skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm all in favor of media that is social, from my friends and family. It's the perverse incentives that drive the walled gardens that I strongly object to.

Wherever possible, I do things so that I see what everyone wrote, in order, instead of letting an algorithm choose. However, this isn't enough, because the algorithm causes changes in what everyone else reads, and says.

I'm thinking that some sort of RSS ecosystem, with an RSS ONLY search engine, that you have to submit a feed to (instead of just crawling everything) is the way to go.

RSS is fine for holding on to existing sources, but you do need some form of discovery mechanism.

It would also be useful to add a mechanism for rating items in a feed, in arbitrary dimensions (spam, phishing,funny, false, political,adult et cetera). Everyone could collaborate on curation, and meta-curate as well
.
Agreed. Automatic lane changes are the only feature of enhanced autopilot that I think I'd be interested in, solely for this reason.
This feels mostly right to me. I think that you get into interesting things in the margins (is a memory read blocking? No, except when it is because it's reading from a memory-mapped file!) that make this definition not 100% production ready.

But ultimately if everyone in the stack agrees enough on a definition of blocking, then you can apply annotations and have those propagate.
I'm interpreting this as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek response to what Matt is doing. Matt has been trying to walk back all of his claims about open source and private equity and pretend it's all a trademark dispute. Well, he doesn't have a leg to stand on for that argument either.

And the whole trademark thing is... frankly just incredibly lame in the first place. "Going nuclear" and trying to launch a public crusade is one thing if there was an actual moral high ground at play. But even if you are in the right... average people do not care about your trademark claims. Do it with lawyers behind closed doors.

Attacking your userbase and buying out employees over... a trademark? Shutting your mouth was free, as is admitting you were wrong.
The idea that programming languages and natural languages are processed with the same wetware should be testable with something like the tests described in this submission.
I don't expect it to be true, but only expecting something is not science
I've got a deposit on the Dodge Charger Daytona EV
Fun to see neural nets pushed to such extremes, really enjoyed the post.

> The smallest models had to be trained without data augmentation, as they would not converge otherwise.

Was this also the case for the 2-bit model you ended up with?
> Linux ate the world largely because anyone could do what they wanted with it

Linux ate the server world because 1) it didn't have server licensing fees like Windows NT and proprietary Unix 2) its closest competitor (BSD) was mired in lawsuits and uncertainty until 1994, 3) commodity x86 servers ended up competing very well on price/performance, and 4) there were possibly other factors like GPL vs. BSD, bazaar vs. cathedral, etc.

On desktop and mobile, Linux did not exactly eat the world. Android and ChromeOS use Linux kernels however.
Good article. I'm both using git in CLI and graphic tools. But atm the thing that GUIs have and none of the cli is the navigable git graph. And I do like seeing the graph.
Probably autopilot, honestly.
A programming language has a ton more rules and way less ambiguity than a speaking language.
HN discussion can be found at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41839864 and contains archived versions of the post that has now been replaced.
When you look at how humans play chess they employ several different cognitive strategies. Memorization, calculation, strategic thinking, heuristics, and learned experience.

When the first chess engines came out they only employed one of these: calculation. It wasn't until relatively recently that we had computer programs that could perform all of them. But it turns out that if you scale that up with enough compute you can achieve superhuman results with calculation alone.

It's not clear to me that LLMs sufficiently scaled won't achieve superhuman performance on general cognitive tasks even if there are things humans do which they can't.

The other thing I'd point out is that all language is essentially synthetic training data. Humans invented language as a way to transfer their internal thought processes to other humans. It makes sense that the process of thinking and the process of translating those thoughts into and out of language would be distinct.
We should hold Pharma companies liable for every death. They make money off the success cases. Not doing so is another example of privatized profits and socialized risks/costs. Something like a program with reduced costs for those willing to sign away liability to help balance social good vs risk analysis
Read the site rules.

And also, of course some people would take that deal, and of course some others wouldn't. Your argument is moot.
In six generations of the iPad Pro, they’ve never used the numbering postfix or addition “max” to distinguish size.

They have the iPad Pro.

It comes in two sizes.

If they update it, it’s still just the iPad Pro (not iPad Pro Max). The only time it becomes “iPad Pro 13” (2022)” is when comparing with older versions. But in general, it’s just the iPad Pro.

So that’s the mindset my post takes.

Agree or disagree, it’s just my take
It's puzzling that in Automattic's reply to the cease and desist, they argued the listing of WPFusion was fair use. However, they copied it to their commercial Wordpress site and offered it as part of their "business plan" and also their paid premium plan.

