skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are one or more platforms in the middle. In the US, if you report a fraud your credit card and Amazon will both go out of their way to refund you (Amazon might require a return but will have options to make that free if they do). Other platforms are similar. You, as a consumer, don't have any major problems from the fraud unless you needed a performant device with low delivery times.

Whether the fraudster has somebody's dollars varies, but for that kind of a scheme they're able to just hide in plain sight. If 100 people don't test the device (and it works for months or years) and 1 person does, they have a 5-star rating and can just eat the cost of returns. Even if everyone on Hacker News started testing devices it wouldn't make a dent in fraudulent profits.
Same thing hype bros told 2 years ago, won’t happen.
I care about it because it's unexpected. I seek to wrap my mind as fully as possible around the behavior of my programs. Unexpected behavior like this indicates there is something I do not understand. I cannot rely on my programs if I do not understand them. I cannot state they are robust and stable if I do not understand these sorts of details.
That might very well be the case.
It would probably be more honest to give the content creators stocks or say “partly ran by content creators” instead of “owned by content creators” in this case, no?
I’m pretty pumped about it actually. I have high-frequency hearing loss in one ear (along with replacement tinnitus) that just randomly crept in on me a few years ago, probably after some ENT infection or the other.

The hearing specialist who tested me said it’s fairly significant—eg I can’t hear consonants at the end of words clearly, think he rated it as 75yo hearing and I was ~45, and he asked me if I happened to shoot guns on that side. But he did not recommend going so far as a hearing aid yet.

I personally am skeptical, especially a few years later. What the AirPods solution might do is let me audition the idea. If it turns out whatever it does is beneficial, that will certainly prompt me to get myself retested for the real thing. I should get re-tested anyway, but there’s not much better to motivate you than concrete evidence.
> That doesn’t seem very reasonable for jobs where the supply of labor is high compared to demand

Why would you think that's the case? Boeing's jobs pay barely above minimum wage for shitty work hours and long training in far away factories. They have a lack of thousands of mechanics, machinists, engineers, etc.

Also, the workers were screwed out last time there were negotiations because Boeing threatened to move production to non-union states. They're trying to partially compensate for that tol.
> We’re no closer to “AI” today than we were 20 years ago.

20 years ago we had barely figured out how to create superhuman agents to play chess. We have now created a new algorithm to solve Go, which is a much harder game.

We then created an algorithm (alpha zero) to teach itself to play any game, and which became the best chess player in the world in hours.

We next created a superhuman poker agent. Poker is even more complex than Go because it involves imperfect information and opponent modeling.

We then created a superhuman agent to play Diplomacy, which requires natural language and cooperation with other humans to reason about imperfect (hidden) information.
Capitalism needs regulation to avoid self destruction. Without circuit breakers it devolves into monopolistic totalitarianism.

C.f. East India company. Then imagine them with modern military and communications tech.
The use of the word reasoning here... OpenAI sounds like a company that created a frog which jumps higher and greater distances than the previous breed - and now they try to sell it as one step further toward flying.
We all know boeing won't be "wrecked"; they're too critical for state interests to be allowed to fail. If they're smart they'll either nationalize the company to remove the profit inefficiency or force the company to split to remove the profit inefficiency. Either way, the profit motive and lack of any competition is clearly a national security risk.
> [McNerney] came from McDonnell Douglas...

Cite? Wiki[1] appears to suggest otherwise.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McNerney#Career_path
Go super minimal:

Postgres for everything including queuing

Golang or nodejs/TypeScript for the web server

Raw SQL to talk to Postgres

Caddy as web server with automatic https certificates

- No docker.

- No k8s.

- No rabbitmq.

- No redis

- No cloud functions or lambdas.

- No ORM.

