skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's so much good stuff here, and I agree it's an important message for you to get across.

I think trying to convey these ideas through a quantitative benchmark result (particularly a benchmark which has a clear common interpretation that you're essentially redefining) risks 1) misleading readers, and 2) failing to convey the rich and detailed analysis you've included here in your HN comment.

I'd suggest you restrict your quantitative PubMedQA analysis to report previously published numbers for other models (so you're not in the role of having to defend choices that might cripple other models) or a very straightforward log probs analysis if no outside numbers are available (making it clear which numbers you've produced vs sourced externally). Then separately explain that many of the small models with high benchmark scores exhibit poor instruction following capabilities (which will not be a surprise for many readers, since these models aren't necessary tuned or evaluated for that), and you can make the point that some of them are so poor at instruction following that they're very hard to deploy in contexts that require instruction following; you could even demonstrate that they're only able to follow an instructions to "conclude answers with 'Final Answer: [ABCDE]'" on x% of questions, given a standard prompt that you've created and published. In other words, if it's clear that the problem is in instruction following, analyze that.

(Not all abstraction pipelines leveraging an LLM need it to exhibit instruction following, and in your own case, I'm not sure you can claim that your model follows instructions well on the basis of its PubMedQA or abstraction performance, since you've fine tuned on prompt,answer pairs in both domains. You'd need a different baseline for comparison to really explore this claim.)

Then I'd suggest creating a detailed table of wrong/surprising stuff that frontier models don't understand about healthcare data, but which your model does understand. Categorize them, show examples in the table, and explain them in narrative much like you've done here.
Their irresponsible behavior says enough. Even if they fix all their technical issues, they are not driven by a safety culture.

The first question that comes to their minds is not "how can we prevent this accident?" but it's "how can we further inflate this bubble?"
Please read more about the space race. Soviets were kicking our ass for a while until we got into high gear. And there was no rich billionaire, or entire govt institutions to help with technical debt
Use a generic function signature that takes in a `void*`. Inside the specialized function bodies, cast the void* to an `actual_type*`, then dereference.
Back when the rat was in effect, the rat would always index the splogs I made but I could never get it to index my non-spam blogs.
Could you explain more? I do not understand how you can buy coins for free by paying coins for “weights” (what are these weights? What are they made from?). Also, what is the use for this? To check of your coins are real? Calibrate your coin scale?
As things stand currently, it would be unacceptably intrusive as you have to collect information on all shoppers whether they purchase or not.

Do the pre-work first, and then make a rule about displaying the final price.
Thanks for the insight. Just to be clear, writing documentation after the fact with lots of code snippets is obviously good and is standard practice.

You can take the next step and ensure that the entirety of the code is in your documentation as snippets. This usually doesn’t make much sense, there’s lots of code that it is not worth explaining in a literate style. And what’s the point of the documentation containing the whole program if it is written after the fact and you already have a standard more maintainable codebase as the ground truth? The fact that your literate code didn’t get touched says a lot.

To me the name Literate Programming implies that you write the code in a literate style from the outset. If you make it literate after the fact it is just normal documentation with snippets isn’t it?
I would think that Requirements Engineering would be the ideal prep for AI code generation. A natural language counterpart to (e.g.) TLA+.

Is this too damned obvious? Or am I missing something?
This is also true for the large NORAD screens in WarGames (1983).
> people with autism have often a very high IQ

I don’t think that’s necessarily true even if we only consider those with high-functioning autism (and the average is significantly lower if we include everyone).

Some people with autism have a very high IQ, just like some people who don’t have it.

e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9058071/
> I do believe language adds to the power of thinking; while (other) animals can of course solve simple problems without language, language permits us to define layers of abstractions (by defining and sharing new concepts) that goes beyond simple, non-linguistic thoughts.

Based on my experience with toddlers, a rather smart dog, and my own thought processes, I disagree that language is a fundamental component of abstraction. Of sharing abstractions, sure, but not developing them.

When I'm designing a software system I will have a mental conception of the system as layered abstractions before I have a name for any component. I invent names for these components in order to define them in the code or communicate them to other engineers, but the intuition for the abstraction comes first. This is why "naming things" is one of the hard problems in computer science—because the name comes second as a usually-inadequate attempt to capture the abstraction in language.
Boeing is failing because it's a private company with no market consequences for doing badly and no domestic competition. Those are not caused by self-regulation they are caused by bad economic policy. Regulation is a part of the story but the rot at Boeing started long before the self-regulation did. Their quality and ability to compete at a profit has been dropping for longer than the regulatory issues.
Less Carbon, more carbon; the only thing we're really sure of is that it ain't right the way it is now.
Yes it makes sense that we'd see arguments like this on a polarized issue. But these discussions end up in hypothetical territory quickly. Did we do a survey of nationwide opiate addicts that showed they'd self limit to less potent alternatives if they were legal? OR would they enjoy unfettered access to their drug of choice so they can use much more of it? Hard to avoid "just so" stories around all this.
LikeRemote may require users to pay in order to use the service.
Show HN: I made an AI-powered dictation tool
It's very easy. I'm using the cheapest weighted vest that I could find and it came with blue bags that I've just filled with coins. You don't really need straps to make the weights tight because the money just kind of spreads inside of the bag and doesn't move at all once it's there.

