skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> That is not enough to most people.

You absolutely nail the most profound pathology of our time. Being a
decent, honest, smart, hardworking person is just "not enough" any
more. We've created a normatively criminal society.
My opinion after hearing him on multiple interviews is that he always just says various generalities, he can be talking for 5 minutes and never say anything, all noise. I don't know if he is under an NDA and can't say literally anything about OpenAI and the future or if it's just the way he talks.
> that it may become impossible to publish certain kinds of papers that are very well supported and valuable because no institution can afford the insurance.

What type of research would that be? Just publish it online without insurance and everyone will treat it as it unverified and uninsured... separate from other research that is.

Once the risk of the publishing research has gone down (i.e. reputable peers approve, or the findings were replicated), the cost of the insurance goes down also.

if something is so costly to insure, there would be a reason and thus the system works.
Switch Node Versions According to Project
If you develop NodeJS apps on Windows and work on projects that rely on different versions of Node, there is this quick way of automating the process of running your apps in dev mode without the hassle of changing Node’s version everytime you switch to a different project or having to install third party components such as AVN to do the same.
I like the idea of apps and components being able to have wide ranges of privileges and those being communicated to the user. I like what the author is doing and everything I don’t like about it - the unfairness of Apple’s gatekeeping and the lack of involvement of the user - is from Apple.

It makes me think of this article I recently read about web components as machines. Perhaps it’s only loosely related, but I feel like it’s worth the tradeoff for the system to create the illusion of components being in charge, even though everything goes through the system, whether it be a web server, a web page, or an operating system. https://www.abeautifulsite.net/posts/component-machines/

What this app attempts to do is to make the alarm be a little bit more like clocky which could do what it did because it was a physical machine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clocky
"refreshing if public figures led by example"

Not just refreshing, but absolutely crucial. If there is a critical shortage of something in 2024 politics, it is integrity and trust. Everyone can hold speeches, but few can do it in a way that doesn't make them instant hypocrites.
It will only be a matter of time until Congress realizes that among all the user tracking adtech companies there are also Chinese companies, at which point all user tracking including smart TVs will be banned.
Yes, but I didn't write that about blockchain five years ago. Blockchains are the exact opposite of AI in that the technology worked fine from the start and did exactly what it said on the tin, but the demand for that turned out to be very limited outside of money laundering. There's no doubt about the market potential for AI; it's virtually the entire market for mental labor. The only question is whether the tech can actually do it. So in that sense, the fact that these researchers are finding methods that work matters much more for AI than for blockchain.
Alan Turing was an incredible computer scientist and mathematician.

Unfortunately he is out of his area of expertise in physics and human biology/neuroscience (? not sure where telepathy would be if it was to be rigorously studied). This is akin to Freeman Dyson on global warming.

That scientists can have strange ideas is something nobody can dispute. That those strange ideas enter into scientific legitimacy is another story entirely.
Honestly, I don't remember it being a problem when I was younger, but after taking a few years off and getting back to it, it's been an issue.

I wasn't having much luck finding the cause until a coworker recommended new shoes. Since then I haven't had a problem. I know it doesn't make sense, people ran barefoot for millenium, but for me it's been worth it.
OP is making a distinction between "EM Radiation" (i.e. "light") and "Quasistatic fields".

This is warranted because they are pretty different - light has a frequency distribution, diffracts, etc, and can be focused to propagate energy over distances large compared to its source, whereas quasistatic fields (by definition) have no frequency distribution, and die as 1/r^2 or faster
I think we are seeing in realtime the resetting of expectations which means we don’t need to “go back” rather we are realizing we aren’t anywhere to go back from. LLMs haven’t made more than a small dent. Non LLM inference is still more important and will continue to be. The problem with LLM is they input/output in text or images and are too general.
This kind of system is ideal for developers since you can have independent environments for different use cases, even with different distros.

And when you upgrade your base system, they aren't affected. When you have lots of things to manage, this is a big win.
It is much much harder to sustain a conspiracy among many distributed people over time, than it is to fake your own research results.

Making fraud much less convenient will greatly reduce the amount of it.
Waymo robotaxis, the current state of the art for real-world AI robotics, are thwarted by a simple traffic cone placed on the roof. I don't think human labor is going away any soon.
Intel may have needed some of Minix’ unique (for the time) features, like its microkernel architecture and seamless live updates of system components.
IMO, these "insufficiencies" should be addressed by safer APIs. The solution here should NOT be to just grant the app file permissions across the board.

For example, Search could be expressed as a separate permission and API operation. I see no reason why you need full file access to do a text search - the OS API can, and should, handle that.

