skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Both cases are the result of library/runtime/env designer not thinking about the crowd. If csv.esc(s) and json(x) were available right away, without imports even, you wouldn’t have to decide whether it’s fine. Fmt should just have %j.

Specifically json and unjson I make globally available in all my projects. If I used csv more often than once in a decade, I’d have csvesc(s) too.

Sometimes you read some stdlib reference and wonder what they were thinking with things like System.out.println and without one-line one-arg readtext(), tojson(), fetch() and so on. It’s like a kitchen with all appliances still in boxes and all utensils in a tight vacuum cover. Everything is there, but preparation friction makes it absolutely unusable.
Related Astronomers Push FCC to Halt New Starlink Launches, Citing Environment (19 points, 7 hours ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41948049
In general, acidic or basic foods are very safe from bacterial contamination standpoint. Soda is very acidic (due to all that dissolved carbon dioxide).

It's not that it doesn't get bacteria (they live everywhere), but it's unlikely to get pathogenic bacteria. This makes sense, a highly acidic environment is very different from a human body.

That's why foods such as milk, ice cream, potato or egg salad, are the most dangerous from the bacterial contamination standpoint.
I like to think of words having two layers of meaning: The first is closer to what we think of as The Meaning and is an extrinsic referent, such as a physical item, some cultural custom, or an emotion or feeling. The second layer is nuance, i.e. the cloud of homonymic overtones, cultural and historical associations, and habitual usages that color the first meaning.

The second layer controls things like formality register (e.g. business languages vs. informal vernacular), mood, jokes, and all the elements of communication that go beyond just base information transfer.

In my experience when translating between languages, it's virtually impossible to capture the subtleties of the second layer of meaning. You always have to make some concessions, pertinent to the intent and goals of the communication at hand. E.g. translating a joke in a business exchange will often choose different translations for the same words used in a more brass-tacks context.

Anyway, all that is to say that, sure, "passion" or "purpose" are perfectly fine translations of ikigai (生き甲斐), but they simultaneously connote very different things. Passion invokes images of strong emotions, beliefs, or some fire under the feet. Purpose potentially conjures ideas of necessity or philosophical meaning. None of these things are really suggested by the Japanese word.

More generally, the the "gai" suffix (甲斐) is used on verbs to mean something like "to be worth doing" or "to have been worth doing". In particular, it's often used to refer to the particular result or effect that makes the thing worth doing. In the case of "ikigai", we combine it with "iki", from the verb "to live" (生きる), which gives us something like "the thing that makes life worth living".

The main feeling difference between "ikigai" and "purpose" or "passion", IMHO, is that the Japanese is light, personal, and something that doesn't need significance beyond personal enjoyment, pleasure, or values.

</2cents>
The article should be titled "Life Before the Invention of CAD." There were lots of CAD applications before AutoCAD, and plenty since, as well.
The powerful by definition control us. Otherwise they wouldn't be powerful. I don't see your point. To me the notion of trying to be neutral seem to give the powerful less power than being "political".

I.e. it is better if the puppets think they are living in a fair democracy, since they might act like they do, decreasing the power of the puppet masters. The opposite is concepts like the series "House of cards", that instruct people to play the game and be "political".

I define "neutral" as loosely "trying to not be biased".

Like, for example, pretending until it became way over the top too embarrassing that the president is mentally fit for another 4 year of any work, is a good example of being "political" about it.

Gaslighting that backfired badly.
> I wonder what would be an effective countermeasure against stuff like this.

You withdraw all operations from within that country and you don't comply.
>Redact-A-Chat is an online chat platform where every word can only be used once a day.
> Correct C is not actually hard to write.

I would advise to you not say such blatantly false things. You paint yourself either as a liar or as unqualified. C has been proven time and time again to be almost impossible to write correctly. Even top tier programmers like djb cannot write safe C.
I've yet to see an argument against this not delivered in bad faith.

If the publication in question was the NY Post, Washington Times, or another center-right newspaper, the very same group currently having a collective meltdown on social media would be praising them with an equally melodramatic "saving democracy" or some other manufactured phrase du jour.
Reminds me of hackernews commenters that don't read the article and only read the headline
Said it before here and I’ll say it again. Now your #1 exposure is “luxury vinyl flooring” every hotel room is going to this as well as a ton of homes
Their magic number is 1:3 polymers to stone for that product to work
You’re absorbing it through your feet, luckily most people in the US wear shoes and slippers in the home. But it still releases up to 3% of its polymer volume into your home air within the first year.

In the south where it’s hotter, the process accelerates proportional to heat.
The government of Canada is really missing out by not selling this bill as a reason to keep them in power
I take issue with the phrasing, but not with the meaning, especially with the historical context.