It's on my todo list to 3d print some containers to replace the bags with actual "money rolls" so that I can remove them more easily.
This is a good question that probably deserves more thought and effort than I can apply to it. I would say that when HN was at its peak, the overall vibe of the commentary reflected the perspective of people who people who built things, while the overall vibe today reflects the perspective of people who like to go online and bitch about things.

There’s a famous email exchange—I’m sure you’re familiar with it—where someone writes to Steve Jobs complaining about a bunch of things Apple was doing, and they go back and forth a few times, and Steve Jobs finally gets annoyed and writes back, "By the way, what have you done that's so great? Do you create anything, or just criticize others’ work and belittle their motivations?" HN these days is absolutely full of people who don’t seem to do anything but criticize others’ work and belittle their motivations.

I’m not saying that HN never had unfair criticisms in the good old days—the “middlebrow dismissal” has been a trope here for a very long time—but we didn’t use to have entire threads filled with nothing but middlebrow dismissals. And we also had tons of people criticizing Apple, but then again most of them were complaining that Apple was actively interfering with their attempts to create things (e.g. the uproar over arbitrary and unfair App Store moderation policies).

The clearest indicators of decline to me have been the signs of evaporative cooling. Maybe I’m falling into a different common fallacy by saying this, but I do think HN was a lot better when the old regulars—yourself included—were more active. I don’t exactly blame you guys, but it is an indicator.
Weren’t these all Hasina’s judges?
Solid Queue Dashboard
This sounds like a language education issue. It's easier to understand a language than to express yourself in it, so possibly Germans on average have good enough knowledge of English to understand you but not enough to adequately reply in English. Conversely, Denmark has some of the highest English literacy in Europe.
Ditto. The problem is self-reinforcing: people don’t read docs because the docs are bad… we don’t spend time on docs because no one reads them…
This has nothing to do with the comment you quoted from my post.
Obviously yeah, but I do think his odd fervor in this allows us to speculate that there are some threats to his businesses that are not well understood publicly, and that would be solved by becoming a sort of American oligarch.
You give bills and get pennies.
This paper seems to be neglecting to the effect of latency and packet loss. From my understanding, the biggest issue with TCP is the window sizing that gets cut every time a packet gets lost or arrives out of order, thus killing throughput. The latency makes that more likely to happen and makes the effect last longer.

This paper needs multiple latency simulations, some packet loss and latency jitter to have any value.
The coins are weights, the actual money is paper or electronic money.
Tesla still gets tax credits and NEVI funds.

One side accuses govt of favoritism and corruption and are trying hard to make that true. The truth is most people try to do the right thing.
I recently took a 3000 mile road trip on 12.5.4.1 on a mix of interstate, country roads, and city streets and there were only a small handful of instances where I felt like FSD completely failed. It's certainly not perfect, but I have never had the same failures that the original thread poster had.
It's probably worth noting that there's a lot of discussion about challenges reproducing the workflow of this paper, and that as-described it seems to suffer from data leakage, so much so that you can replace sections of their algorithm with random initialisation and get at least as good results. See, e.g.:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/C8CFF9DB8F11A586CBF9BD53402...

Having been on both sides of the reviewing process, it seems incredibly difficult to get good peer review of data-intensive studies in medicine, as few people have the time to really dig into the detail of these models.
Haven’t used blue sky much. Do they have a bot problem like Twitter?
Long term probably yes. Once it becomes a monopoly (I guess it already is really) but if it is one for too long it will get just as sloppy as Boeing. Remember Boeing used to actually be good.

I doubt Boeing could ever be that competition though.
That absolute -0.1 % is 10 % of where I'd like my HbA1c to move to! Nothing to sneer at.
fuck off there sexy so i love watching them strip i wanna have sex qith them
The brain is faster than the Chinese room, but other than that, yes, that's the so-called systems reply; Searle's response to it (have the person in the room memorize the instruction book) is beside the point, as you can teach people to perform all sorts of algorithms without them needing to understand the result.