The trouble here is people store all kinds of things in Google Drive, includes photographs. These could easily be exfiltrated to a server. This could cause identity theft, black mail, you name it. Performing a text search IMO is not a good enough justification for the potential risk of that situation.
What is your opinion of the addendum? I think the addendum and the pre-trained checkpoint are the substance of the announcement, and it is surprising to see little mention of those here.
Who are they inconveniencing? Who are they making reconsider their stance? What are their explicit demands? A protest needs a target audience, a target and a set of demands. They have none of the above.

Occupy Wall Street for example had two of the three, but ultimately failed in most of its goals because it didn't have a concrete demand. And that was an example of a protest on a far larger scale.
I love this story haha
It's always encouraging to see wider hardware platform competition for AI inference and training. Access to affordable and capable hardware for consumers will only benefit (I imagine) from increasing competition.
This is cool. I look forward to seeing the results of this experiment. In case you were curious, this is routinely done on the ISS [1] so I don't expect low-g on the Moon to be an issue. The one issue is radiation (which is mentioned) because the Moon is exposed to this in a way the ISS isn't (thanks to the Van Allen belt).

Should this become necessary however, it won't even be an issue long-term. Why? Because you'd grow things underground. There's absolutely no reason to do anything above ground on the Moon. We have pretty strong evidence of ancient lava tubes so there's no need to excavate either.

Ideally, you'd seal a lava tube and put in air and you could live in it with the plants being natural oxygenators.

Long-term you'd probably want to see if you could manufacture growth medium on the Moon from available materials.

[1]: https://gardenculturemagazine.com/growing-hydroponics-in-spa...
> you are suggesting more stringent peer review conducted by insurance companies

Absolutely not. Underwriters are smart. They use other variables and methods for determining risk. They don't need to directly recreate and peer review the research themselves.
Happy to have you point anywhere my assumptions are wrong vs. your random bullshit of a creating writing exercise.
Maybe start with minimization of some metric based on number of edge crossings, edge lengths and edge bends?
Don't require the replication to be successful. Failure to replicate a result is just as valuable as successfully replicating a result.
This is changing on Desktop, at least Linux. See flatpak, Wayland, and freedesktop portals.
> But this generation of video cards provides a couple of other justifications for the purchase - it will allow them to run uncensored ML stacks locally

It does not. They will/are reselling exactly the same graphics cards that have been sold for the last ten years; the same computing capacity (and a modest increase for their top model), with very limited RAM, at very high prices.

They simply changed the silicon manufacturing process to smaller nodes without achieving a meaningful reduction in power consumption with respect to the previous generation, they still being high-consuming energy wasters heat generators.
That doesn't work with keeping the device secure though. Security issues need to be treated as quality problems that are in breach of the original contract until rectified. But then referring to an original firmware won't work. So downgrading the user experience also needs to be treated as breach of contract.
> Another student made an alarm clock on the computer, which would require them to be alert enough to solve a differential equation.

That seems like it’d end badly after a rough night. Not only can you not keep sleeping, you can’t function enough to shut off the alarm so you just lie in bed without actually resting. Worst of all worlds. I love it!
>we do many other things that normies would miss but discerning customers notice and reward with their loyalty

this sounds interesting, can you share any other examples?
HN doesn't let me reply to your reply so will reply on your early comment (think too many levels of nesting?).
But I agree about your comment on devices, smartphone addiction is having negative impact people's mental health - smartphones are a super-useful tool, but too much screen-time has led to detachment from the real world and depression.
Gonna answer my own question here: No, actually systemd-creds is much better than just putting the plaintext secret into the .service (although that's still probably better than leaving it in a .env file if you have good user permissions set up).

Among other things, TPM and TPM2 are physical chips, which means even someone who steals your actual hard drive couldn't actually decrypt your stuff unless they also somehow got access to the rest of the computer containing that TPM chip. Huge improvement, although I'm not sure if your run of the mill cloud VM has (or even could have) such a chip permanently and uniquely bound to them.
> If suddenly a massive number of cars are stolen, that's the government's problem.

I have no idea why you jump to that conclusion.

The problem is clearly the person breaking the law.

But anyway, going with what you said...

> So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued

Wait, if it's the government's problem, then THEY should be sued for not requiring manufacturers to have these anti-theft devices (as the Canadian government does). The auto manufacturer is building cars precisely as the US government mandated them to.

It seems like you're trying to bend logic to blame anyone and everyone other than the people who are breaking the law.
I've tried to use `fetch()` and it works. How did you handle that from WASM? Or is it cached?
Gosford Park? Omg, that's the only one worth watching! It has a plot. I period drama but couldn't get past two episodes of Downton Abbey. Too sugary and boring.
Okay. Let's talk about the semantics of the pariah being targeted by some of the fair source rhetoric.

