skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're definitely bringing up issues that are worth consideration.
The low-resolution view of Tibet that is/has been popular among (usually liberal, middle-to-upper class) Westerners following a kinda Buddhism-lite trend is that it was actually Shambhala/Shangri-la. You can see how gorgeous parts of Tibet are by looking up photos, and the assumption is that society there was as beautiful as the landscapes and thangka paintings.

But in fact Tibet was in many ways just about as far from Disneyland as can be conceived. Even by the early 20th century, it was a medieval-esque serfdom and theocracy. It doesn't matter how technical or philosophical someone gets about how Buddhism is non-theistic and Vajrayana is some kind of system of applied psychology, the fact is that powerful lamas were viewed as actual gods and, like a caste system, the underprivileged were regarded as deserving of their lot due to karma. There was a centuries-in-the-making ingrained resistance to outside ideas throughout the region, and those which would include things like modernity and human rights. While the rest of the world was getting stuff like penicillin and effective surgery, the stranglehold that the monastic institutions had on the education-deprived Tibetans prevented any meaningful cross-border dialogue.

All that being said, the CCP was not (and China still is not) some kind of bastion of human rights and openness to ideas. The People's Army would have never been so much as scratched by whatever barely passed for Tibetan soldiers, so they arguably did not need to be nearly so heavy-handed. Assuming it's actually anyone's legitimate responsibility to 'liberate' that place, I suppose that some 'force' might've been required to crack the nut of that massively insular Tibetan world, but there's no way that it was necessary to engage in ethnic cleansing and erasure.

In a parallel universe, the world of Tibet could have been introduced to modernity without being placed under the thumb of the Chinese monolith. So I guess I'm just trying to provide a balanced perspective.
On the other hand, we can wipe our civilization (with or without AI) without needing anything as sophisticated as Skynet.
> Don’t get me wrong, it’s a hard problem, they just seem like different classes of problems

Time travel. Teleportation through quantum entanglement. Intergalactic travel through wormholes.

And don't get me wrong they are hard. But just another class of problems. Right ?
Conversely, revoking licenses is certainly stealing!
Show HN: Book to Classical Music Soundtrack
Hey, HN,

literature and classical music are two of my biggest passions, and I always found it interesting how some classical pieces fit to the stories they are barely connected with.

E.g. some of Tchaikovsky's music will always evoke the world of Harry Potter for me; music of Sibelius takes me to the same landscapes as writings of Tolkien - of course, these clearly result from John Williams' and Howard Shore's direct inspirations from the romantic composers when creating the soundtracks for the movie adaptations. For a more niche example, music of Olivier Messiaen fits in my view the book L'Écume Des Jours by Boris Vian - grandiose movements of the Turangalila symphony for the first half of the story, the expressionism and sadness of Vingt Regards the latter. The examples are numerous.

My recent idea was to somehow automate this pairing of literature and music. It works quite simply - at first, I collected a large dataset of classical music pieces with text descriptions, which I transformed into embeddings. When generating a soundtrack, I use an LLM to create a description of what kind of music would be suitable for the story, and the embedding of this description is used to fetch the most relevant tracks.

While the resulting playlist can barely be understood as "soundtrack" at this point, it can be a pleasant background playlist for reading the book.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or feedback :)
Regulations are hard enough just using methane, I wouldn't want to be the one filling out the paperwork if that was a nuclear rocket.
that's just not true. In a lot of cases in engineering, there are 10000000 possibilities, and deeplearning shows you 100 potentially more promising ones to double check, and that's worth huge amounts of money.

In a lot of cases deep learning is able to simulate complex system at a precision that is more than precise enough, that otherwise would not be tracktable (like is the case with alphafold), and again this is especially valuable if you can double check the output.

Ofc, in the field of language and vision and in a lot of other fields, deep learning is straight up the only solution.
> How should it be wrapped semantically?

I have no idea what the semantics of that word are, which is information that is required in order to properly semantically wrap it. (Inherently, since conveying such semantics is one of the major pointer of semantic wrapping.)