More or less: that thing which you seem to have an overriding passion for, which usually leads to talent. Even if it doesn't, though, it's still something that defines a significant part of your life and character, and that is not to be ignored.
He lies about absolutely everything, so everything he says should be met with skepticism.
I liked perl's taint mode. It seemed pretty good against the "oops, forgot to sanitise this and you used it as output" situation that probably accounts for a lot of these issues. It won't force you to correctly sanitise, but assuming you have that capability it lets you know about gaps so you can plug them.
Maybe, but packet loss isn't the only problem. You'll also want to preserve latency (TCP has a pretty sophisticated latency estimation mechanism), for example.

Some middleboxes will also do terrible things to your TCP streams (restrictive firewalls only allowing TCP are good candidates for that), and then all bets are off.

If you're really required to use TCP, the "fake TCP" approach that others in sibling threads have mentioned seems more promising (but again, beware of middleboxes).
What I find frustrating is that this isn't just about pedantry - you can't meaningfully audit an "open-source" model for security or reliability problems if you don't know what's in the training data. I believe that should be the "know it when I see it" test for open-source: has enough information been released for a competent programmer (or team) to understand the how the software actually works?

I understand the analogy to other types of critical data often not included in open-source distros (e.g Quake III's source is GPL but its resources like textures are not, as mentioned in the article). The distinction is in these cases the data does not clarify anything about the functioning of the engine, nor does its absence obscure anything. So by my earlier smell test it makes sense to say Quake III is open source.

But open-sourcing a transformer ANN without the training data tells us almost nothing about the internal functioning of the software. The exact same source code might be a medical diagnosis machine, or a simple translator. It does not pass my smell test to say this counts as "open source." It makes more sense to say that ANNs are data-as-code programming paradigms, glued together by a bit of Python. An analogy would be if id released its build scripts and announced Quake III was open-source, but claimed the .cpp and .h files were proprietary data. The batch scripts tell you a lot of useful info - maybe even that Q3 has a client-server architecture - but they don't tell you that the game is an FPS, let alone the tricks and foibles in its renderer.
If it were the editor's opinion, how is it any different from the opinion of anybody off the street? Why do the editors get the newspaper platform to publish their opinions?
I don't know that COVID is a great example. The people most upset about 'authoritarian' abuses by gov't during COVID are themselves extremely authoritarian. Just about different topics.

I otherwise agree that authoritarianism is on the rise, across the board.
No, thanks. People are destructive to the planet in every way possible, and we don't need more. It's not as if we'll solve the mysteries of existence twice as fast by having twice as many people. If anything, having double the consequential pollution will halve the speed of discovery.
To be fair, OSI approval also deters marketing teams from watering down the definition of open source into worthless feelgood slop.
Dividing the world into normies and others is a very odd way to characterise widespread adoption of anything. I hesitate to use the neckbeard word, but it's got overtones.

There are as many usefully curated sites, as sites where state actors curate content to hide the reptile led barcode truth from the normies.
TDH doesn't actually change the paths used, it only makes determining them more efficient. There's different names for this family of related techniques. There's an unfinished article (not mine) talking more about this here: https://www.redblobgames.com/pathfinding/heuristics/differen...
>Why do the editors get the newspaper platform to publish their opinions?

Because they work for the newspaper and that's part of their job?
> I believe that should be the "know it when I see it" test for open-source: has enough information been released for a competent programmer (or team) to understand the how the software actually works?

Training data simply does not help you here. Our existing architectures are not explainable or auditable in any meaningful way, training data or no training data.
>I lead citing your response as being something I don’t understand at a social-political level. From where does a company derive its power and authority to TLS inspect aka spy on its employees when it is by and large illegal to wiretap employees outside of specific allowed circumstances? Why is this legal and why do we broadly accept it?

They're both legal with proper notices. It's illegal to wiretap phones, but if you slap a "this conversation is being recorded for quality control purposes" it's suddenly legal. The same exists for TLS inspection. It requires the company's root certificate to be installed, which typically is only done on corporate machines. Such machines usually have a login banner along the lines of "this machine is for work purposes only and all usage is monitored".
One party wants to end _all_ abortions, _including_ those that might be medically necessary. They are pro-forced-birth, and pro-killing-women.