- No Rails slowing things down.
Honestly, I feel like the criticism is missing some key points. Sam and the other founders are creators who've put a ton of work and resources into Nebula. They've made awesome original content like Jetlag and have invested heavily to support other creators on the platform. Nebula gives budgets for creators to produce their own shows, and they get a share of the revenue from subscribers they bring in—I wouldn't be surprised if they earn from views too. So saying it's misleading doesn't sit right with me. Creators on Nebula definitely get a bigger piece of the pie compared to other platforms. It might not be a perfect co-op, but it's way more creator-friendly than most out there.
But, on the same insurance theme; I am not sure paying 10K a year to insure my 5K car makes a lot of sense, because, in the long run, I might write my car off.
Its not always the right tool depending on the task. IMO using LLMs is also a skill, much like learning how to Google stuff.

E.g. apparently C# generics isn’t something its good at. Interesting, so don’t use it for that, apparently its the wrong tool. In contrast, its amazing at C++ generics, and thus speeds up my productivity. So do use it for that!
"Modern" WHATWG HTML is still following SGML rules to the letter in its dealings with tag inference and attribute shortforms ([1]). Which isn't surprising when it's supposed to hold up backward compat. To say that "HTML is not SGML" is a mere political statement so as not be held accountable to SGML specs. But (the loose group of Chrome devs and other individuals financed by Google to write unversioned HTML spec prose that changes all the time, and that you're calling "modern HTML" even though it doesn't refer to a single markup language) WHATWG had actually better used SGML DTDs or other formal methods, since their loose grammar presentation and its inconsistent, redundant procedural specification in the same doc is precisely were they dropped the ball with respect to the explicitly enumerated elements on which to infer start- and end-element tags. This was already the case with what became W3C HTML 5.1 shortly after Ian Hickson's initial HTML 5 spec (which captured SGML very precisely) ([1]). But despite WHATWG's ignorance, even as recent as two or three years ago, backward compatibility was violated [2]. Interestingly, this controversity (hgroup content model) showed up in a discussion about HTML syntax checkers/language servers just the other day ([3]).

Where HTML does violate SGML was when CSS and JS were introduced already, to prevent legacy browsers displaying inline CSS or JS as content. The original sin being to be place these into content rather than attributes or strictly into external resources in the first place.

Regarding SVG and XHTML, note browsers basically ignore most DTD declarations in those.

[1]: XML Prague 2017 proceedings pp. 101 ff. available at <https://archive.xmlprague.cz/2017/files/xmlprague-2017-proce...>

[2]: <https://sgmljs.net/blog.html>

[3]: <https://lobste.rs/s/o9khjn/first_html_lsp_reports_syntax_err...>
The MCAS failure was a multilayered one. The engineers who designed it, software engineers who developed it, QA, testing, pilots, managers who approved, managers who instilled that work culture, etc etc are all responsible and should all have been fired and sentenced to prison for their negligence and dereliction of duty.
So what happens with these costs - surely the failed litigant should shoulder some if not all of the costs of defending this defamation claim?
For most respects and purposes, Standard Broadcast is the creators on Nebula.
Thanks for the feedback !

Would add your suggestion to our roadmap! I had that in mind before, but quickly scraped it, as synchronization would be a pain and slow down the MVP.
It is all about monad.
It /is/ misleading to say or imply that it is a co-op, though. It isn’t. It may be a progressive company which provides very favourable terms to creators, but it isn’t a co-op.
I love the simplicity of this approach. In your setup, how do you track config and updates of your VMs?
Real Engineering did a video titled "How Nebula Works" [1]. It details the technical problems. But seemingly deliberately dodges the legal and financial questions I clicked on that video to answer.

I love Nebula. But it's obvious that there is a shady component to their structure that prevents transparency that senior leadership knows about and knowingly obfuscates. I'm not arguing for a creator-owned co-operative; that would render the equity worthless, and they want (and should) retain the option to sell. But Nebula et al made a big fuss about refusing VC because of the incentives that creates while legally creating a two-tier structure that mimics those same incentives.

[1] https://nebula.tv/videos/realengineering-how-nebula-works
That’s not the case that’s normally referenced, why don’t you cite the 1991 case while you’re at it ;)
Fucking mad, but I love it.

