skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just leaving here an example of the "smart chain of thought", which took the model about 20s of thinking. The problem I asked was – "what 3 numbers give the same result when divided and added together". Seems the current state of art is that basic school problems are too hard yet even for this new chain-of-marketing.

Let's think through this step-by-step:

We're looking for three numbers a, b, and c where:
(a / b) / c = a + b + c
This equation is a bit trickier than the multiplication one, because division is
not commutative (the order matters). We need to be careful about how we
interpret (a / b) / c.
Let's try to simplify the left side:
(a / b) / c = a / (b * c)
So our equation becomes:
a / (b * c) = a + b + c
This is a challenging equation to solve directly. Let's try some numbers:

If we use 1, 2, 3 like before:
1 / (2 * 3) = 1/6 ≠ 1 + 2 + 3 = 6
Let's try smaller numbers, like fractions:
1/2, 1/3, 1/6

Let's check:
(1/2 / 1/3) / 1/6 = (1/2 * 3) / 1/6 = 3/2 * 6 = 9
1/2 + 1/3 + 1/6 = 3/6 + 2/6 + 1/6 = 6/6 = 1
This doesn't work either. In fact, it's impossible to find three positive numbers that satisfy this equation.
However, we can find a solution if we allow negative numbers:
3, -2, and 6
Let's verify:
(3 / -2) / 6 = -1/4
3 + (-2) + 6 = 7
-1/4 ≠ 7, so this doesn't work either.

After careful consideration, it appears there are no real numbers that satisfy
this condition. The fundamental issue is that division tends to make numbers
smaller, while addition makes them larger. It's mathematically impossible to
find three numbers where these operations result in the same value.

nuff said
I don't think a dead short for part of the cycle is the right way to think about it. The inductor has a bunch of impedence unless the switch fails.

You might be doing a short through some parasitics for a bit, but in the ideal case, you're not.

The new chips typically do soft start on their own, the problem is you need input caps, which really are a dead short when first connected.

Which wouldn't normally be an super big issue with small ceramic capacitors, except the cable inductance forms an accidental boost converter that wants to give your actual converter a voltage spike.
Show HN: Interested in an automated fact checking service?
Hey everyone, I'm working on an automated fact checking service that works like so:

1. Paste a link to the website, X or facebook comment you want to fact check,

2. Select a quote on the site,

3. We search for relevant results from research databases, reputable news sites and searches on the web,

4. You get a web page with the quote, fact check rating, summary of the findings and sources,

5. Share that generated fact check page back to the source, so people can be aware of the relevant information.

This is a work in progress (currently a landing page) and I'd love to know if you are interested in it (it's worth me continuing to work on). Would love to hear your opinions or ideas :)
> You'll have to break up the FAA first. The certification costs are ungodly, rigid, and the certification process created fascistic interweaving of industry with government

Why do you need to break up the FAA to simplify certification?
Simple Secure Storage Service
This is a retreaded and often tiresome debate. I'll still throw my 2c in...

Should you pick a complex framework from day one? Probably not, unless your team has extensive experience with it.

My objection is towards the idea that managing infrastructure with a bespoke process and custom tooling will always be less effort to maintain than established tooling. It's the idea of stubbornly rejecting the "complexity" bogeyman, even when the process you built yourself is far from simple, and takes a lot of your time from your core product anyway.

Everyone loves the simplicity of copying over a binary to a VPS, and restarting a service. But then you want to solve configuration and secret management, have multiple servers for availability/redundancy so then you want gradual deployments, load balancing, rollbacks, etc. You probably also want some staging environment, so need to easily replicate this workflow. Then your team eventually grows and they find that it's impossible to run a prod-like environment locally. And then, and then...

You're forced to solve each new requirement with your own special approach, instead of relying on standard solutions others have figured out for you. It eventually gets to a question of sunken cost: do you want to abandon all this custom tooling you know and understand, in favor of "complexity" you don't? The difficult thing is that the more you invest in it, the harder it will be to migrate away from it.

