skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Reminds me a bit of the MBTI personality test, where they make up 4 types of question to arbitrarily split the population, so 2x2x2x2 = 16 subtypes. It's true by it's own definition. Which is fine, but are these particular arbitrary boundaries useful? Perhaps. Could the splitting lines have been just as useful in different arbitrary place. Perhaps. A lot of people who take the MBTI find they're on the boundaries flip-flopping into a few different pigeonholes depending on different times they take the test. So it's important to let people know they can be in multiple buckets (are a bit in all of them), and take a little advice from each community.

For this one they split autism into 3 groups (core,social,developmental) then split core into (mild,severe), to make 4 total.
Phosphorus, Oolitic Deposits, and Chinese Made Cast Iron Cookware
A fun article on how local iron supplies may impact the quality of cast iron pans, and why you should consider buying american made cast iron
I'm curious, do you think there should there be certain requirements before someone can be Euthanized/receive assisted suicide? If so, what are they? Or are you arguing for removing any restrictions on suicide?

For instance: 18 year old woman decides life is too hard and wants out, 30 year old person committing suicide because they lost their job, .. etc?
What type of audience?
Do you have any differentiation or pros/cons that may warrant supporting multiple different approaches that you care to share?
AMD's ROCm just isn't there yet compared to Nvidia's CUDA. I tried it on Linux with my AMD GPU and couldn't get things working. AFAIK on Windows it's even worse.
CGNAT is very common in broadband ISPs, to the point that you’re more likely to be sharing an IP with other users than not unless you’re specifically paying more for a dedicated IP.
> It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first place.

I've been on the receiving end of this with the offender being a Tesla so many times that I figured it must be FSD.
I see this but usually only when someone who has never saught a diagnosis or have any shared experiences keeps referring to their supposed autism in a community with a lot of autistic people who will backlash.

Never seen a discussion go bad _about_ it.
The bump stock ban was struck down as exceeding statutory authority [*] in June.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

[*] - edited reason after rereading; this wasn’t 2nd amendment, but ATF misinterpretation of the law
Did you miss the point I made in my previous post?

Strychnine can be a poison or it can be a tonic. If you take 1mg, it'll improve your athletic performance. If you take 100mg, you'll probably die.

Acetaminophen is totally harmless in very small doses -- it's given to infants every day. Take too much, however, and it'll kill you. In adults, it's responsible for nearly half of all cases of acute liver failure in the US, and hundreds of deaths annually. Is it a poison?

I could go on all day. Almost every drug can be a "poison," and, at the same time, only very strong toxins with zero therapeutic window are inherently poisons. In the context of medicine, whether or not something is a poison hinges on the drug, the dose of that drug, its expected therapeutic effect (which is basically statistical), and the condition of the patient.

In cancer, where the condition of the patient is very unfortunate indeed, sometimes only very strong drugs with powerful side effects can provide any hope of eventual relief. Surely you see...

> What is the intent of the oath, if it's literal meaning is different from the intent?

...That the intent is to hopefully provide that relief.

> What does it mean to not poison people?

...That offering something that might cure or abate the patient's underlying condition is the very opposite of poisoning them.
Many interesting articles. It felt really modern to me, not what I would have expected from reading something from almost 100 years ago. I found the overly optimistic article on page 28 about longevity research especially amusing.
Geez.

Someone has no idea how modern human psychology is the only thing creating any of these super structures and their frailties.

We aren't ever going to be your super ant organism, get over it.
I knew most Smart TVs do these shenanigans, but computer monitors?
While it's technically possible, I wouldn't bet on it. Lots of people have launched startups that were a sure thing just to have them fail with no users. If you need money I would get a job.

Edit: if you need some demotivational material, you can check out https://www.failsights.com. A guy I know in the UK does it, and he covers startups that fail, often costing the founder significant amounts of money
> Is there more advanced stuff that's more complex that I just haven't seen?

Yes? I mean, it even has a system to install plugins made with WASM, from what I saw in the docs. I guess you could just use the basics and be okay with it.

For me, after years of tinkering with apps like Vim, Emacs, and AwesomeWM [1], I've developed a bit of PTSD over the amount of time these kinds of tools can take to configure and master [2]. Zellij feels like it belongs in this category of tools, and perhaps I'm overreacting or flinching. :-)

--

1: https://awesomewm.org/

2: I've benefitted a lot from being able to use vim key bindings with extensions in apps like VS Code and emacs key bindings on places and I'm somewhat glad I spent the time, though.
Specifically in the case of ar-15 pattern firearms, having the lower be "the firearm" is hilarious. the lower is a low precision, low pressure part. it is actually one of the easiest parts of the firearm to make. and because the lower is the controlled part, every other part, the ones that are hard to make, are readily available.
The symptoms cluster together and are related. Someone with sensory issues is also likely to have food aversions, for example.