Their letter makes it sound like they are "identifying" it, like a bird watcher pointing to a bird or something. But they copied, re-hosted it and are, or were, offering it as part of the value proposition for which people should pay. I'll admit I'm fuzzy on fair use as anything more than a general concept but it's hard for me to square that one.
When you make the cable do the conversion, you go from two expensive transceivers to six expensive transceivers. And if the cable breaks you need to throw out four of them. It's a poor replacement for direct fiber use.
> Dependency Dog: If you want to see a good example of a leaky abstraction, consider AppKit. Not only is AppKit thread-unsafe to the point where many functions can only safely be called on the main() thread, it forces you into Apple’s terrifying Objective-C model. Basically any program that wants to have working GUI on macOS now needs to interface in Apple’s way, with basically no alternatives.

Uhm, every OS that I've developed a GUI for has a similar limitation. The "only call this thing from this thread" is a well-known thread safety pattern. It might not be the pattern that this author prefers, but it is an industry standard pattern for UI.
I see your general point on needing language proficiency to program, but I think it's just a very low requirement.

Parent isn't saying they can't handle language (and we wouldn't have this discussion in the first place), just that they better handle complexity and structure in non verbal ways.

To get back to programming, I think this do apply to most of us. Most of us probably don't think in ruby or JS, we have a higher vision of what we want to build and "flatten" it into words that can be parsed and executed. It's of course more obvious for people writing in say basic or assembly, some conversion has to happen at some point.
This is more or less where I’ve landed lately. There are some things I really like in Svelte and Solid but not enough to overcome the massive ecosystem advantage React has.
Holy cow. Those things are still around?

I cut my teeth on them, about 40 years ago.
I haven't found it easy but my credentials... Could be better. I guess I'll have to pick s niche and really get to contributing to GitHub issues for it.
Organizations exist to remove moral culpability

Judge, Jury and Executioner
Firing Squad
Limited Liability Organisation

Humans like to sleep at night. An emergent property of our rule of law is that it exists in a way to reduce the moral culpability of any individual. A police man, a jury member, a judge, a inspector, an executioner, a jailer, they all exist in very neat boxes. These boxes allow them to sleep at night. Surely the Judge has few qualms going by the recommended mandatory minimum, after the jury, who is assured the judge will provide a fair sentence, and the executioner doubly so, with double the potential moral hazard, is certain at least two other parties have done their due diligence.

these systems prevent a single actor from acting. More like they allow a series of hand offs, so by the time the jailer is slamming the doors shut, they are bereft of any investment in the morality of the outcome

The firing squad, with seven guns, all line up, with just one loaded. The rest are blanks. Each man can sleep at night, regardless if the murdered man was surely deserving of death

large institutions, organizations and objects are scale are fully inhumane

I would rather have my jailer be my judge and my executioner be each man or woman on the jury. Isolating each of these things allows the individuals to have almost a powerless notion of 'completing our task'. As if all tasks completed would add up to a moral outcome

Should juries be formed to perform the whipping of an individual, the institutionalization in their own homes, the judge forced to starve a prisoner in his cell, i find the outcomes would be different
Mitochondria are all you need.

Should be able to go more efficient as the brain has other constraints such as working at 36.7 degrees C etc.
If there's one place where it's important to look stylish, it's when you're floating alone in outer space.
https://archive.ph/4yLNR
Autopilot has not been good. I have a cabin four hours from my home and I've used autopilot for long stretches on the highway. Some of the problems:

- Certain exits are not detected as such and the car violently veers right before returning to the lane. I simply can't believe they don't have telemetry to remedy this.

- Sometimes the GPS becomes miscalibrated. This makes the car think I'm taking an exit when I'm not, causing the car to abruptly reduce its speed to the speed of the ramp. It does not readjust.

- It frequently slows for "emergency lights" that don't exist.

- If traffic comes to a complete stop, the car accelerates way too hard and brakes hard when the car in front moves any substantial amount.

At this point, I'd rather have something less good than something which is an active danger. For all intents and purposes, my Tesla doesn't have reliable cruise control, period.

Beyond that, though, I simply don't have trust in Tesla software. I've encountered so many problems at this point that I can't possibly expect them to deliver a product that works reliably at any point in the future. What reason do I have to believe things will magically improve?
Nobody is interested in this because nobody wants less capex.
Then why have we been just a year or two away from actual working self-driving, for the last 10 years? If I told my boss that my project would be done in a year, and then the following year said the same thing, and continued that for years, that’s not what “achieving results” means.
I dislike the “i” prefix as it’s not used for more modern apple products and software. It feels like an awkward legacy thing that should be archived with skeuomorphism.
The key to human intelligence are concepts. We just use whatever language we choose to symbolize the concepts.
It was a few months ago
Who's the fourth horseman? Or did I miss a joke?
I'm building a React app from scratch and since I have control this time, I'm following a strict pattern: all data manipulation (∆) happens outside of React components, and the components themselves are as lightweight as possible.

I feel like this change suddenly makes everything about the React paradigm make sense - it can be just a view layer, and when used that way, it works great.