You’ve got the position of the other party wrong as well, but I’m not going to even bother correcting that because if you don’t find the above completely vile there’s no helping you.
meh... i guess it proves if you take words away people cant chat?
Scalable watermarking for identifying LLM outputs
that is a really great encoder trick. I wouldn't have thought it was that good, but it clearly is.
AI #87: Staying in Character
The funniest thing about this (they also did this to my company) is that the name masking applies absolutely everywhere. So, for example, if they send you important mail about needing to take some regulatory action, the mail arrives addressed to 'NAME AVAILABLE ON REQUEST FROM COMPANIES HOUSE]' on the outside of the envelope, and inside it has a letter with a bunch of warnings about whatever is going to happen to the company, except it doesn't tell you the name of the company.
Wasmtime 26.0: 64-bit tables, shell completions, Windows ARM64 support, and more
the article says when trump was president , he interfered and caused bezos’ business to lose a government contract due to the newspaper’s coverage of trump.
And it opens to them up to retribution from Trump if he wins, which is his entire method of operating. From a game theory perspective it doesn't make sense for them to do an endorsement when a mob boss type character is about to get elected.
what has the price done over the past 8 months, past 3 years?
>But the newspaper could be biased towards facts, moderate speech and empathy to all parties.

literally zero semantic meaning to be found in this word salad
I'm really not sure of this. The argument I've mostly seen is that the endorsement was always mostly meaningless. If anything, this is a "coverup worse than the crime" situation. Killing the endorsement is much more notable than just letting it happen because it's what everyone was worried about when Bezos bought the paper - that he'd inject his own consideration into it, something he said he wouldn't do. If some billionaire owned the NY Post and banned them from endorsing Trump, that would absolutely be a story as well.

I don't think anyone thinks it's not clear who the writers at the NY Post or the Washington Post generally want to win. That makes this whole situation so much more stupid on Bezos's part.
The usefulness of data here is that you can retrain the model after making changes to its architecture, e.g. seeing if it works better with a different activation function. Of course this is most useful for models small enough that you could train it within a few days on a consumer GPU. When it comes to LLMs only the richest companies would have the adequate resources to retrain.
When you say it drove your physicians crazy, what do you mean?
I am biased against creationism being treated as science. And that is correct, because one side is true and the other is false and should not be taught or treated equally.

So I think either your definition is wrong or your goal of neutrality is wrong.
Isn’t that obvious ? “The hamas-run health ministry is reporting 40,000 deaths” is a not-so-subtle way make the number questionable…
But some will say mentioning hamas is fair, because it is factually true that it runs the government.
No wording is neutral… all newspapers have style guides and guidelines and “elements of language”, the NYT ones for the US-funded destruction of Palestine leaked not so long ago, the ones for Israel counter-terrorism operations by Wikipedia is in the article… (see, no wording is neutral, I guess everyone hates me now )
I dunno, the problem with processes is that they still get it wrong sometimes. But absent any sort of process all you get is trash. Wikipedia has managed to maintain a certain credibility in the world largely due to these democratic processes. Do the processes fail sometimes, sure. But I'll take this over 4chan any day.

In the meantime, the only government-like structure left in Gaza is Hamas, and so if you say the Gaza Health Ministry, anyone who knows what's going on, understands that Gaza is run by Hamas, which makes the reporting super dubious, AND clearly Hamas-run. So I think for most people, it is super redundant to use it every time it's referenced. Once at the top of an article as a quick reminder, sure. But to insist that the name of the organization is the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, which is a ministry of the Hamas-run Gaza government, that's foolish and only useful for folks with a specific agenda.
Let's be clear who "them" is. It's Bezos. The people at the paper wrote up the whole thing and then were blocked by Bezos and the CEO of the paper.

You can argue it's game-theory sensible, but it certainly tells you that Bezos doesn't care to put any of his vast money at risk for any cause at all.
> Training data is valuable to study AI systems: to understand the biases that have been learned, which can impact system behavior. But training data is not part of the preferred form for making modifications to an existing AI system. The insights and correlations in that data have already been learned.

This makes sense. What the OSI gets right here is that the artifact that is made open source is the weights. Making modifications to the weights is called fine tuning and does not require the original training data any more than making modifications to a piece of source code requires the brain of the original developer.

Tens of thousands of people have fine-tuned these models for as long as they've been around. Years ago I trained GPT-2 to produce text resembling Shakespeare. For that I needed Shakespeare, not GPT-2's training data.

The training data is properly part of the development process of the open source artifact, not part of the artifact itself. Some open source companies (GitLab) make their development process fully open. Most don't, but we don't call IntelliJ Community closed source on the grounds that they don't record their meetings and stream them for everyone to watch their planning process.

Edit: Downvotes are fine, but please at least deign to respond and engage. I realize that I'm expressing a controversial opinion here, but in all the times I've posted similar no one's yet given me a good reason why I'm wrong.
You don't get to decide the governance, especially in countries you don't live in. The collective action problem is too hard. Technological solutions can be implemented by anyone with sufficient skill and scales easier. Governance always defends the powerful, whereas technology enforces the laws of physics and mathematics and in this case it defends the free flow of information.
Is this just for article where Gaza Health Ministry (GHM) is mentioned, e.g., an article about a particular fight that says something like "The Gaza Health Ministry reports 241 casualties", or does this also apply to articles about GHM?