It's also useful for diagnostics and treatment. It means you don't have to fight insurance as much or need rediagnostics to get needed therapies. I don't need to get my child with food aversions, speech delay, and sensory issues a new diagnosis for each just because some people with autism don't have those issues.
In terms of maximum available throughput it will obviously become greater. What's less clear is if the median and worst throughput available throughout a nation or the world will continue to become substantially greater.

It's simply not economical enough to lay fibre and put 5G masts everywhere (5G LTE bands covers less area due to being higher frequency, and so are also limited to being deployed in areas with a higher enough density to be economically justifiable).
You may be right, I’ve no idea. For me it’s the principle more than the specific amount. I can’t understand why a manufacturer is entitled to charge you to use something that you supposedly own. Car manufacturers charging to unlock seat heating is a good example.
Player controls a character that runs around putting ads on every screen and empty surface, gameplay is periodically interrupted by satirical EULA updates.
Even after everything that's gone wrong for them, Boeing is still a $140B enterprise value company, of which ~$55B alone is debt, so even if their stock drops by another 50% they're still worth somewhere close to $100B... I doubt it's going private any time soon
Growing up, I never used words or even sentences for thinking.

The abstract visualizations I could build in my mind where comparable to semi-transparent buildings that I could freely spin, navigate and bend to connect relations.

In my mid-twenties, someone introduced me to the concept of people using words for mental processes, which was completely foreign to me up to this point.

For some reason, this made my brain move more and more towards this language-based model and at the same time, I felt like I was losing the capacity for complex abstract thoughts.

Still to this day I (unsuccessfully) try to revive this and unlearn the language in my head, which feels like it imposes a huge barrier and limits my mental capacity to the capabilities of what the language my brain uses at the given time (mostly EN, partially DE) allows to express.
It's wild that 1gbit LAN has been "standard" for so long that the internet caught up.

Meanwhile, low-end computers ship with a dozen 10+Gbit class transceivers on USB, HDMI, Displayport, pretty much any external port except for ethernet, and twice that many on the PCIe backbone. But 10Gbit ethernet is still priced like it's made from unicorn blood.
You seem to be under the impression that there is a single, objective, universally agreed upon and understood definition of "public" in the context of social media platforms, as well as for "blocking," which all platforms have hitherto implemented and enforced in the same manner, with the same expectations and behaviors. This is not in fact the case, even if you put it in all caps. What "public" and "blocking" mean are implementation and terms of service dependent, they aren't legally binding terms of art.
The trend of hyping up papers too early on is eroding people's faith in science due to poor journalism failing to explain that this is theoretical. The outlets that do this should pay the price but they don't, because almost every outlet does it.
So because the Linux kernel isn’t as optimized for QUIC as it has been for TCP we shouldn’t design new protocols? Or it should be restricted to academics that had tried and failed for decades and would have had all the same problems even if they succeeded? And all of this only in a data center environment really and less about the general internet Quic was designed for?

This is an interesting hot take.
DVC is much more basic (feels more unix style), integrates really well with any simple CI/CD scripting with git versioning without the need to set up any additional servers.

And it is not either or. People actually combine MLFlow and SVC [0]

[0] https://data-ai.theodo.com/blog-technique/dvc-pipeline-runs-...
I thought QUIC was optimized for latency - loading lots of little things at once on webpages and video games (which send lots of tiny little packets - low overall throughput but highly latency senstive) and such. I'm not surprised that it falls short when overall throughput is the only thing being measured.

I wonder if this can be optimized at the protocol level by detecting usage patterns that look like large file transfers or very high bandwidth video streaming and swapping over to something less cpu intensive.

Or is this just a case of less hardware/OS level optimization of QUIC vs TCP because it's new?
If it was easy, everyone would do it
Autopilots aren't held to a zero error standard let alone a zero accident standard.
This also multiplies with hierarchy. In a blame-based culture, your manager is partly to blame for what you do. Their manager is partly to blame for what your manager does. Therefore everyone in a reporting chain is incentivized through fear to double check your work. That means more sign-off and review and approval processes so that people can avoid any kind of fuckup, and it also often means a toxic environment where everyone is spending at least 20% of their brain power worrying about internal optics which in my experience is not a good thing for people engaged in creative work.
No!

Not without guaranteed foolproof/hack-proof mechanisms in place that would ensure that I retained independence, autonomy and privacy to an extent vastly superior to that which I now have with my smartphone.

Without these guarantees we'd be living in a miserable dystopian world controlled by mega corporations, governments and hackers, and that would be far worse than anything Orwell ever conceived of.
Here in Australia there’s talk of upgrading the National Broadband Network to 2.5 Gbps to match modern consumer Ethernet and WiFi speeds.