My suggestion is: start by following practices that will make your transition to the standard tooling later easier. This means deploying with containers from day 1, adopting the 12 factors methodology, etc. And when you do start to struggle with some feature you need, switch to established tooling sooner later than later. You're likely find that your fear of the unknown was unwarranted, and you'll spend less time working on infra in the long run.
Yes, your startup needs complex cloud infrastructure when your organizational infrastructure can afford it in terms of money, other resources and time.

One domain, an idea, an easy-to-use development stack for a bootstrapped as well as funded startup is more than good enough to locate product-market fit.

Alway remember this quote by Reid Hoffman “If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late.”
Yea, I said ‘respectable’.
Jack Antonoff as well. There certainly exist a handful of people who consistently produce hits for decades.
Even "assistant" (singular) is misleading. It's 30 men in the Philippines mashed together with AI-bots.
No, that was a coincidence according to an employee there
I live in one of the countries you mentioned and just showed it to one of my friends who's a local who struggles with English. They had no problem concluding that the doctor was the child's dad. Full disclosure, they assumed the doctor was pretending to be the child's dad, which is also a perfectly sound answer.
Even if it is a Nobel prize winner like Jennifer Doudna?
You realize that you're not going inside the computer right? At best you're going to create a simulacrum of you. Something that looks, talks, and acts like you. It's never going to actually be you. You're going to be stuck out here with the rest of us, in whatever world we create in pursuit of the singularity suicide cult.
Tough question (for me). Assuming the model is producing its own queries, am I wrong to wonder how it's fundamentally different from human reasoning?
The next level of pedantry is pointing out that it’s not limited to the earth.
> But if/when Boeing goes under who is going to vet all this NDI sitting in their portfolios? They’re just gonna spin it off to another buyer—consisting of who exactly? McDonnel Douglas? Elon Musk?

Idk, pick one that's American or closely allied [1]. Ideally not one of the three larger than Boeing.

Worst case: audit and re-assign the contracts. We'll be better for it in the long run. And I'm not convinced it wouldn't result in quicker, higher-quality deliverables in the short.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors
Correct link https://ziglang.org/news/migrate-to-self-hosting/
I wonder though, is the documentation only referenced a few places on the Internet, and are there also many forums with people pasting "Why isn't this working?" problems?

If there are a lot of people pasting broken code, now the LLM has all these examples of broken code, which it doesn't know are that, and only a couple of references to documentation. Worse, a well trained LLM may realise that specs change, and that even documentation may not be considered 100% accurate (for it is older, out of date).

After all, how many times have you had something updated, an API, a language, a piece of software, but the docs weren't updates? Happens all the time, sadly.

So it may believe newer examples of code, such as the aforementioned pasted code, might be more correct than the docs.

Also, if people keep trying to solve the same issue again, and keep pasting those examples again, well...

I guess my point here is, hallucinations come from multi-faceted issues, one being "wrong examples are more plentiful than correct". Or even "there's just a lot of wrong examples".
Somewhere in between. It was a static composition (as in, it had a start and an end) but there were multiple loops per instrument, so more competent players would reach a more frenetic musical performance of the piece if they kept more of the balls in play.

The audio engine (the bit I worked on) was in effect a stem based mixer, but with a state transition diagram per stem, with multiple loops available. Depending on the route through the transitions (triggered by events from the game play, for example, how many balls the player is keeping in play) it was possible to reach more complex or simpler performances of the same musical piece, so the players decisions and ability would affect how the performance of the music, not the music itself if that makes sense?
Claude 3.5 seems to get it, (thought the method is not what I would use?) -

———

Let's think through this step-by-step:

We're looking for three numbers a, b, and c where:
(a / b) / c = a + b + c

————

Certainly, let's approach this problem step-by-step:

1) First, let's write out our equation:
(a / b) / c = a + b + c

2) To simplify the left side, we can rewrite it as:
a / (b * c) = a + b + c

3) Now, to solve this, we need to find values for a, b, and c that satisfy this equation. Let's start by considering some properties:
- All numbers must be positive (because we're dividing by b and c)
- The left side is a fraction, while the right side is a sum

4) One way to approach this is to try to make the left side equal to 1, which would mean:
a = b * c

5) If we substitute this into our original equation:
1 = b * c + b + c

6) Now we're looking for two numbers b and c where their product plus their sum equals 1.