If it is just for articles that mention GHM but are not about GHM then it seems reasonable. The text "Gaza Health Ministry" in those articles should link to the GHM article and people can click that if they want to find out more about GHM including who controls it.

In general this seems like it would be a reasonable policy for pretty much any organization or person that has a Wikipedia page. When an organization or person is mentioned on another page it should only need qualification if the qualifier is the reason it is being mentioned.
This isn't a normal election, or anything remotely close to it. It'd be lovely if we had TWO relatively normal candidates and could vote for them in our normal partisan ways.

You may have noticed that basically everyone in Trumps first term cabinet has come out and called him things ranging from "moron" to "fascist" to a "danger to the country". This is not normal. It's extremely abnormal. It's a warning to the country.
Wow. What a project that would be!

Really interesting read, and while the numbers are a little hand wavy even if they were out on the cost by an order of magnitude it would still be very cheap.

The USA has lost its appetite for these mega projects, sadly.
n07 5u23 wh47 y0u m34n?
> its really interesting to contrast this "outsider" definition of open ai with people with real money at stake

I guess this is a question of what we want out of "open source". Companies want to make money. Their asset is data, access to customers, hardware and integration. They want to "open source" models, so that other people improve their models for free, and then they can take them back, and sell them, or build something profitable using them.

The idea is that, like with other software, eventually, the open source version becomes the best, or just as good as the commercial ones, and companies that build on top no longer have to pay for those, and can use the open source ones.

But if what you want out of "open source" is open knowledge, peeking at how something is built, and being able to take that and fork it for your own. Well, you kind of need the data. And your goal in this case is more freedom, using things that you have full access to inspect, alter, repair, modify, etc.

To me, both are valid, we just need a name for one and a name for the other, and then we can clearly filter for what we are looking for.
I couldn't see myself living in Northern Ontario either, but for some people, small town life is idyllic. There was even a popular Canadian sitcom portraying such a life ("Corner Gas", set in rural Saskatchewan). As a "city-slicker" I really enjoyed watching Corner Gas. It's like the Canadian version of Parks and Recreation except more rural.
> The idea that editorial team has some kind of expertise, unavailable to general population

That doesn't make sense to me - they literally spend all day every day absorbing, summarising and writing about context as their full time job. They are trained formally at assessing, evaluating and questioning facts. You can criticise the end result, but I can't see how it's reasonable to say they aren't far better positioned to have an informed opinion than the average reader who gets up in the morning with no training and tries to understand a slew of facts dumped on them without context.
Suppose I'm using PySide6 and starting to use QRhi[1]. Is there a way to compare the portability and speed of pygfx (as within PySide6) with QRhi?

[1] https://doc.qt.io/qtforpython-6/PySide6/QtWidgets/QRhiWidget...
It always barely works as much as you allow it to. Lower the bar even more and it will start barely working at it again.

This koolaid with protecting real world only helps perception (“I made it work now with this simple rule”), cause moving the bar down relaxes issues a bit and they don’t instantly accumulate at the new level.

It doesn’t matter where the bar is, they will always find enough competence and budget to follow it in a moment. You just have to hard-break what half-works in advance.

You can't make everyone competent at the wave of a magic wand

You can make their incompetence fail by adding random honeypots like someone suggested above. That would be a smart move. Your “out of bubble” move is just an instant gratification button.
A Disk's Face
Then we're right back to the original question:

> How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?
I would read "neutral" here to mean "factual" rather than endorsing trump as part of being neutral or something. If one party proposes e.g. impossible things or financially stupid things or whatever it may be (general examples from politics anywhere), that can and should be reported on and would not break neutrality
I don't think you're wrong, A good write up of the economic incentives would be really interesting.

Regenerative practices would probably initially look like a reduced high side profit, and reduced land yield intensity but at significantly reduced input costs on chemicals and pesticides. The labour costs might be higher or lower depending. Then over time, yield to use would show for area in production actual profits were better but still to a lower high point. More certainty as long as e.g. massive disease or pest risk didn't strike.

And as long as organics have a higher premium price at lower yield, when the soil can pass the certification tests for residues there's a new profit highpoint.

That's my sense but perhaps there are better takes on it.
> Killing the endorsement is much more notable than just letting it happen

It's only notable because the staff was upset and leaked the backstory in retaliation. A newspaper is a business; it's not the town square. Imagine working for a company and going public every time your boss did something you disagreed with.
What genocide?
I do that and get the occasional account signup. I also ban addresses that fet sent spam, which happens more than the account signups.