I grew up with 2400 baud modems as the super fast upgrade, so talk of multiple gigabits for consumers is blowing my mind a bit.
> As for why the government might have an interest in what people can screen for, consider what happens if people start screening for aesthetic reasons. That could be strongly influence by fashion.

I don't think the government should have much say in people's fashion or aesthetic choices either. I'm sure that eventually designer babies will be a thing and when it happens parents will follow fads, but fads will come and go. A generation or two of more skinny people isn't going to be a problem as long as those people can continue to reproduce and odds are good that we're going to get even better at helping people have children when it's hard for them too.

The vast majority of parents will always favor having healthy and beautiful children no matter how fashionable sickly looking people becomes.
> I strongly believe we should be taxing the absolute shit out of people and working hard to flatten society.

I'm very curious about this mentality.. Do you beleive that meritocracy leads to better outcomes? Why do you think that the government is better positioned to allocate resources than the people who made the money?

If Elon would have been "Taxed the absolute shit out of" after his sell of Zip 2, he wouldn't have founded paypal. too much tax on the paypal sell, he couldn't invest in Tesla or start SpaceX.
Having access to wikipedia on a phone everywhere you go is what killed the bar conversation. No longer did you have to compare notes and argue over beers to remember trivia.

And in that same way, no longer do people have to ramble on into the aether in blog form to work through some shit. Now they can do that with ChatGPT and actually get responses to their thoughts in real time. And most of the time it's agreeable in tone.

Tech continues to change the world.

Maybe that isn't what is contributing to this particular blog dying, but I bet it's contributing to the larger community of blogs dying, which has probably created some inertia.
I don't think algorithms will change energy consumption. There is always max capacity needed in terms of computing. If tomorrow a new algorithm increases the performance 4 times, we will just have 4 times more computing.
I'm in my 40s and still ride the bike given to me by a friend in childhood as my primary bike. Everything besides the (slightly modified) steel frame has been swapped out numerous times.

I enjoy working on my bikes as they're fairly standard as far as parts go. Swapped the original 26" tires for 640Bs, removed front derailleur for more rear gears, changed hand bars, etc. The bike has grown and changed along with me through the years.
For sure it's appropriate!
Target audience? And what was conversion ratio?
> When you treat every negative outcome as a system failure, the answer is more systems.

Eloquently put. Also, likely false.

E.g., soft-realtime audio synthesis applications like Pure Data and Supercollider have had essentially the same audio engines since the 1990s. And users see any missed audio deadline as a negative outcome. More to the point-- for a wide array of audio synthesis/filtering/processing use cases, the devs who maintain these systems consider such negative outcomes as systemic failures which must be fixed by the devs, not the users. I can't think of a more precise example of "blameless culture" than digital artists/musicians who depend on these devs to continue fitting this realtime scheduling peg into the round hole that is the modern (and changing!) multitasking OS.

While there have been some changes over the last 30 years, in no way way have any of these applications seen an explosion in the number of systems they employ to avoid negative outcomes. There's one I can think of in Pure Data, and it's optional.

IMO, there's nothing noteworthy about what I wrote-- it's just one domain in probably many across the history of application development. Yet according to your "law" this is exceptional in the history of systems. That doesn't pass the smell test to me, so I think we need to throw out your ostensible law.
What!? Why would that be?
Fair enough, but then I want a way to penalize publishers for abusing clickbait. There is no "unread" button, and there is no way to unsubscribe to advertisement-based sites.

Even on sites that have a "Like / Don't like" button, my understanding is that clicking "Don't like" is a form of "engagement", that the suggestion algorithm are going to reward.

Give me a button that says "this article was a scam", and have the publisher give the advertisement money back. Of better yet, give the advertisement money to charity / public services / whatever.

Take a cut of the money being transfered, charge the publishers for being able to get a "clickbait free" green mark if they implement the scheme.

Track the kind of articles that generate the most clickbait-angry comment. Sell back the data.

There might a business model.
If we're talking institutional investors, logic suggests most of their votes would favour intermediate-term policies overall since their various interests encompass the whole breadth of short-, mid-, and long-term.
> literally no errors in its operation are tolerated

Aircraft designer here, this is not true. We typically certify to <1 catastrophic failure per 1e9 flight hours. Not zero.
This useful for large binaries?
I'm struggling to parse my comment in the way you seem to think it did. In what way did or would my comment restrict your ability to design new protocols? Please explain.
This article did not help me understand the Tech Right. Back in grad school, I was a Libertarian and active in the Libertarian party. I get the desire for freedom.

But the first example--Twitter amplifying views the tech right doesn't agree with--would not have been considered to be censoring free speech at all. We recognized the property rights of the owners of Twitter, they had the freedom to set whatever policies they want.