7) Let's try some small numbers:
If b = 1/2 and c = 1/2:
(1/2 * 1/2) + 1/2 + 1/2 = 1/4 + 1 = 5/4 ≠ 1

8) Let's try smaller numbers:
If b = 1/3 and c = 1/3:
(1/3 * 1/3) + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1/9 + 2/3 = 7/9 ≠ 1

9) Even smaller:
If b = 1/4 and c = 1/4:
(1/4 * 1/4) + 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/16 + 1/2 = 9/16 ≠ 1

10) We're getting closer. Let's try b = 1/4 and c = 1/3:
(1/4 * 1/3) + 1/4 + 1/3 = 1/12 + 1/4 + 1/3 = 1/12 + 3/12 + 4/12 = 8/12 = 2/3 ≠ 1

11) Let's adjust further. If b = 1/3 and c = 1/4:
(1/3 * 1/4) + 1/3 + 1/4 = 1/12 + 1/3 + 1/4 = 1/12 + 4/12 + 3/12 = 8/12 = 2/3 ≠ 1

12) One more try. Let's use b = 1/2 and c = 1/3:
(1/2 * 1/3) + 1/2 + 1/3 = 1/6 + 1/2 + 1/3 = 1/6 + 3/6 + 2/6 = 6/6 = 1

13) We found it! When b = 1/2 and c = 1/3, the equation holds.

14) Remember, we set a = b * c, so a = 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/6

Therefore, one solution to the equation (a / b) / c = a + b + c is:
a = 1/6, b = 1/2, and c = 1/3

We can verify:
(1/6 / 1/2) / 1/3 = (1/3) / 1/3 = 1
1/6 + 1/2 + 1/3 = 1/6 + 3/6 + 2/6 = 1

This solution satisfies the equation.

——

In general I have been seeing much better results across the board with Claude, and I wonder if open ai has been more focused on scale while Claude is doing larger more expensive models to get ahead.
There is no "trick" in the linked question, unlike the question you posed.

The trick in yours also isn't a logic trick, it's a redirection, like a sleight of hand in a card trick.
You immediately see there's no load ;)
Noyb wins case on deceptive cookie banners against Mediahuis
> but I was pretty disappointed

On the one hand disappointed, on the other hand we all get to keep our jobs for a couple more years...
Bonding to a computer program under control of a corporation is like looking for a sociopath as a partner explicitly. You would lose complete control of your life to the other side. Reciprocity is off the table completely.
I sometimes give it snippets of code and omit helper functions if they seem obvious enough, and it adds its own implementation into the output.
Perth, Western Australia is very swimmable, river through the heart, great beaches to one edge.

Very occassionally sharks, although these aren't something locals much worry about: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-15/bull-shark-involved-i...

Her death was the first fatal shark attack in the river in 100 years.
Often, people try justify high pay for management positions by pointing out the responsibilities that comes with such a position. If that's the case, then it only makes sense to place blame on management when things go sideways. If not, then what exactly is the value that management adds to the company that justifies their high pay?
I don't mean to diminish their work and I don't know much about the matter but the company founder is some billionaire's daughter. I fear ever having a boss like that just because of the fundamental difference in perspective and life experiences. I'm sure I won't be able to communicate with them.
" Those are the people who just can't accept the idea that maybe civilization isn't a one-way road to greater and greater heights"