However, you included embedded control characters (C2 AD aka 'SOFT HYPHEN'; below replaced with '-') that encode less semantic information than is necessary for proper semantic wrapping, but not none:

Lopado-temacho-selacho-galeo-kranio-leipsano-drim-hypo-trimmato-silphio-karabo-melito-katakechy-meno-kichl-epi-kossypho-phatto-perister-alektryon-opte-kephallio-kigklo-peleio-lagoio-siraio-baphe-tragano-pterygon.

Web browsers use that information to do poor-quality semantic wrapping automatically - actual hard or soft[0] wrapping would produce something like:

Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanod-
rimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatake-
chymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisterale-
ktryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosir-
aiobaphetraganopterygon.

Which looks like the following from a partly-semanically-aware perspective:

Lopado-temacho-selacho-galeo-kranio-leipsano-d[BREAK]rim-hypo-trimmato-silphio-karabo-melito-katake[BREAK]chy-meno-kichl-epi-kossypho-phatto-perister-ale[BREAK]ktryon-opte-kephallio-kigklo-peleio-lagoio-sir[BREAK]aio-baphe-tragano-pterygon.

The fact that you included soft hyphens rather concedes the point that hard and soft[0] wrapping is incorrect[1].

0: Or rather, non-semantic, which is what we're actually arguing over. Technically, semantic wrapping is a subset of hard wrapping, but it's a specific subset that isn't what is expressed by just saying "hard wrapping". Kind of like how birds aren't what anyone means when they just say "dinosaurs".

1: Granted, to be fair, a lot of the time we just don't care. But (contra your original comment) we never need to resort to non-semantic wrapping; we just sometimes (often) decide to be lazy because it doesn't matter.
So it is still a state enterprise in all but in name.

The swiss federal railyway has the exact same model (a company fully owned by the federal government) and it works very well.

Blaming the ownership model for the DB's woes is just wrong in my opinion. German railways have been chronically underfunded, overburdening the company with below cost ticket and the company has some perverse incentives with respect to rail maintenance and other things.
The Economics of Free Lunch
It may be an interesting side effect that people stop so gratuitously inventing random new software languages and frameowrks because the LLMs don't know about it. I know I'm already leaning towards tech that the LLM can work well with, simply because being able to ask the LLM to solve 90% of the problem outweighs any marginal advantage using a slightly better language or framework offers. Fro example, I dislike Python as a language pretty intensely, but I can't deny that the LLMs are significantly better in Python than many other languages.
I have tried and use those things (mushrooms, LSD, MDMA) just for fun and I think they are alright if you understand that it is just that: a fun experience, like alcohol or cannabis can be.
But I agree that there is a large amount of people taking those things and coming up with large amount of bullshit to justify taking it, in an attempt at pretending that they are more than just fun. It's always people who are very status conscious, hipster like, with narcissistic tendencies who want to impose their viewpoint in a way that makes them feel superior.

As far as I'm concerned, I think those things should be legal because not only sourcing them is easy anyway but it also escapes all quality control and regulation even though we still agree to sell much worse things as a society (like tobacco) and that's very incoherent.

I don't think any of the new age bullshit theory about healing mental illness (an already loosely defined thing) or whatever else is correct, but what is probably true, is that most of the stuff sold by the pharmaceutical companies is not any better (when it's not much worse) yet it is legal.

This is a classic case of capitalism bullshit: if you are having fun, you can't be a productive individual so that's not right, but in the meantime please buy our very similar drugs that's supposedly have the same results, without the fun.

One reason the advocates are going overboard with all the claims is probably because the industry is allowed to do the same with much less scrutiny, so it is an attempt at equilibrium, I guess.
I doubt they will be successful at fighting fire with fire but it is annoying that it is such a political issue, people should be allowed to take those things if they want to...
He isn't a co-worker. He's a billionaire that can fund entire campaigns.
It is a lot more like if my co-worker was really my boss, and he really cares about my political leanings during a performance review.. Thus I also care about his.