Is it "free-rider" as in beer? Or "free-rider" as in speech?
I wish Hollywood used these amazing women's stories to give us great movies instead of gender swapping male stories.

There's plenty of people who would love to watch.
>Why would you want to make them yourself?

Welp, not everyone lives in the US or Europe. Living in South America my only options are either spend ~$100 for a two weeks _fast delivery_ or have it for free ~2 months later. Not many options for the hobbist maker over here. There are local services but they are more expensive (and slower if that's even possible) or just middleman for PCBWay or JLCPCB.
>The only other viable choice on a pure-X11 setup is a non-solution: just live with the tiny UI whenever you are using HiDPI-unaware programs.

What programs? Something from 2003? There are a plethora of X only apps but a microscopic number at this point that aren't suitable for hidpi.

> blurriness everywhere

Nope I'm sorry I have a machine on my desk which disagrees
If all that's true, we should just shut down all the science institutions across the board. They're worth nothing if they are not vigorously pursuing the truth about the world.
I applaud that approach. The first year of a Ph.D. program could be reformulated to become 75% replicating the research of others, preferably that of unaffiliated research organizations.

A lot of this research is very involved and esoteric, requiring specialized equipment found only in one place, so some would be very hard to replicate. If what Theranos was doing (or claiming to do) was easy to replicate, it would've imploded years prior to when it did. So not all fraud could be detected, but a lot of the low-hanging fraud, especially in the psychological and pharmacological fields, could be quickly identified. Such a system would be a substantial upgrade and I applaud your suggestion. A smaller country could blaze the trail, because "big boys", like the U.S., are too set in their ways.
That's not what terrorism is. People seem to have forgotten in war you're allowed to kill anyone on the other side that is engaging in war against you. There aren't any times outs or safe spaces.

That's war starting wars is a bad idea.
Wiener's Laws
These resonated with me as the world's AI-automating all the things.

Particularly:

"Digital devices tune out small errors while creating opportunities for large errors."
No quite, It really depend on what you mean by 'research'. For most people 'research' is just consensus of the experts. On the other hand if by research you mean "test it out yourself" I agree with you. ( not always practical though, so you have to choose a middle ground)
Proof of stake is no different than most traditional governance structures such as corporations in that it relies on a committee with an honest majority to keep the system secure. Validators are supposed to act like some kind of completely neutral, decentralized system, but they are not.

For example, the fundamental principle of PoS is slashing for equivocation: when validators present two alternate versions of history (this could be part of a "double spend" attack), they are supposed to be slashed and have their stake taken away.

It takes 1/3 of validators to successfully pass off two versions of history to a double spend victim. However, 1/3 of validators can censor this slashing transaction. So if a double spend attack happens, the perpetrators of the attack are in charge of punishing themselves.

So, the fundamental security mechanism of PoS, equivocation slashing, can in fact never work in practice to punish an actual attack!

Another example is the idea that participation in a PoS chain is permissionless. This is the case in PoW. However, in PoS, 1/3 of the existing validator set could censor any new validators that would like to join, maintaining complete control of the chain. The existing validators only act as if the system is permissionless.

There has been a large amount of thought put into this paradox, and the PoS research community has settled on the idea that if the validator set breaks these norms, then users can just use a new chain with the same state, and a new, more trustworthy validator set. This has several problems:

- Philosophically, what is the point of creating a system that obviously doesn't work as intended, and then when this is pointed out saying "that's not a problem because users don't have to use the system"?

- The coordination of this hypothetical switch to a better validator set is completely unexplored since it is totally outside of the PoS protocol. It may be very disruptive to users and result in downtime, loss of funds sent during the switchover period, multiple new blockchains, or other issues and confusion.

- The fact that the system does not work, and there must always be the possibility of human operators sorting things out based on an undefined recovery procedure means that truly autonomous and truly secure clients are not possible in PoS. This is a problem for both far-out concepts like self-owned self-driving cars, and for bridges between blockchains, which must always rely on either trusting the validators, or a multisig made of trusted people who can stop or reconfigure the bridge.

In fact, there is no clear dividing line between a PoS blockchain, a PoA blockchain (this has a predefined validator set), a multisig, and a single entity running a chain. The only differences between these models are a matter degree of diffusion of authority.

This is what Bitcoin people do not like about PoS. PoW has its own problems, but they are different, and PoW chains do not rely on a set of trusted operators in the same way.
I thought Musk said some time back that SpaceX was sending people to Mars next year. How did they not already know this?
Megalopolis is baffling and plainly nuts but worth it
"Intellectual property" almost seems like a contradiction in terms. Like, I can't arrange the bits on my own computer hardware in a specific order because someone else arranged the bits on their own, separate computer in that order first? What?