Of course, you need to work into the culture swimming as a foundational cultural thing. (Not so in the US!)

I can see us getting there in some decades. It tracks with other aspirational goals which are in progress.
This is hilarious and rather sad. How did Annapurna fumble such famous talent so bad?
Yeah you can get an old Bauch&Lomb for under $200. Probably need an LED illuminator ring for $10 too.

They have great field of view (cm) at decent/variable magnification (20-100x) and response time is instant, whereas your phone/USB are going to have just enough delay to be annoying.
> For most respects and purposes, Standard Broadcast is the creators on Nebula

Then why shell them into a separate vehicle?

The purpose is to create two tiers of creators. That's fine. Some took a risk. Others didn't. But it's dishonest to then claim one is being transparent when the only reason for this structure, apart from incompetence or convenience, is obfuscation.
What’s the difference between having your data in an AWS data center versus having it in Hetzner’s data center from the point of view of “private data in cloud”?

(Good move IMO nevertheless)
Weren’t Kosygin’s reforms mostly reversed after a few years?

Could consumers goods companies adapt to consumer demand by freely increasing/decreasing production? Production targets were still a thing, weren’t they?

e.g. if the production target for the Lada factory was 1000 cars and they were allocated enough supplies for that (but there was enough demand so that 10000 could be sold profitably in the same period) would they be able to freely scale demand or would they be stuck with plan enforced on them by the central “corporate” office?

Again, plenty of modern companies have more control of their production targets, pricing, expansion etc. while being subsidiaries of major corporations than most Soviet “companies” generally did.
Thanks, seems like the devil is in the details. It's a cool piece of work, very impressive browsing the generated maps.
I’m not sure I understand. Its not required, as is evidenced by all the amazing indie games we have already pre AI. But if it helps, why not? Maybe this way there can be even more great games.
When I first moved to vienna, I also decided to check out Cafe Central. I ordered a tea (cost 5€). A teapot arrived, with a teabag on the side that I was supposed to brew myself. But the water was lukewarm, not nearly hot enough for tea. I complained to the waiter (dressed in something like a tuxedo). He dipped his finger in my teapot!! Then begrudgingly brought me new water lol.
Personally I think “add-on logic that simulates reasoning” is a pretty good match for the “artificial” part of “artificial intelligence”.

I’ve been tryin out the alternative term “initiation intelligence” recently, mainly to work around the baggage that’s become attached to the term AI.
A lake can be unsafe for people to swim in yet have a healthy ecosystem and vice versa. Or, if your reading is correct, redundancy might be an aesthetic choice.
I think the last few paragraphs go off the rails. If creators didn't own (at least in some way) some controlling stake in Nebula, why would they publicly say that they do? Moreover, why would creators join Nebula if the terms were not beneficial to them in the first place?

I find it funny that the author writes

> It’s equally possible, however, that the system was set up in order to keep any meaningful power away from the creators.

Does the author really think that the chance that all of these creators are lying to their audiences is just as likely as them all telling the truth?

Also, the author even admits

> As I mentioned previously, some ownership of Standard has since been offered to other creators through stock options, but it’s unclear how much or what type of stock those options represent.

Owning equity (and thus voting power) in Standard also means that the creator has the ability to vote on how Standard operates Nebula. So the conclusion that the creators have no control over Nebula literally cannot be true. So the statement that "the creators own 0 percent of Nebula" is just misleading, and yet this is somehow the important conclusion that the author wants readers to know...?
Reminds me of a trick question about Schrödinger's cat.

“I’ve put a dead cat in a box with a poison and an isotope that will trigger the poison at a random point in time. Right now, is the cat dead or alive?”

The answer is that the cat is dead, because it was dead to begin with. Understanding this doesn’t mean that you are good at deductive reasoning. It just means that I didn’t manage to trick you. Same goes for an LLM.
Yeah but Rick Rubin is always involved and Max Martin has written a hell of a lot of megahits. Makes you think.
Well, like I said I'm no doctor, but I don't know that I'd use quora to make medical decisions.

