skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Matt Levine touched on this briefly today, and I liked his two cents:

>It’s kind of cool? Like you could imagine a hierarchy, in roughly ascending order of wealth:

>Too poor to pay taxes.

>Rich enough to pay taxes.

>Rich enough to not pay taxes.

>Rich enough to not even bother with not paying taxes.
> architecture of the "natural neural network" not the data

I believe you're right, but to pick a nit it's not just the architecture of the meatNN it's also the sensors that input data to it, the channels those sensors send the data over, and the motor control mechanisms that enable the meatNN to do interesting sensor feedback experiments. It's the whole damn thing that's been optimized to work as a coherent unit by billions of years of evolution.
Nah they just won't produce it, just like how "Quest Builder" was rejected despite having a ton of support
The banned accounts promoted violence against political opponents, which is generally an exception from protected speech.
lol, please elaborate
Exactly. We have huge advantages over evolution in some regards. All of the experience from every robot can be combined into a single agent, so even if AI is not as sample efficient as human brains it could still far surpass us. And honestly the jury is still out on sample efficiency. We haven't yet attempted to train models on the same kind of data a human child gets, and once we do we may find that we are not as far away from the brain's sample efficiency as we thought.
Also how super-sensitive may be kept on physical books and papers, albeit in a form scannable by optic implants.
> If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it.

But isn't that the exact thing that quantum mechanics refutes? You cannot know the future just from the past; you can only know the probabilities of different futures.
"Even if I was wrong by many orders of magnitude, I'm still correct!"
This shows the true value of the platform to end users is near zero.

Is that really true? I think platforms have strong network effects that make migrations to alternatives (like Bluesky) very difficult.

The network effect has negative value to the user; if the platform went away, everyone would migrate to a better platform, and everyone would be better off. The network effect is an artificial barrier to competition that only benefits the owner of said network, and it only works because collective action is harder than collective inaction.
In my experience USB4 cases typically go faster than TB4 cases.

See this other comment of mine:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41767470
I mean... so I just noticed the "US Total Interest Paid" clock. That takes about 45 seconds to tick over $1 million, so $7 billion covers ~1% of the interest payments in a year.

That seems like a sizable contribution for a single person in a country of 330 million.
If the universe is not infinite, and if individual particles and waves are calculable, it follows that one can postulate a larger universe capable of simulating it, or a large enough log book in this example.

What I find interesting is looking at whether some observable things look like they might be performance optimizations, or even "magic seeds" (as in RNG seeds.)

No proof of a simulation obviously, but maybe hints.
I dream of a RC-like car, where I can just pop my smartphone into the car with camera looking forward, and write an Android app that would drive the phone over USB-C or BT.
I agree, I never really cared about QSV as an Intel feature until I started doing Livestreams, using Plex/Jellyfin/Emby, and virtualizing/homelab work.
Or a thing to get triggered whenever there's a suspected burglar. Doesn't even need to get it right all the time, just can't get it wrong. Nobody ever suspects the vacuum cleaner!

Does anyone sell one that barks? Or makes it sound like 2-3 angry people are having a conversation about guns from different points of a room?
You’re correct, but SSIDs that have been around for years and are still around are not listed.

In comparison to Google and Apple, their database is woefully inaccurate.
Not necessarily. Suppose that consciousness/qualia/etc is “something extra” which has to be added to non-mental reality, as some dualists believe. Then, it would be possible that we live in a simulation which contains consciousness because that “something extra” has somehow been added to it. And yet, maybe the “much larger” universe which contains our simulation also contains such a “log book” of a very similar universe to our own, also containing intelligent life - and yet, if the “something extra” has not been added to that “log book”, it would lack consciousness and qualia, unlike our own universe.

I’m not arguing that a dualism (of this sort) is actually true, merely that we don’t (and can’t) know for a fact that it is false. But if we can’t know for a fact that it is false, then even if we (somehow) knew our reality was simulated, that wouldn’t give us grounds to make confident inferences about the nature of other simulations, or the nature of simulations in themselves
It's not reasonable to assume that users in the US have names that only use 7-bit ASCII
It's draconian to have some upper limit on wealth? what if a small number of people managed to, legally, extract wealth to the point where we all became vassals? (Or is that what we've already gone very far towards?)
> softmax should be exp()/1+∑exp()

You referring to Miller's blogpost?[0] There's not an error in attention. Adding the +1 actually makes it not attention because you no longer generate a probability distribution[1]. There's nothing really preventing attention to have a zero in any of the entries, the thing is that you probably won't get -inf (very large negative number) inside inner product and you're going to have a difficult time updating those weights via gradient descent.

I've also tested it on many networks and different types of attention and I've yet to see a meaningful improvement (or even an improvement), even in generalization.

It really is the training method...