Or better yet, ideas. I can't think things in my own brain, arguably the thing that is most obviously mine, and then talk about what I think about those things, because someone else thought them first and I didn't come up with them on my own? I get why it's not cool to pretend I did come up with them. It's cooler if I can remember where I heard them first and give credit for them. But if I don't remember? If I connect two ideas I heard about ten years apart only once I hear the second one and I can't remember where the first one came from? How did that idea not become "also mine" after being stored and then recalled from my own brain for ten years?

I don't know how to solve the admittedly hard problem of allowing people to profit from the hard work it takes to come up with original ideas. But the "intellectual property" concept doesn't make a lick of sense to me as the way to do it.
Yeah no, that's exactly what I mean (in context of the parent to which I've replied): streaming devices are likely capturing and phoning home screenshots of their own display output, too.

But yes, a smart TV programmed to do the same is even more unscrupulous given that it can 'spy' on everything it displays, to presumably include the input of connected devices.
I still don't get how he multiplied $70k to $264m... And this reporter seems to just take all of Weschler's claims at face value... BUT Warren Buffett is famous for great due diligence and high levels of ethics... So I guess it probably is legit?
> And having a LLM connected to a simplistic enterprise app is a money printing machine.

What would be a concrete example of this? Has Salesforce revenue increased with their AI offerings? Has Microsofts?
> Do I understand correctly that bleary eyed users were uninstalling the alarm rather than turning it off?

A legitimate reason to do this would be if you're on a red-eye flight somewhere, and your alarm goes off. You can't turn it off because your special object or QR code or whatever is in your checked bag. Your only option is to either turn off your phone or uninstall.
Though, I guess to ground this a little:

I can say that observationally, this just-do-the-emissions reasoning is real. Over the past several decades, many industrialized individuals and groups have realized that pushing certain harmful chemicals into the environment is lawful almost regardless of the amount. So now there's a broad emitter culture that encourages independent destructive action against productive ecosystems and planetary systems, threatening the long term viability of public infrastructure, administrative facilities, retail outlets, and personal homes!

The scale of destruction from climate activists is many orders of magnitude less than the destruction of what they're railing against. These soup-throwers are being charged, but Exxon/BP/Chevron are never charged with manslaughter or even reckless endangerment when a heatwave or hurricane which would not have happened but for climate change claims its many victims.
Flimsy justifications can be flimsy.

The same justifications sold lots of 20X0 and 30X0 generation cards too.
One of my favourite movies. As an ensemble movie it get’s better with multiple viewings.
Thanks for the heads-up on that.
I mean, the replication crisis had come and gone, about 5 years now. The fraudsters are running the place and have been for at least the last half decade, full stop.
By design, apps run in background on iOS only as the system permits. Mostly they don't, except for a limited time in response to notifications, and in some other such sharply circumscribed situations.

I strongly doubt an app asserting this flag would pass review without giving the user a way to opt freely back out in the app's settings.

That goes double for the flag being entitlement-gated, one social reason for which requirement would be that it structurally signals a need for closer review. (I don't have an inside source at Apple, but my experience of their review process prompts the inference.)

The intent is to offer a user the option to strengthen a precommitment, not to offer an app dev the option to permanently infest a device. You can play games in app review, but only up to a point. Trying something like that seems like a good way to get deservedly permabanned.

Granted, I still wouldn't use the app, because I don't need it. But if I did, I'd feel pretty OK about enabling that feature. I might expect it to annoy me enough and aid me so little I'd turn it off again, but I'd see no need whatsoever to worry about being stuck with it.
> and waited a few seconds for information to appear on the screen

Oh dear me. Later TVs had "fasttext" which cached the information so they could go to a page instantly. Some pages were sent repeatedly (like page 100, the index). But others you'd really have to wait quite a time for while the transmitter cycled through all the pages. I seem to remember Victor Lewis Smith did a joke about this.
> Mr. Altman has since scaled his ambition down to hundreds of billions of dollars, the nine people said, and hatched a new strategy: Court U.S. government officials by first helping to build data centers in the United States.

When all else fails, pitch your idea to the right officials in the USG and you'll make bank. And if you do it right, you won't even be doing anything at all. There are companies getting 8-10 figures a year to fail at upgrading systems from DOS to literally anything not DOS. It's a very low bar, but a profitable one if you can pull it off.
There needs to be a new norm where prestige and respect is conveyed by having a replicated result. Not just the initial paper.