Here's an environmental safety article from MIT. It mentions lead oxide fumes from soldering. What do I know other than the required lab safety training.

https://ehs.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/EHS-0167.pdf
Note that I said second most powerful. And yes, the size of a country's economy is one of the major factors when considering its geopolitical influence (though obviously not the only factor).

If you disagree, which country is #2 if not China?
But is there a way to check when a specific webpage first posted online? I doubt it...
Yeah, I see your point—it might be misleading to label Nebula as a co-op since it technically isn't one. But I think what's important is how much Nebula does to empower creators compared to other platforms. The founders are creators who've invested a lot to make it a place where content makers get more support and a bigger share of the revenue. Even if it's not a co-op, it still feels like a step in the right direction for giving creators more control and benefits than they'd get elsewhere.
I would expect them to have a greater desire for bonding than someone who has already been through a dozen relationships or possibly a divorce.
Interesting to see Sydney Water put their sponsorship near the top of this. So much of Sydney including its larger rivers and waterholes are swimmable. Even our unique (but not very well known) ocean pools make many of our more dangerous surf beaches accessible.
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro.

Born a Crime, narrated by the author - Trevor Noah.
> Could you use a LLM function call to decide whether or not to respond instead of randomness so it feels more intelligent?

Yes, and once you collect enough samples from the LLM you could train a SLM to do it faster and cheaper.
Verizon to eliminate nearly 5k employees in $2B cost-cutting move
> Muilenberg and McNerney “had personal reasons to emphasize productivity and cost-cutting” because their compensation was tied to share performance. Together they took $209 million in total pay over seven years.

Absolutely stunning - those guys will walk away from this mess with more money than God and American aviation will take a backwards step that may take decades to fix if at all... fuming here.
Your conclusion is absurd. If you agree this model is overall an improvement on the prior one, ie performs better on the same tasks and can do tasks the previous one couldn’t, it’s basically a given that it will get more use than GPT4
https://yourdatafitsinram.net/ is up (and looks to be approximately the same as the old .com was)
I have never heard anyone suggest that the meat sold by the meat industry contains antibiotics, and from some quick googling, it seems like US federal regulations require that meat is "antibiotics-free" (meaning antibiotic levels below some threshold), and they regularly screen the meat https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019...

I didn't find what exactly the regulatory limit for "antibiotics-free" is, but from a glance, this looks like a non-issue.

Now over-use of antibiotics in meat production is obviously a huge problem for other reasons, namely that it breeds antibiotic resistant bacteria.
The buildup of water may change a lot, but it is not random.

When you eat similar things each day and you do similar amounts of physical activity, the buildup of water will also be mostly the same.

That is why during a weight decreasing diet or weight increasing diet you must observe a mostly constant diet.

If you eat wildly different kinds of food each day, with very variable amounts of carbohydrates and salt, then yes, you will not be able to monitor accurately your weight, due to the variable hydration of the body.

Also one must be aware that while gaining weight appears to happen instantly after a day with copious meals, frequently due to increased amounts of water retained in the body, at the beginning of a weight decreasing diet there can be a significant delay, e.g. of a week or even more, between decreasing the daily food intake and the beginning of weight decreasing.

Only after the weight has begun to decrease steadily (when the body has already decreased the metabolic rate to a minimum, in order to minimize its food necessities), then you can see the direct influence of greater or smaller daily intakes of food on the rate by which the weight decreases.
> We all know boeing won't be "wrecked"; they're too critical for state interests to be allowed to fail

People keep repeating this without context. The auto companies are strategically significant. That didn't prevent them from going bankrupt [1][2]. Wiping shareholders doesn't mean blowing up the factories.