As many people have pointed out, Searle's argument begs the question by tacitly assuming that if anything about the room understands Chinese, it can only be the person within it.
From getting JTAG on the iPhone 15 to hacking Apple's USB-C Controller [video]
I remember using that package (and it's compatible .NET implementation) ages ago, glad to see it's still around and being maintained.

I remember testing out various libraries (not sure if a proper JSON Patch library was already around back then, looking at the spec I think it should...) and picking it over all the others because it handled complex objects and arrays way better than all the others.

Would also love to see how it compares.
Sadly this is wishful thinking. But I must push back against the “corruption”. NASA cannot allocate its own resources by design. It’s all from congress who happily will pour money into jobs in their districts.
But if you want entities like SpaceX, all those other people have to be able to invest in them. That's not the case today.

I think we should loosen up those rules so they can, but that does mean some people who aren't rich or sophisticated will lose their money on ill-advised startup investments.
This seems wrong, since you can't push transactionally + consistently in S3.

They address this directly in their section on concurrent writes: https://github.com/awslabs/git-remote-s3?tab=readme-ov-file#...

And in their design: https://github.com/awslabs/git-remote-s3?tab=readme-ov-file#...

But it seems like this is just the wrong tool for the job (hosting git repos).
I'm just here to point out that since Python 3.10, you don't need to import anything from typing anymore, you could use the built-in types for annotation:

from math import prod
from itertools import combinations

def find_products(k=3, N=108) -> set[tuple[int, ...]]:
"""A list of all ways in which `k` distinct positive integers have a product of `N`."""
factors = {i for i in range(1, N + 1) if N % i == 0}
return {ints for ints in combinations(factors, k) if prod(ints) == N}

find_products()
Should we require Professional Engineers to sign off on such projects the same way they are required to for other safety critical infrastructure (like bridges and dams)? The Professional Engineer that signed off is liable for defects in the design. (Though, of course, if the design is not followed then liability can shift back to the company that built it)
If you are Italian, you can easily associate the "pezzotto" sound with the dialect of Napoli area. Chianti come from Toscana.
The risk of injury while walking in a weighted vest is not much higher than walking normally. A very high weight of vest is probably ill advised, but walking on a very flat/regular surface for long periods is far more damaging than walking with a little extra weight. Weighted bracelets/limb weights are dangerous though, and shouldn't be used unless you know what you're doing and take care not to move too quickly and put excess strain on joints.
> it crowds out more nuanced understanding. Like even the word "spectrum", trying to add some depth to the pop culture model, is really just a fancy word for a single scalar.

I just disagree with this take.

For people with autism, the broad criteria help to serve as guideposts for common experiences shared by those with autism. When doing treatment, everyone gets into the specifics of what autism means for the individual.

What you are complaining about is similar to someone complaining that cancer is too broad of a term. After all, the word cancer describes a spectrum of mutations and symptoms everywhere in the body.
"These figures are drawn from data provided by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, which regularly updates the public on the state of its military equipment."

Bulgarian Military was the first site to report the sending of NK troops to Ukraine, quickly dismissed here as not possibly true. Now known as very much true. Open your mind...

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/19/world/video/north-korea-u...
Sounds like it is more a framework than a tool.

Not everybody wants a framework.
I'll agree on the Microsoft account, but the other issues are mostly nothingburgers.

> Inability to remove Internet Explorer

Just don't click on it, problem solved. IE is just a thin veneer in any case. The engine behind IE is an OS component that third-party programs can rely on, removing that could break those.

> Edge is reinstalled every Windows update

Annoying but again just don't click on it, problem solved. At least for Edge they've split out the engine into WebView2 which programs can distribute themselves. So instead of a single OS component you now can have several programs all bringing their own WebView2 version, progress! Sure some might opt for the evergreen version but devs have an option of bundling a private version.

> Why the heck am I prompted each time I open an app to let it do things

Better ask the program. Or do you mean UAC? In that case either turn it down, or identify which program isn't playing by the rules and install that in a separate directory.

You mention games and a lot of games, especially older, tend to update files in their install directory. This is a problem if you have multiple users using the same program. It's also a security concern if a regular user can modify the installation.

Easiest way to avoid the UAC prompts in those cases is just to install games in a directory that's not under "Program Files" or similar. For example I configure Steam to install all games in C:\Games.

> My personal Desktop, Documents, etc were all moved to be subdirectories of "OneDrive"

Pretty sure you confirmed you wanted it to do that. If you had instead declined when asked, it wouldn't have done that. Now granted, I think the dialog doesn't explain the ramifications well enough. But on all my various Windows devices I've just declined and the personal folders have stayed put.

> Just right click the Window in the taskbar, select "Move", then press "Shift + UP", FIXED!