But I can't say I've ever worked on a React app that followed this this pattern before. Perhaps this is React's fault, or perhaps it would be the same with every framework once an app gets big enough (in my limited experience with Vue and Angular, those didn't seem any different from React in this regard).

(∆) By data, I mean the data that is fed into the app from the database. There's a certain amount of data generated internally by components, I write small functional functions at the top level or in the same folder as the components to handle that, but not placed inside the component itself, which is common practice but ends up creating these huge hard to parse components.*
> recommends changing lanes in preference to speeding up when a person is merging at too slow a speed

It doesn't matter, Tesla does neither. It always does the worst possible non-malicious behavior.
Godël covers how it’s leaky abstraction all the way down. If you consider a specific chunk of useful async code it still doesn’t compose enough of system to do much of use; it can’t answer many questions alone or any about itself. We never just have Map() but other functions. Its constant composition of symbolic logic we vaguely agree means something relative to an electrical system of specific properties.

A useful system is “blocked” on continuous development of that system.

These posts are too specific to code, miss the forest for a tree. A more generalized pedantry (like electrical state of systems rather than dozens of syntax sugars to simulate the same old Turing machine) and more frequent spot checks for stability and correctness relative to the ground truth would be great.

Way too much circumlocution around code. Map is not the terrain. I for one am having blast training a state generator that acts like a REPL and (for example) infers how to generate Firefox from a model of its code (among other things).

Excited about the potential to peel away layers of abstraction by generalizing the code with automated assistants.
Yes, that will really pull in the laymen...
Our meat is bought from the butcher, delivered to the chef so it comes not as an animal, but part of a tasty dish.

If we eat meat, we should kill it ourselves.
I’m sceptical of research based on a single diagnostic label - such research assumes that the boundary between that specific diagnosis, other diagnoses, and no diagnosis, is valid - while (at least some) research which tests that assumption rather than making it, by including cohorts with other diagnoses and also no diagnosis, ends up challenging that assumption - e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0631-2 - but if the challenge is correct, how much validity is there in research which relies on it?
I mean. The situation is actually very simple. WordPress.com has a “business/pro” plan that lets you install plugins. Lower level plans do not allow that. (WordPress.com was initially just a big multisite with everyone’s blogs running off the same WP instance. That would only work securely if you disable custom code.)

So this paid business plan is just normal WordPress hosting where you get plugins and advanced features like SSH access.

WordPress.com also has a re-skinned admin experience that is more modern looking than wp-admin.

Within the past couple years, WordPress.com extended that modern skin to the plugins page. It’s (as far as I know) data from the core plugin repo, just with a more modern look/experience. In fact, the WordPress.com code for this is totally open source.

I’m not 100% sure how that’s not fair use — any WP host could do that to the plugin page of WP that they install. Other hosts just tend to be more hands off.
"We know that this link includes material that is illegal to possess, and it is on your server."

"We don't know the contents of the files on our server, so we can't know that is was illegal"

"Fine, delete that file, and we won't charge you for possession this time. Now that you know your service is used for this illegal material, you need to stop hosting material like that."

"How, if we don't know what's in the file sent to our server?"

"... maybe don't take random files you don't know about, and share them on the open web with anonymous users?"
For those struggling with the above, I'd add one more step that I learnt here on HN - go to assistive settings and set your phone's screen to Black & White. On the iPhone, triple clicking the lock button will do this for you.

You would be amazed how much taking colour out of the equation lowers the addictiveness of the content. I guess the people that make poker/slot machines knew about this decades ago, but I think this one step helped me more than anything else.
I did a bunch of real world testing of my file transfer app[1]. Went in with the expectation that Quic would be amazing. Came out frustrated for many reasons and switched back to TCP. It’s obvious in hindsight, but with TCP you say “hey kernel send this giant buffer please” whereas UDP is packet switched! So even pushing zeroes has a massive CPU cost on most OSs and consumer hardware, from all the mode switches. Yes, there are ways around it but no they’re not easy nor ready in my experience. Plus it limits your choice of languages/libraries/platforms.

(Fun bonus story: I noticed significant drops in throughput when using battery on a MacBook. Something to do with the efficiency cores I assume.)

Secondly, quic does congestion control poorly (I was using quic-go so mileage may vary). No tuning really helped, and TCP streams would take more bandwidth if both were present.

Third, the APIs are weird man. So, quic itself has multiple streams, which makes it non-drop in replacement with TCP. However, the idea is to have HTTP/3 be drop-in replaceable at a higher level (which I can’t speak to because I didn’t do). But worth keeping in mind if you’re working on the stream level.