Or maybe they know, but care more for the greater dramatic effect, like we can witness in normal news everyday.
Historical Fiction Redefined the Literary Canon
Taking a wild guess, I'd say binary132's main concern was the lasting effect on the consumers, not the producers.
Girls' broken self-image, male porn addiction, substituting real intimacy, proliferating bad sex practises just to name a few.
How to create a similar site for my local community?
It's only a matter of time. When some other company releases the tool, they likely will too.
Yeah, I think what a lot of people miss about these sort of gotchas are that most of them were invented explicitly to gotcha humans, who regularly get got by them. This is not a failure mode unique to LLMs.
> “The report, which IGN can confirm based on conversations with our own sources, states that Annapurna Interactive president Nathan Gary had recently been in negotiations with Annapurna founder and billionaire Megan Ellison to spin the gaming segment off as its own company. However, Ellison eventually pulled out of negotiations, at which point Gary resigned. Almost 30 other individuals, including division co-heads Deborah Mars and Nathan Vella, as well as the entire remaining staff of Annapurna Interactive, joined him.”

From IGN — https://www.ign.com/articles/annapurnas-entire-gaming-team-h...

I don’t blame them. I’d rather negotiate my arm out of a shark’s mouth than the cost of a hot dog with Larry Ellison, or his daughter. You don’t get that awful rich by ever believing you’re awful rich enough.
> The value OpenAI get here is that people effectively run a massively parallel brute force attack against the new models to figure out exactly what they can and can’t do.

I'm pretty sure the value they get is the money you pay.
Nondeterminism provides an excuse for errors, determinism doesn't.

Nondeterminism scores worse with human raters, because it makes output sound even more robotic and less human.
what does divided together mean? maybe your question doesn't have a good answer, because the question is not formulated well enough.
It sounds like a good decision by the team tbh. Blurring the lines by 'integrating' functioning teams into a bigger entity which does completely unrelated things (TV, film and theater) never goes well. The team will most likely found their independent 'spin-off' company as they had planned already, no talent or knowledge is lost, only risk is financing for new projects.
I like to think of them as different levels. Concurrency is at a higher abstraction level: steps that can execute without needing to wait on each other. Parallelism is a bit lower and reflects the ability to actually execute the steps at the same time.

Sometimes you can have concurrent units like multiple threads, but a single CPU, so they won’t execute in parallel. In an environment with multiple CPU they might execute in parallel.
Really it just does what you tell it to. Have you tried telling it “ask me clarifying questions about all the APIs you need to solve this problem”?

Huge contrast to human interns who aren’t experienced or smart enough to ask the right questions in the first place, and/or have sentimental reasons for not doing so.
The golden age of flight had not only competition of manufacture, but competition from consumers and purchasers on risk appetite. It could not emerge under an FAA as we know it. To come anywhere near that you'd need to break up the FAA, as it has a virtual monopoly on violence in enforcing the CFRs here. Let people pick which, if any enforcer they want certifying their airplanes.

That is, the FAA suffers from the same lack of competition as Boeing.
I see it as a disease of capitalism.
'You're not a polar bear: The plunge into cold water comes with risks'
Yeah I’m sure that was the union’s fault, and not pressure from management to work quickly, cut corners, and akip on quality.

Honestly, anyone blaming unions for Boeings quality problems are not someone that anyone should listen to or take seriously when it comes to quality.
The article limits the claim to a "probably" and "UK"

> it is probably the most successful UK company founded since DeepMind in 2010
https://www.cnbctv18.com/economy/china-has-over-600-million-...

the updated 2023 estimate is in mandarin
Waat, got it on second try:

This is possible because the doctor is the boy's other parent—his father or, more likely given the surprise, his mother. The riddle plays on the assumption that doctors are typically male, but the doctor in this case is the boy's mother. The twist highlights gender stereotypes, encouraging us to question assumptions about roles in society.
> That's the frustrating thing. LLMs don't materially reduce the set of problems where I'm running against a wall or have trouble finding information.

As you step outside regular Stack Overflow questions for top-3 languages, you run into limitations of these predictive models.