As to the paper, I'm also still at a big lost and honestly, if reviewing could not accept it. The results look good, but I can't tell why and there's some "black magic" going on here.

- Figure 3 has "Transformer" and doesn't specify. Is this StableLM-3B-4E1T?
- What fucking dataset is this on? Stable has a WandB link[2] for that project and I don't see any experiment with similar (presumably entropy?) loss values (come on... this is fucking research... label your fucking graphs...)
- Where the fuck is the ablation? (Yes, I saw Fig 6 and Sec 3.8)
- How do I know that (assuming this is Stable) that the difference isn't just hyperparemeters? Or worse, GPUs! (yes, number of GPUs can change results due to sharding and this changing the statistics)
- How do I know it isn't down to 1k warmup steps instead of 5k?
- What about hidden size, layers, heads, or FFN size? Stable has 32/2560/32/? and this has 28/3072/12/8192 (these all will mess with sharding statistics too). Is the head dimension the same?
- How do I know it isn't down to the tokenizer?
- What is this magic? `0.8 - 0.6 * math.exp(-0.3 * depth)`
- Was this learned? Hand picked? This is a huge factor
- Any information about the learned parameters? Their final values? Trajectories?
- The code does not seem to be the same as whats in the algos...

Obviously they improved something, but there is nothing in the paper that is convincing me that it is the differential attention. There are too many parameters at play and how am I supposed to know that the difference is by the thing they are proposing. And more importantly, how much it is improved by that specific thing and not by other things.

[0] https://www.evanmiller.org/attention-is-off-by-one.html

[1] This is a bit convoluted but without this condition many "alternative forms" you see would be equivalent to other architectures like linear layers or gated units. Term is not well defined, but this really appears to be the only agreed upon aspect, even if only implicitly stated. This is a much longer conversation though.

[2] https://stability.wandb.io/stability-llm/stable-lm/reports/StableLM-3B-4E1T--VmlldzoyMjU4?accessToken=u3zujipenkx5g7rtcj9qojjgxpconyjktjkli2po09nffrffdhhchq045vp0wyfo

[2.1] The config: https://github.com/Stability-AI/StableLM/blob/main/configs/stablelm-3b-4e1t.yml
I'm looking for one that barks to non-pets
And also why Einstein didnt get Nobel prize for his theories of relativity, but rather the 'discovery' of photoelectric effect.
Sure, but in research show some comparisons
"Mutual" implies lack of coercion, which doesn't exist under capitalism, since the ownership class leverages significantly greater political power than the working class.
The corners of physics I have some contact with (climate/weather modelling and astrophysics) seem pretty dynamic to me. Each generation of CMIP models seems to be significantly better than the previous.
They could have squandered the money or given it away.

They could could have blown it on building a pyramid to house their corpse.

The government is not entitled to the assets.
I thought early web browsers were designed to not only view, but edit websites.

Guess that idea is long gone...
Based on some back of the envelope math, if the US met 100% of its electricity needs with solar, it'd take about 1.6% as much area as the US currently has farmland (22k sqmi vs 1.4mm sqmi). Considering some solar is on non-arable land, and how much excess corn the US grows (enough that some is turned back into fuel), and that 1.6% ballpark, the idea that it's problematic that we're turning some farmland into solar doesn't pass the sniff test. Do you have any more info about that being a problem?

https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-land-power-us...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_Stat...
Strava no longer allows you to add links to uploads and deletes all old ones
How about the rich list is just a list of rich people that also desire others to know of their riches.
Totally disagree with state in the DOM. It’s natively where it exists.
What does being rich even mean? For us it might be the total sum of shares, realestate, cash, minus debts. If you're hiding your wealth then what does it mean to "have" that wealth if no one knows it belongs to you? I guess it comes down to the wealth you can control in your favour, but then how is that different to being in congress?
just wrap your cables in retroreflective tape?
Thanks ChatGPT.
It seems in retrospect, quite ridiculous to be hunting this guy down and deporting him.

And I don't see the need for a new book on the subject (though an author should always to free to write what they want to).

In the context of immigration to the USA it seems risible given what we know about the last 2 decades of immigration policy: full medical workup, with no communicable diseases or even a weak heart permitted; immigrant must have a job already lined up, etc. The policies of today are far, far looser.
Yes, but most people aren't following me around with a plastic bag to grab that biometric data. And if someone were, I'd get pretty paranoid about what they're trying to do with it.
Did you read that article? That drone was electronically taken out of the sky and rendered useless, it was not commandeered and used against the US.

Where did I claim nobody's ever taken out a drone with ewar? Plus this action presumably took an entire squadron with extremely powerful ewar apparatus - a complete waste of time on an 800e drone that will be replaced before the one you've dropped even hits the ground.
> Do builders of wind turbines and solar farms also pay commensurately for the pollution in the manufacturing and development process?