"Metastable deexcitation spectroscopy (MDS) and thermal desorption spectroscopy (TDS)"

I really don't know what you are talking about.
The PE play is always "I see people getting good service at a fair price. That indicates I am not making enough money."
What’s the advantage of catching the booster over landing it in the ground? Catching it seems like an extra complication.
Are you honestly saying that when Matt just stole an OSS project's users? ACF is OSS. If that's not freeloading I don't know what is.
Would you pay $20k + $3/hr for a teleoperated housekeeer that works slowly instead of a $20/hr human? It just doesn’t make any financial sense. Automation is the only way but even then, at say $200-$300/mo, the break even is ~2 years on a $5000 robot, and that’s ignoring maintenance costs.

There are also potential ethical issues around teleoperation as a form of labor arbitrage. Should employers be able to outsource low-skill physical labor to actual humans abroad to circumvent wage and immigration laws? Is the benefit worth the economic dislocation to society? If you say yes, ask yourself why even bother reshoring manufacturing at higher cost and with trade barriers.

Teleoperation is argued to be an interim solution that trains autonomous systems the way driving trains FSD but as of right now, given what we know about just how much data is needed for current imitation learning approaches to work for fine manipulation tasks, it doesn’t seem scaleable. Maybe there will be a modeling breakthrough.

My bet is on cheaper non-humanoid form factors and data collection that doesn’t require a robot being operated for every data collector in the field.
> The German rail system has been cost-saved to death

Yes, because the the traffic ministers allocate the spending of their resort to the Autobahn instead of the Deutsche Bahn.
HHKBs themselves are great but for me the main point of attraction is the layout. It takes a bit to get used to, but it works very well for me. Especially on macOS with its system wide text nav key shortcuts, it allows just about everything larger boards do while requiring significantly less hand movement. No home/end cluster or numpad either pushing the alpha cluster way off center or pushing the right-hand mousing area way out is nice too.

I just wish laptops had that layout as an option. It’d be particularly nice on ultralights like the ThinkPad X1 Nano or discontinued 12” MacBook.
This is also not a competition.

We can help all these groups. The answer to "lets help group A" shouldn't be "but what about group B".

There are tons of groups, from A-Z, who have been wronged in one away or another.

To not help one group because so many others are also wronged in maybe worse ways is not productive at all.
America funding the literal eye of Sauron 2.0
Thank you for your English/Latvian centric language perspective but there are lots of different tenses in different languages. They are not tought as moods. All are tenses.

You can read Turkish or Bulgarian grammer books. They all are tenses. There is no such thing as mood.
Boeing does much much more of that.

Why don’t they deliver, in spite of them being decades more experienced in this area? Why don’t they deliver in spite of getting much more money from the government and from your mentioned complex?
Show HN: Read Aloud to Me
I hacked this together to listen to PGs Essays in audio format. I have used it for several hours now, quite enjoyable.

Features
* open ai text to speech
* like a podcast but with content from blogs / articles
* somewhere between a podcast and an audiobook
* pick up from where you left off and see what you have and have not listened to

Totally free, I may add a "no api key" option if folks enjoy it. Feedback is absolutely welcome.

It is really quite simple but it is quite useful to me. Perhaps this exists somewhere else already but I don't think it does with the feature set I described.
> For the Godel Agent, we utilize the “gpt-4o-2024-05-13” model (OpenAI et al., 2024), whereas the optimized policy and baseline models are evaluated using the “gpt-3.5-turbo-0125” model (OpenAI, 2022) to reduce computational costs and ensure a fair comparison.

Doesn't seem fair at all.
Apart from colloquially considering standards not-necessarily-normative being, in my opinion, nonsensical (see below), to the best of my knowledge at the very least the STD subseries of IETF standards documents are normative in nature: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/std

> They are not the only tool, and they don't carry any moral force.