In conclusion I came out pretty much defeated but also with a newfound respect for all the optimizations and resilience of our old friend tcp. It’s really an amazing piece of tech. And it’s just there, for free, always provided by the OS. Even some of the main issues with tcp are not design faults but conservative/legacy defaults (buffer limits on Linux, Nagle, etc). I really just wish we could improve it instead of reinventing the wheel..

[1]: https://payload.app/
"We" started from you making outlandish claims about HTTP/2 and immediately pivoting to a new complaint when rebutted rather than admit you were wrong.

Yes, HTTP/2 is not really complex as far as these things go. You just keep making that assertion as if it was self-evident, but it isn't. Like, can you maybe just name the parts you think are unnecessary complex? And then we can discuss just how complex they really are, and what the benefits are.

(Like, sure, having header compression is more complicated than not having it. But it's also an amazingly beneficial tradeoff, so it can't be what you had in mind.)

> I believe there are tradeoffs. I don't believe that HTTP/2 met that tradeoff between complexity vs benefit.

So why did Firefox implement it? Safari? Basically all the production level web servers? Google didn't force them to do it. The developers of all of that software had agency, evaluated the tradeoffs, and decided it was worth implementing. What makes you a better judge of the tradoffs than all of these non-Google entities?
https://archive.is/SvuYi
just in case
True. A laptop power pack wattage is probably pretty much unchanged over 30 years for example.
I'm glad for you, I guess.

I'll say the autopark was kind of neat, but parking has never been something I have struggled with.
I've seen countless articles like this one, and what irks me most about them is the almost exclusive focus by their authors on these people and their ailments. It's like the long-time residents of these tiny communities--and the effects the influx of these people are having on them--are an afterthought not worth considering.
These days, passive cables that support ultra bandwidth are down to like .5 meters.

For anything that wants 10Gbps lanes or less, copper is fine.

For ultra bandwidth, going fiber-only is a tempting idea.
No. I’m not sure why I’d want to do anything to erase fond memories.
Does language actually 'help', or is it just the best we have? e.g. would running a thought through language have any benefit in a world where telepathy existed
Oh huh interesting!! I tried google drive but not on android. I will try that, thanks!
FutureSDR – Rust SDR Runtime
Why would I be supportive of a system that has actively scared me for objectively scary reasons? Even if it's the worst reason, it's not a bad reason.
WordFusionEnginePressCom.org
I had to switch to Vue from React after switching jobs, and I gotta say, Vue is so much better in almost every aspect.

I won't choose React for my own projects again.
This sounds familiar. We know React, and while I’d dearly love more automatic performance, it’s not worth introducing a whole bunch of new complexity to do that.
It's better to think of "async" as indicating that a code will do something that blocks, and we're allowing our process to manage its blocking (via Futures) instead of the operating system (via a context switch mid-thread.)

I would argue a few things:

First: You need to be aware, in your program, of when you need to get data outside of your process. This is, fundamentally, a blocking operation. If your minor refactor / bugfix means that you need to add "async" a long way up the stack, does this mean that you goofed on assuming that some kind of routine could work only with data in RAM?

Instead: A non-async function should be something that you are confident will only work with the data that you have in RAM, or only perform CPU-bound operations. Any time you're writing a function that could get data from out of process, make it async.
The Network tab in the Chrome console allows you to degrade your connection. There are presets for Slow/Fast 4G, 3G, or you can make a custom present where you can specify download and upload speeds, latency in ms, a packet loss percent, a packet queue length and can enable packet reordering.
Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspection
Cuz she maybe isn’t to everyone’s liking which is why we get a “choice”. I say “choice” cuz a 2 party system of handpicked elites isn’t really a choice, but I guess it’s better than a dictatorship.
This trick is used a ton when doing hand calculation in engineering as well. It can save a lot of work.

You're going to have tolerance on the result anyway, so what's a little more error. :)
Because you imply in that comment that it should be someone other than Google developing new protocols while in another you say that the protocols are already too complex implying stasis is the preferred state.

You’re also factually incorrect in a number of ways such as claiming that HTTP/2 was a Google project (it’s not and some of the poorly thought out ideas like push didn’t come from Google).

The fact of the matter is that other attempts at “next gen” protocols had taken place. Google is the only one that won out. Part of it is because they were one of the few properties that controlled enough web traffic to try something. Another is that they explicitly learned from mistakes that the academics had been doing and taken market effects into account (ie not requiring SW updates of middleware boxes). I’d say all things considered Internet connectivity is better that QUIC got standardized. Papers like this simply point to current inefficiencies of today’s implementation - those can be fixed. These aren’t intractable design flaws of the protocol itself.

But you seem to really hate Google as a starting point so that seems to color your opinion of anything they produce rather than engaging with the technical material in good faith.
I love the setting of Rimworld but cannot get past how dumb the pawns are. As in, it requires so much human micromanagement to make sure they occasionally clean, haul, and tend to the guy who is 1h away from dying rather than the one who has an scratch