I'm increasingly convinced Boeing needs to go bankrupt. It can then shed unprofitable units--through spin-offs, sales or liquidations--and restructure its obligations. I'm not convinced the union comes out of that better off than it is now. But America sure does.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Chapter_11_reorganiza...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor...
YouTube starts showing ads when you pause a video on TV
The issue with a long running server is that if your traffic is low, you’re paying for idle time all the time. So I’d prefer a serverless solution.
Tokyo has taxis and Ubers. I take them quite frequently when there, even though the public transit is amazing. The fact it's blatantly obvious that robotaxis make a ton of sense in even one of the most transit-friendly cities in the world shows how wrong the OP is.
> can't figure out if people legitimately believe that we can just ignore the nuclear war risk because they can't conceptualise how bad it'll be

So what you're saying is, if a country has nuclear weapons they can do whatever they want to you and you'll just take it in the ass, is that it?

Im glad that a lot of people choose to stand up and fight.
I worked on a startup recently that had gone all in on AWS infrastructure, Lambda functions, managed database, IAM security.

Man the infrastructure was absolutely massive and so much development effort went into it.

They should have had a single server, a backup server, Caddy, Postgres and nodejs/typescript, and used their development effort getting the application written instead of futzing with AWS ad infinitum and burning money.

But that's the way it is these days - startup founders raise money, find someone to build it and that someone always goes hard on the full AWS shebang and before you know it you spend most of your time programming the machine and not the application and the damn thing has become so complex it takes months to work out what the heck is going on inside the layers of accounts and IAM and policies and hundreds of lambda functions and weird crap.
Yeah, I would focus on a better user experience over a beautiful backend architecture.
It can be played back on a regular cd player, (though it needs a special writer)
I don’t really see this as a massive problem. Its code. If it doesn’t run, you ask it to reconsider, give some more info if necessary, and it usually gets it right.

The system doesn’t become useless if it takes 2 tries instead of 1 to get it right

Still saves an incredible amount of time vs doing it yourself
Grandparent comment said it in earnest, do keep up.
Did you have English as your medium of instruction? If yes, do you see the irony that you also couldn’t read two sentences and see the facts straight?
> Treat it as a naive but intelligent intern

That’s the problem: it’s a _terrible_ intern. A good intern will ask clarifying questions, tell me “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure I did it right”. LLMs do none of that, they will take whatever you ask and give a reasonable-sounding output that might be anything between brilliant and nonsense.

With an intern, I don’t need to measure how good my prompting is, we’ll usually interact to arrive to a common understanding. With a LLM, I need to put a huge amount of thought into the prompt and have no idea whether the LLM understood what I’m asking and if it’s able to do it.
My guess is that it goes without saying, because it's part of their school curriculum. (Assuming this has a particular countries perspective)
I don’t. I don’t think gradual typing is enough to cover for the unprincipled mess that I’ve observed in the JS world over the past 15 years.
I don't see how this is true. I would expect a man who accepts female rejection and stick with AI to have more empathy than the women who rejected him, because e.g he is ugly.

Harassing men for their lack of dating success and ascribing negative personality traits simply because they are down on their luck makes them more resentful so you should stop doing that. It's called having empathy.
The problem with that is that if you truly own something, you have the right to sell that thing, and nobody can say who you can sell it to. Give it six months and it wouldn’t be “creator-owned” any more, due to cash-strapped creators dumping stock for a payday.

A co-op is structurally as much about ensuring that employees can’t transfer their equity to non-employees as it is about ensuring that employees have equity. You can’t get the semantics of a co-op ownership structure just by doing regular things with a C-corp; you need extra hacks, like these bylaws.
I find it upsetting the word 'learnings' is replacing 'lessons' in corporate speak. The term is ugly and uncouth to me and lessons is far more suitable and appropriate in this context. It would be like if school was starting to be spelled with a k.
For a bit more context, iirc mercury is at ~2m lines of Haskell over ~10k modules.
>The defining trait of people who want an AI girlfriend is ugly, lonely men.

average men. 20/80