Indeed there are countless other standards bodies in the world also producing normative definitions for many things, so I'm definitely a bit confused why the focus on IETF specifically.

To be even more exact, I do not know of any standards bodies who would publish what they and the world consider as standards, that would be entirely, or at least primarily, informational rather than normative in nature. Like, do I know the word "standard" incorrectly? What even is a point of a standard, if it doesn't aim to control?
I agree with this take, professionally.
People have generally saw their investment as a positive, whether its deemed "enough" or not
Startup Resources: 2000 Investor Emails, 500 Marketers, Tools (2024)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RQzSilUs5lRzX_hTn-C6...

1. AI will guide any founder to create a deck like mine using reveal.js
2. critique the pitch deck https://chatgpt.com/share/670b082d-84d0-8010-8a5e-d5f9f06b6d...
3. find industry-relevant investors, generates cold email or network via linkedin
4. tracks investor clicks per slide and lets them view docs and schedule call.
Right. Markup mode supports markup features - including all of that stuff for headings, lists, bold, italics and so on. It’s clearly inspired by markdown and similar languages. Personally I prefer * to \em{xxx} since it’s easier to type and it makes the text easier to read while I’m editing. (Or maybe just more familiar since give written so much markdown at this point).
I think what you mean is that he adds an argument that counts the times a goal is resolved with, thus limiting the depth of resolution? That works, but you need to give a magic number as a resolution depth limit, and if the number is too small then your program fails to find a proof that it normally should be able to find. It's not a perfect solution.
> For me contradictions are unavoidable when speaking about the mind.

"It (seems like it) is my opinion that {some opinion}" has very few ways of going wrong, and has the side benefit of reminding one that they're dealing with a subjective map, which is in part the goal of most authors of such pieces, imho anyways.

I think mindfulness gang could up their game.
When this article first came out, I had a similar reaction, that it seems that regulations that just favor one company doesn't seem all that right.

But I remember in that thread a few had said that as part of this, SawStop will be forced to license their patent to competitors.

Maybe that'll drive up the cost of table saws, but to be honest, people like me (at best, a wannabe weekend woodworker, not a pro) have stayed away from Table saws because of a concern for safety, but things like Sawstop being more ubiquitous might result in people like me buying them, and expanding the market, possibly bringing prices down.

Sure, Sawstop does nothing to prevent the big issue with table saws (kickback) but still, having a riving knife + sawstop probably makes a huge difference in the overall safety of using a table saw, and that seems worth it.
People used I,J,K,L for integers in FORTRAN and BASIC for that matter, in fact early FORTRAN determined the type based on the first letter of the name.
My point was rather that a functional style with plain old data was always preferable, the "stink" was that early TS versions _favored_ non-functional OO style that suited the TS type system at a time when most modern JS code already had a functional approach, so you ended up writing non-idiomatic JS because the TS type system wouldn't handle idiomatic code (this also contributed to a lingering distrust in TypeScript that persists to this day despite the upgrades to the typing system).

Personally I prefer neither prototypal or classes, 90% of the time you just want the interfaces, unions or inferred types and the few places where you actually want inheritance and/or object methods you really are just better off with a factory method that then creates a literal that is used or suits an interface.
Is it so hard?

See if you can try and steelman the argument as to why people care about the political opinions and actions of the world's richest man.
Wildly incorrect. New Glenn is already here.
I disagree that it's difficult: excepting toll roads and "unassumed" roads‡, the subsidy is 100% (and most toll roads are likely subsidized at a substantial fraction of their cost, since the tolls are rarely high enough to be self-sufficient).

It doesn't matter whether the money used to pay for road maintenance comes from property taxes (like in Toronto), income taxes (Ontario areas not maintained by cities / regions / counties), or gas taxes (much of the U.S.?). If you're not paying per use of the road, there is a 100% subsidy on the maintenance of the road.