Sure, we can assign those costs to builders, why not? There's already lots of discussion about the true cost of EV batteries and how they're subsidized.

> Everything is implicitly subsidized because every action that any living being takes affects some other living being and the ecosystem as a whole, because we all live on the same planet.

Actions don't all have the same effect so I think it's totally fair to consider their true costs.

I think where it gets a little tricky is how you decide to assign costs to people that have children or are children. But that's really getting in the weeds.
Nokia did pioneer using the smartphone as a decent digital camera (among other things).

For instance decent enough to take a picture of an A4 page and be able to read it afterwards.

And IMAP support.

And Opera mini was a good enough browser, though mostly for text, as indeed 3G cellular (which the first iPhone didn't have) then cost 1000€/Go (funnily enough, that felt cheap and fast at the time, because it indeed was compared to what came before).

(Also video calls, though those are still niche for phones.)

And I hear Nokias were themselves quite primitive compared to what Japan had ?
Are we not still? How can you tell?
No. But it is a slippery slope of having limits on people, from wealth to anything you can think of (random example: limit ownership to a single car). In the end if it is all legal, it is nobody else's business. If it is illegal, setting an upper limit is not the moral solution.
1. IQ is a bad measurement of intelligence.

2. IQ is a quotient. What age did they say that o1 was?

3. Using a Mensa test (Mensa Norway apparently) is a bad way to determine IQ.

https://test.mensa.no/home/test/en

"This online test gives an indication of general cognitive abilities, represented by an IQ score of between 85 and 145, where 100 is the population average. This test is not a substitute for professional intelligence tests, such as those administered by Mensa and licensed psychologists.

This test consists of 35 puzzles in the form of visual patterns that must be solved within a 25-minute time limit. Participation requires neither specialised knowledge nor mathematical skills. The puzzles, which get progressively difficult, are weighted equally, so you get a point for each correct answer. You do not get bonus points for finishing the test early, so try to manage your time optimally. Also, you are not penalised for answering incorrectly, so make a guess whenever you are unsure."
I agree, but I have found gdb is great for core dumps. Getting Linux to create one, another issue :)

BSDs though just creates them when your program dumps for you enjoyment.
Good for you, friend.

Honestly more people should try it before they knock it. Programming a game from scratch is not rocket science. It takes some work to get to finished game but sometimes the journey is what people care about and want to master. No need to always be optimizing for the end result.

I make stuff with wood. I don’t use power tools. I use hand tools. Because I like doing it that way.

Hope your kid has fun playing the game!
>"...individuals would need to sacrifice for the greater good of the species."

This old song. I am all for a sacrifice... As long as it starts from the top. Wake me up when that happens.
I wasn't classifying those businesses as "part of culture war" or not. I'm just saying it's a fact that conservatives have been, and still are, under attack, and are nonetheless "winning".

Insofar as Musk not being a Free Speech Absolutist (which I'm not either), that's not news to me or anyone else who knows and respects him like I do. Musk is doing everything he can to keep legal speech from being censored, whereas the prior owners would cancel people permanently for trite trivial things like a mis-gendering (that wasn't even done out of malice), or simply claiming there's two genders.

Regarding Democrats getting censored themselves: While I'm a strong advocate of Free Speech as a general rule, I think after what the Democrats did for a decade (on censorship) they SHOULD be forced to reap what they sowed. So for example, I would've been perfectly in favor of Musk, as a one time act, permanently cancelling everyone who had in the past called for censorship of others. Those people didn't want Free Speech when they held power, and thus they are the ones who don't deserve to have Free Speech after they've lost their power.
Great, so now all we need is another 99 people with similar donations and we could cover the interest for a year. Then you need to continue to do that every year forever because you have yet to make any movement on the principle
MemoryDB: 30% cheaper, 10TB free writes per month and just $0.04/GB (compared to $0.20/GB with the Redis version) after.

And simple, no-downtime upgrades for ElastiCache and MemoryDB.

From my research, MemoryDB is the only actually ACID-compliant Redis-compatible DB engine (using WAL to multi-AZ storage, similar to Aurora) with the same read performance as standard Redis. Standard Redis replication fails Isolation and Durability in failure edge-cases.

AWS really wants you to move away from Redis.
This is where passive voice highlights a weak position.

Trusted… by who?
I think you have to take the owner or investor view on this. Say you own a big portion of an oil company, and you decide renewable energy is the future. What do you do? Probably sell your shares and invest elsewhere.