Similarly, companies had the freedom to choose to or choose not to advertise on Twitter. If a company doesn't want to do business with you, libertarians of my era would not have seen any problem with that.

Similarly, concerns with "woke" individuals or institutions, transgenderism, etc etc were entirely the concern of those individuals and institutions. We had no desire to change the laws to force governments to curtail individual choice, or to prevent institutions from setting their own admissions policies.

IMHO, the author's seeing Tech Right as being akin to libertarianism is a misunderstanding. The Tech Right does not want to give companies or individuals freedom of choice; rather they want to coerce individuals and institutions into doing what THEY think is right, moral, fair, etc. That isn't libertarianism, it is authoritarianism.
Podcast Archiver
The new MDN community page
Problem is: you’d still be stuck with a Hisense TV. They got planned obsolescence built in, most of their TVs power supplies go out after only 4 years or even less.
This model ("mnemonic") feels like a good tool to reason about your testing strategy. I ran across the "testing trophy" in the past, which really changed my thinking already, having been indoctrinated with the testing pyramid for such a long time before that. I wanted to share my favorite links about the testing trophy, for those interested:

https://tanzu.vmware.com/content/videos/tanzu-tv-springoneto...

https://kentcdodds.com/blog/the-testing-trophy-and-testing-c...
Not to be pedantic, but practically speaking it looks like there are two dimensions: fidelity and then the rest (the SMUR).
Amazon set a precedent with Kindle 3G keyboard edition many years ago; it had free worldwide cellular access for buying books and had an experimental web browser good enough for webmail. I never thought it was free from the carriers, I assume the bill went to Amazon.

If Vizio can’t arrange that alone, they could pool together many manufacturers and devices, offer the phone companies a copy of the data, or wait until the cost drops low enough.
how does it handle incremental changes? If it’s writing your entire repo on a loop, I could see why AWS would promote it.
> What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs

Not to over-hype LLMs, but I don't see why this results says this. AI doesn't need to do things the same way as evolved intelligence has.
This forum has been decreasing in quality since its inception, currently hovering at not-quite-reddit and that's with an organic audience of tech-adjacent posters. It would turn into a smoking hole in the ground if it somehow caught worldwide attention.

You're a fish swimming in fragile water you fail to appreciate.
I’m not sure of the utility:

Asking the LLM to do “reasoning” as a single intuitive step is fundamentally not assessing its potential to reason — and is unlike what we expect from humans where we insist they “show their work”. (As a math grader, I’ve penalized humans for doing what they’re asking of the LLM.)

If we don’t assess human reasoning in the manner they’re using (zero work shown and not establishing clear context), then I don’t see why it would be useful to assess LLM reasoning in that manner.

I think GSM-NoOp is a neat idea, but their testing methodology seems like a “gotcha” that wouldn’t be appropriate for human testing either.
Forget it, people want pill to get lean while eating twice a day at McDonald's.

Anything else is too much hassle, especially eating less.
The Sun Has Reached Its Solar Maximum and It Could Last for One Year
Well, one, because the headline isn't from the researchers, its from a popular press report (not even the one posted here, originally, this is secondary reporting of another popular press piece) and isn't what the paper claims so it would be odd for the paper's authors to conduct benchmarks to justify it. (And, no, even the "up to 95%" isn't from the paper, the cost savings are cited per operation depending on operation and the precision the operation is conducted at, are as high as 97.3%, are based on research already done establishing the energy cost of math operations on modern compute hardware, but no end-to-end cost savings claim is made.)

And, two, because the actual energy cost savings claimed aren't even the experimental question -- the energy cost differences between various operations on modern hardware have been established in other research, the experimental issue here was whether the mathematical technique that enables using the lower energy cost operations performs competitively on output quality with existing implementations when substituted in for LLM inference.
I'm going for a similar strategy, rather with exclusive national distributors, any chance I could know more about how exactly you executed your partnership's creation?

Like, cold outreach with a pitch then a doc saying more, what would you recommend to be in the doc now that you have that experience and how did you filter and find your potential partners?
Could be over email too if you prefer.
If I only earn when I treat, then I have an incentive to over-diagnose. Insurance thus forces me to document my diagnoses, and I spend much of my time on documentation and appealing denials.
Am I missing something you can though. That's actually kinda
how it is. I detest the phrase "high functioning" but that group is roughly your outside temperatures. You'll notice the difference between 30° and 80° and the same temperature 72° can feel different in the summer, winter, before it rains, when it's humid/dry but is still the same intensity. Then there's 1000° degrees where (and this is someone I know) he stripped naked, ran through downtown, and yelled at random restaurant workers calling them fascists for not lettting him in and then got
into a fight with the cops.

I think broadly that's what the "spectrum" characterization is meant to convey. And you should expect this, in code there's one happy path and a million different ways to err, some more catastrophic than others.