There's no "reasoning" behind them. They are still, largely, bullshit machines.
Why would you think swimming isn’t a cultural thing in the US? Municipal pools are everywhere across the US - and practically a staple for southwest residences. The US produces some of the world’s greatest swimmers. It’s a part of school curriculum and while we don’t really have swimmable canal cities (like most of North America) there are plenty of opportunities to enjoy swimming.
We often forget that scalability doesn't mean just scaling up. It also means scaling down to avoid wasting money on overprovisioned infrastructure when you don't need it.

All businesses need to think about scalability, regardless of their size. If you're a startup, you likely want to be frugal with your infra costs, while still having the ability to quickly scale up when you need it. Those "simple" approaches everyone loves to suggest have no way of doing this.
Pretty much, yea.

Pedantically, only the social security part of FICA is capped. Medicare you still pay 1.45-2.35%, uncapped. But the 6.2% for social security is capped, and thus for the top end of the 1% ends up being a miniscule tax.

If you get rid of the social security cap, get rid of mortgage interest deduction, and add a wealth tax, that more or less solves the 2034 debt to <100% of GDP right there.
CEO pay generally has a relationship to company size, and Boeing is pretty big. It would be hard to argue their CEO is overpaid if they paid the CEO that much and the CEO did a good job. Implying the problem is not how much they were paid but rather the quality of the work.
> Although not due out until the end of the decade, Mercedes plans to get EVs with solid-state batteries on the road for testing much sooner.

Looks like NMC/LFP are around for a while longer.
...with resounding success:

> In 2019, following the discovery of exterior damage on planes manufactured in Charleston [the non-unionized factory], for a time Qatar Airways would only accept delivery of Dreamliners assembled in Everett [the unionized factory]. (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_South_Carolina#Quality-...)

But then they moved all 787 production to North Charleston, so problem solved.
I like it. It's an excellent way to identify people who use the word 'learnings'.
I haven't found a single instance where it saved me any significant amount of time. In all cases I still had to rewrite the whole thing myself, or abandon endeavor.

And a few times the amount of time I spent trying to coax a correct answer out of AI trumped any potential savings I could've had
It doesn't seem very reasonable to draw conclusions about longevity from any comparison of a rather complex machine like a Betamax deck (that cost a huge amount of money to buy) to something rather simple like a modern Blu-Ray drive ($100, ish).

It seems much more reasonable to assume that Blu-Ray hardware will continue to be produced until something else (what?) actually supplants it for cold, off-line data storage.

(Also, too: The compact cassette is dead as fuck and has been for decades, even with the niche resurgence in recent years. Yet new machines are still being produced, and so is new tape stock. The format is 61 years old.)
Sure, real content will fetch a premium, but I think there is absolute bank to be made with AI enhanced or AI generated curated pornography in our near future.

I will also not be surprised at all when the inevitable scandal breaks where some popular OF creator was ousted as being AI generated instead of being "real".

There are Instagram influences that are on the platform /today/ that are immensely popular, and they are completely AI generated. Some of their followers even know this, yet they don't really care.
> even that didn't prove enough

It did the opposite.

Humans respond - on some level - to incentives.

Tying compensation to short-term performance creates perverse incentives which make it much harder to accept the idea that your plans might be ruining the company.
other people came and flagged it
This is the bitter lesson/just put it in the model. They're trying to figure out more ways of converting compute to intelligence now that they're running out of text data: https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/7rMY55vLbGTlTiP9Gd...
That's a classical school question, word-by-word, except multiplication is replaced by division
> I see this repeated often - blame placed entirely on management and not the workers. Why do you believe that?

Because between the top management and the workers, one of them are capable of (and do) take major decisions everyday, and the other one can be replaced if someone at the top is having a bad day.

The power and balance in the vast majority of firms isn’t just skewed, it’s extremely skewed. I’m not sure if this is a US-specific thing or what but the difference between say bottle-pissing Amazon drivers and Bezos is ridiculous.

(And no, I’m not a “commie” or anyt specific politically, I just have seen employee owned companies and work-life balance in many places.)
doesn't every moving magnetic field produce an electric field?

given that the galaxy is moving, i'd say yes.