, the US gets to make the choices when we're the ones paying for Europe's defense. If Europe (as a whole or individually) could match or exceed the US's military might, then Europe would not need the US's permission to make a nuclear umbrella.

>The US wastes a lot of money on feeding its military industrial complex

100% agree. We waste a simply breathtaking amount of money. But again, I am less concerned about the total spend and more concerned with the effectiveness of the spend. I agree that we don't always spend effectively.
Doesn’t have the king of the raccoons living in a trash can version of Griffith observatory.
just wanted to add... that was totally my fault, I didn't know how to read ipv6 addresses very well and bungled the DNS entry. Neat that you casually get an entire subnet for a rented computer.
Customizing the NYT Games App for My Wedding [video]
We could make a distinction between individuals and companies doing it
because it's too big to fail.
I saw you palm that card! Utilitarianism is anything but "the most basic model" of ethics. If you want to argue from it, do so honestly rather than try to smuggle it in as an unexamined postulate.
renewiltord did not claim education provided at CCSF is low quality because it is free.

However, the barrier to entry to a higher education entry is commonly used as a proxy for the quality of the student coming out of the higher education institution.
Sounds like a feature and not a bug.
> It optimizes against controversy and vitriol rather than encouraging it [...] a bunch of nerds mostly talking shop

Something doesn't add up here. Nerds talking shop and controversy and vitriol about the their technical preferences is the same thing.

Perhaps what you're saying is that controversy and vitriol is only apparent when you're an "innocent bystander" who doesn't have a passion for the subject? Which HN avoids by usually remaining focused on a fairly narrow set of subjects, to a user base generally passionate towards those subjects, so you don't notice?

That is an astute observation, if that is what you're trying to say. Indeed, if you showed your non-technical grandmother HN, she would no doubt see it the way Facebook was talked about earlier.
University can offer two things:

1. Equip students to do a job.

2. Equip students to find a job.

These are surprisingly disparate, and I suspect the latter is a lot more significant than most people realize.

Put differently: I suspect the real challenge is getting hired without explicit qualifications.
I know the California CC system pretty well and have taken a few courses. In tech, there are usually two main paths: either transferring to a 4-year school for CS/Engineering, or specializing in something like Cybersecurity, AWS, Cisco, etc. For Software Engineering, there’s not gonna be any employer demand for those students at CCs since most people going that route tend to transfer to a university and their education/experience isn't really complete for that role.
> Question would be whether machine learning, unlike human learning, should be treated as copyright infringement.

No, the question is whether those genAI we have around are mass copyrights violation machines or whether they "learn" and build non-violating work.

And honestly, I have seen evidence pointing both ways. But the "copyrights protection" institutions are all quickly to decide the point dismissing any evidence on philosophical basis.
How would you know if you couldn't spot a hallucination?
In the UK I'd say they've definitely committed copyright infringement. Fair Dealing doesn't allow this.
You can get an "I funded the basilisk" certificate -
https://www.basiliskfoundation.com/member
Batsis said. But even when a weight-loss treatment benefits an older patient, what happens when it ends? People tend to regain fat, but they don’t recover bone and muscle,

This is false. People can regain muscle, such as after an injury or paralysis. Resistance training works at all ages.

Also one must take into the marginal utility of these drugs, which may not justify the cost if the result is only a little extra life expectancy.
This is a regular part of the recruiting process, where you may start chatting in LinkedIn and then get an invite on your email.
I recognized him from an interview with Brodi Robertson.
https://youtu.be/8lvKw4Iced8?si=yfUSAmgxTdZuLaor
> That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied.

And if someone takes a picture of your artwork, or takes a picture of your person, and posts that to the internet without your consent? Have you given up your rights then?

My answer: Absolutely not.
it's a dedicated machine fwiw
"They just trust me...Dumb f**s"
- Mark Zuckerberg
No, light is EM radiation. Not all EM is light.
> That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied.

This is true for average people. Is it true for the wealthy? Is it true for Disney? Does our law acknowledge this truth and ensure equal justice for all?
> 2 processes that exist in the same time all time are, to coin a phrase, classically parallel

This is not physically realizable.

> but two processes where they exist only part of the time at the same time are not parallel in the original meaning

It doesn't, both formally and colloquially one would still refer to them as "in parallel."

---

In a very loose way you're talking about structured vs unstructured parallelism but it has nothing to do with time, and you can have parallel processes that start at the same point but do not join at the same point and it's still considered "structured."

Structured parallelism is where the distinction of where a process starts/joins is meaningful semantically, but there is not really a distinction between "these N things live for the same amount of time" and "N things have different lifetimes" in terms of vocabulary. They're all still parallel or concurrent processes.
> Even apes taught a rich sign-language vocabulary ... showed no interest in engaging in interactions with triadic structures.
The disturbing societal implications speak for themselves. Personally, I suspect a significant fraction of transactions on Only Fans or “influencer” platforms are money laundering or social engineering campaigns by deeply resourced actors. There may be a large number of clients that are bots making random subscriptions to keep the network alive and large enough to make moving targeted funds harder to observe.

A plausible scenario might be an FBI agent paying a confidential informant without creating an unexplained income stream. The FBI and friends disclosed spending around $0.5B on informants. The truth could be more. We don’t know what other agencies around the world spend. I imagine they aren’t putting cash in brown bags under park benches.
Not really, the negotiation team gets the best deal that can get that doesn't involving going on strike and they present that to the union which is then better informed for their vote.