There are definite costs to not maintaining those roads (people won't move where there aren't roads; unmaintained roads will result in more costs to the people using those roads as their vehicles are damaged more frequently—which may result in costs to the municipality for not properly maintaining those roads), but we should not pretend roads are self-sustaining or aren't entirely subsidized.

‡ Unassumed roads are those built privately by the landowners in common and are not maintained by the local government. When used for private dwellings, these roads usually fall under the sway of the local government after a period of time, even if they were built initially by a subdivision subcontractor.
One solution not mentioned is popular here in Michigan. At the end of each school year they have the debt from unpaid school lunches. All the kids get lunch whether the parents pay the bill on time or not.

One business paid off their schools bill and received a large amount of free press and good will for it. So other businesses did the same and now most of the school districts get this debt paid.
A lot of those plans were just plain goofy. The Shuttle was supposed to generate the same sort of awesomeness, too.
> The cars will be stopped when you cross by walking.

You live in a place with some combination of far more traffic enforcement or far more conscientious drivers than me.

All I see when I look around is a sea of people glancing up and down between the road and their phone. It would be negligent to let my kids cross an arterial road, especially after dark.
Looking at the code, it's not clear to me how much has broken because of the fork, and how much has broken because of the "secure context" security patch that ACF have apparently also applied in their own version.

That is, I think some of these things might have broken even with the real ACF.

The main change appears to be that if a developer has used a built-in wordpress function as a filter hook (rather than a user-defined one), that has been blocked. (This has never been a good idea, anyway; developers should not do it.) Also a filtered version of the POST variables has been passed to the callback. These are both seemingly to stop CSRF attacks.

This patch was necessary; it prevents CSRF and potentially other nasties.

I don't mean to excuse any of the other bullshit; I'm just saying that if there are "breakages" here, they are likely to do with the necessary patch that is hidden inside the gaslighting.
here is one nice site http://bbslist.textfiles.com/
> ... "it doesn't seem likely" aren't the strongest arguments.

Since we're talking about the future, it would be incorrect to talk in absolutes so speaking in probabilities and priors is appropriate.

> Our intuition isn't a good guide here.

I'm not just using intuition. I've done as extensive an evaluation of the technology, trends, predictions and, most importantly, history as I'm personally willing to do on this topic. Your post is an excellent summary of basically the precautionary principle approach but, as I'm sure you know, the precautionary principle can be over-applied to justify almost any level of response to almost any conceivable risk. If the argument construes the risk as probably existential, then almost any degree of draconian response could be justified. Hence my caution when the precautionary principle is invoked to argue for disruptive levels of response (and to be clear, you didn't).

So the question really comes down to which scenarios at which level of probability and then what levels of response those bell-curve probabilities justify. Since I put 'foom-like' scenarios at low probability (sub-5%) and truly existential risk at sub-1%, I don't find extreme prevention measures justified due to their significant costs, burdens and disruptions.

At the same time, I'm not arguing we shouldn't pay close attention as the technology develops while expending some reasonable level of resources on researching ways to detect, manage and mitigate possible serious AI risks, if and when they materialize. In particular, I find the current proposed legislative responses to regulate a still-nascent emerging technology to be ill-advised. It's still far too early and at this point I find such proposals by (mostly) grandstanding politicians and bureaucrats more akin to crafting potions to ward off an unseen bogeyman. They're as likely to hurt as to help while imposing substantial costs and burdens either way. I see the current AI giants embracing such proposals as simply them seeing these laws as an opportunity to raise the drawbridge behind themselves since they have the size and funds to comply while new startups don't - and those startups may be the most likely source of whatever 'solutions' we actually need to the problems which have yet to make themselves evident.
You mean U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR?
When you want to await a single instance of a Node EventEmitter, please use `stream.once('drain', (err) => ...)` so you don't leak your listener callback after the promise resolves.
Ok, fair enough.

FYI it's not uncommon to get for example news in simplified language for non-native speakers. And I think there's a version of Chinese that uses Latin alphabet, so indeed some languages are just "dumbed-down" versions of the real thing!