Oil companies are full of oil experts. There's no reason to think they'll do well competing with companies full of renewable energy experts.
i don't know really what to do about it, but i did write a book on the ideas of hypermedia and how htmx extends them that you can read online for free here:

https://hypermedia.systems

i think the ideas of hypermedia are fairly stable and relevant, particularly the concept of a uniform interface, even if htmx is just one implementation of them
We don’t know for a fact that QM contains irreducible indeterminism. If many worlds is true, then QM is ultimately deterministic. Same if hidden variables is true. A large class of local hidden variable theories have been ruled out by Bell’s theorem, but non-local hidden variable theories survive it (such as the Bohm interpretation and the transactional interpretation), as do local hidden variable theories which deny the Bell theorem’s assumptions about the nature of measurement, such as superdeterminist local hidden variable theories.
> should not be falsely characterized as a failure of the nuclear industry and technology. The failure was humans

Humans working in the nuclear industry are "the" nuclear industry. By definition all economical sectors are arranged around human workers. Remove each human and the industry will lose its reason to exist.
To offer a contributory not-really-metaphor for viewing things: After a "grey goo" apocalypse covers the world in ruthlessly replicating nanobots, eventually there arise massive swarms of trillions of allied units that in turn develop hivemind intelligences, which attempt to influence and "hack" one-another.

I am one of them, so are you, and I just made you think of something against--or at least without--your will.
Here's a link to their library in GitHub: https://github.com/tigerbeetle/tigerbeetle/blob/588123f219f1...
I agree with your post. However, I was using the most mechanical meaning of simulation: "the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study," which implies determinism and excludes the "something extra."
That's not really true, in that context security will largely be a solved problem.

Using chips with a secure architecture, safe languages and safe protocols is going to result in secure implants.

Not to say there might not be some new vulnerability, but I disagree with this idea people love to repeat that security is impossible.
Since in most applications the order doesn't matter, why postegres don't make itself the recording to archive better data alignment instead the padding approach?
Smoldering has other connotations though, which still imply attractiveness.
What?

There has been some odd people fooled by computers since the 70s, and 10 years ago we had competitions where the best hint people claimed they had was if their interlocutors were good at math or not.

It was clear 10 years ago that the Turing test would be beat soon.
One of the funny takeaways here is: there are so many more billionaires out there, who spend considerable effort to remain off these lists and otherwise anonymous. I work with one, and he's not on ANY of the Forbes or Bloomberg lists, though articles about his projects and investments obviously make the news. That's, as the article alludes to, the funny thing about private equity: it does a very good job _staying_ private.
Here, I'll formalize it with statistical language: "the likelihood of the events we sample are inconsistent with the model we've used to explain our data."
> but then how is that different to being in congress?

Less work, less risk, the ability to corruptly influence multiple people in congress by proxy rather than scrounging around for funds from corrupt private individuals out to influence policy in their favour.
But the system they have succeeded in optimises for people who can sell themselves well enough to get that funding. These people live and breathe selling themselves for funding. Every buzzword, sexy plot, and dynamic presentation has got them here and it's not like they plan to stop.
Famously, there was the Saudi billionaire who would pump up the price of his stocks in the months prior to when they published the rich list.
While im sure there is a lot of noise filtered out, the opposite is true as well. Much of what we perceive is interpolated and pattern matched filler.

I dont know if this is due to source input limitations, or if it is a compression>processing>decompression technique for efficiency. Either way, it does imply that the amount of data desired is more than makes it through the bottleneck.
Do we need TimSearch?
Wow it's amazing how noticeably faster than is that every other website. We really messed up the internet.
Yes. I referred to the randomness that would prevent this, "once that is solved".

Guess I'm in the camp that eventually we'll find some model or discover something new, to discover what is behind the randomness, so it is no longer just random. But, yes, that is big IF.

Until then, with current theories, we couldn't do these calculations. They'd just be approximations accounting for some randomness.
> It isn't a problem until it is one

> anyone who was ever made to look foolish saying[...]

These are common throwaway sayings people with no concept of resources and an overly active aversion to risk often use.

The reality of the situation is that nobody cares to invest in some insanely expensive and vulnerable platform to hijack drones, because 1. it will probably get taken out by a drone 2. it would cost orders of magnitude more than all of the drones and personnel it would take out.

Furthermore, nobody would care to truly protect against such a counter, because the drones cost absolutely nothing.

Saying "it's improbable but let's prepare anyway" isn't how the real world works. Look around you - the world is absolutely filled to the brim with problems, even ones quite probable, even ones inevitable, that nobody can or is willing to spare the resources to deal with. As a general rule, preparing for the improbable is a poor path to success, and worse still is preparing for the improbable, where the improbable event doesn't even impact you in any serious way.

Also, ofc you don't hear about those people. Nobody is reporting on the non-event or the people who prepared for the non-event. Pure selection bias.
You can listen without a license. I was able to hear everything on a $15 handheld and it was immensely helpful.

In an emergency you are allowed to transmit without a license. There were plenty of unlicensed calls going to the Mt. Mitchell repeater.

All that being said, I am definitely getting my license once this is over.