Similar on Windows, usually Windows + arrow keys can bring the window back in a sensible position, alternatively right click on the window thumbnail when hovering on the taskbar, and click move. Then use arrow keys.

I've been a Windows user since 3.11 days, and there are several things I don't particularly like in recent Windows releases. The above are mere quibbles in comparison IMHO.

Reduction of configurability, removal of useful features without replacements, enforcing TPM rendering huge swathes of perfectly fine computers without support as they sunset the version without that requirement... just to mention a few that came to mind now.
This is known as 'optimistic locking'. But I wouldn't call it a distributed locking mechanism.
I hope IA has engaged law enforcement.
Depends on what your tolerances are. If you only need to be within a mm a coin is going to beat that by an order of magnitude.

We use a pack of cigarettes as a gauge for one of the jobs we do. Quick, (not so) cheap, and readily available. May have to standardize on a vape though in the near future.
that's just bad ux
All possible tabs exist in an open/not open state and the wave function collapses once you open a tab. Instant internet using your multiverse modem!
It's still the government running the company if they own all the shares. So what's your point?
Came here to say something similar. You also notice that before any verbal thoughts arise, there are "primordial" thoughts, which are "felt" (sometimes as emotions.) These can instigate huge chains of verbal, visual, auditory thought, in turn generating more emotions, causing a (occasionally vicious) feedback loop.
Not at any level? My imagination is reeling—I’m thinking of Cold War era Spy Novels describing siloed groups who don’t know what any other group is doing. Each is laser focused on their own tasks and everything is a tactical choice. It’s the great reveal in the Movie adaptation when the separate threads come together and the grand national strategy is revealed. And now I’m also imagining the comedy versions of this genre, where the reveal has no purpose.

At some level there is _structure_, and it can be communicated. If for no other reason than to validate the evident structure in code.

> “…sitting at the same table as the almighty coding knights? […] Remove documentation…and your products cease to exist, their inner workings left to the imagination of…”

The author finished the sentence with “users”, but who are they talking about? Those coding knights and their imagination which sort of parallels my Spy genre example.

That said, the article seems a bit naive about the depth and breadth—reads like Ra-Ra.
This is a bit of a misunderstanding. A single out of order packet will not cause a reduction; tcp uses three duplicate acks as a loss signal. So the packet must have been reordered to arrive after 3 later packets.

Latency does not increase the chances of out of order packet arrival. Out of order packet arrival is usually caused by multipath or the equivalent inside a router if packets are handled by different stream processors (or the equivalent). Most routers and networks are designed to keep packets within a flow together to avoid exactly this problem.

However, it is fair to say that traversing more links and routers probably increases the chance of out of order packet delivery, so there's a correlation in some way with latency, but it's not really about the latency itself - you can get the same thing in a data center network.
That is a fair point, or two. My frustration with studies of this type is that they provide very little guidance with respect to how to prevent a condition, how to fix a condition, or how to manage a condition. Nor, do they give me much hope that even a long way down the road will they do so. My focus, because of a family situation, is management. Whether there's one type, four types, or more than a thousand types is, to me, immaterial. Even if this study was a complete genetic explanation of the mechanism, it wouldn't help, because I don't work with genes, I work with gene expressions, manifestations and symptoms.
> If you actually take the effort to write down your thoughts in text, you end up filtering for people intelligent and diligent enough to choose the written word

Interesting point. But, ChatGPT/AI summarization and Tiktok-style speech-to-text that the "Eternal September" perferrers are being trained to eat up.

What is your thoughts on that altering the dynamic?
I based off someone's quick notes and made it a ready to use script, in case it's useful for anyone:

https://github.com/j1elo/slow-network

Your article is very interesting and details some practical use cases, thanks! I will read it to see if there are any new ideas to incorporate.
Irreproducible Results (2011)
That may be true for the "what", but certainly not for the "why".
Language is infinitely productive. Using a finite number of sounds or symbols, humans can produce unlimited utterance chains to communicate novel and complex ideas.

Think about it: almost every nontrivial conversation you’ve had or comment/blog/article/book you’ve read constituted an entirely new (to you) utterance which you understood and which enabled you to acquire new ideas and information you had previously lacked. No non-human animals have demonstrated this ability. At best they are able to perform single-symbol utterances to communicate previously-understood concepts (hungry, sad, scared, tired) but are unable to combine them to produce a novel utterance, the way a child could tell you about her day:

“Today the teacher asked me to multiply 3 times 7 and I got the answer right away! Then Bobby farted and the whole class was laughing. At lunch I bit my apple and my tooth felt funny. I think it’s starting to wiggle! Sally asked me if I could go to her house for a sleepover but I said I had to ask mom and dad first.”