skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I ask myself why did we accept pre 2010s answers, maybe because the media institutions had accumulated enough trust ? I feel this unavoidable.. nothing is true unless there's a threshold of quality/verification in place across the system.
Ah, fair enough.

Difficult to tell, as I've seen that position held seriously here.
This is very similar to how LLMs are taught to understand images in llava style models (the image embeddings are encoded into the existing language token stream)
> lack of IC carefulness is not to blame when things break

But if you can trust ICs a bit, you can move faster
I don't know what you're implying - I have had a few instances in my career when I went above and beyond and while I didn't receive too much praise for my efforts directly, after a while I noticed people who had no business knowing who I was, actually did.

Now, I was really bad at capitalizing on it, so nothing much came of it, but still, there are some positive things that higher-ups do notice.
Typically by things like reaction time, input latency, smoothness of motion, etc. A real human is surprisingly nondeterministic about these things, and their hardware adds all sorts of other interesting noise to the data. A naive aimbot will look unnaturally smooth and linear.

You can somewhat cat-and-mouse this by attempting to humanize the inputs, but it's surprisingly difficult to replicate "natural" motion as input by a human. The humanized aimbot will end up with its own detectable signature. Besides that though, don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Catching the low-hanging-fruit (the stuff that is easy to detect) is *most* of the problem. Leave the crazy advanced stuff to the professional leagues, where players are under higher scrutiny anyway.

Mind that I don't meant to argue against clientside cheat detection. You can still do a lot of that in userspace, and you really should. It's more data to analyze and it raises the bar for casuals. But since you inherently can't trust the client, you need to also do serverside detection, and really the serverside stuff (being remote, unknowable, and much harder to exploit) is going to be the stronger signal.
As a teacher, I love explaining how professional most IT security software is. I go over several acronyms for various software packages.

Then I ask the class to guess at where Wazuh's name came from.

It's not a concept from The Art of War in the original Chinese.

It's not an ancient Samurai motto.

It's from "Up you wazuh"
The guy who gave a negative review to Battlezone 98 Redux after playing 8k hours
They say they can’t, but it’s impossible to be certain. Although, if you distrust Apple enough to think they might lie about it, you probably wouldn’t want to use any Apple device or services. They already have privileged access to the software and hardware.
In Ruby, all methods have a receiver. In the case where no receiver is explicitly specified, it is assumed to be `self` - thus line 7 of semiquaver's example desugars to `self.puts "hello"`. This is the "default object," referred to in Metaprogramming Ruby as the "implicit receiver."

Since `self.class == Foo` at line 7, we must check that `self.class` (which is Foo) either defines an instance method `:puts`, or that some Module included in its ancestor list can `respond_to?(:puts)`:

Foo.ancestors.map { |a| [a, a.is_a?(Class) ? a.instance_methods.include?(:puts) : a.respond_to?(:puts)] }
=> [[Foo, true], [Object, false], [Kernel, true], [BasicObject, false]]

We find that `Foo.instance_methods.include?(:puts)`, and so that is the method that ends up being invoked:

Foo.instance_method(:puts).source_location
=> ["(irb)", 2] # line 2 of semiquaver's example

Consider now the class Bar:

class Bar
def initialize
puts "hello"
end
end

... and notice that it does not contain any instance method `puts`:

Bar.instance_method(:puts).source_location
=> nil

Thus, unlike in the case of Foo, we need to traverse `Bar.ancestors` until we find a suitable definition for the method `:puts`:

Bar.ancestors.map { |a| [a, a.is_a?(Class) ? a.instance_methods.include?(:puts) : a.respond_to?(:puts)] }
=> [[Bar, false], [Object, false], [Kernel, true], [BasicObject, false]]

We find that Kernel responds to the method :puts, and so that will be the method invoked when we call `Bar.new`. We can patch Kernel to see what happens when we call Bar.new:

module Kernel
alias_method :orig_puts, :puts
def puts(*args)
orig_puts "Receiver #{self.inspect}"
orig_puts(*args)
end
end

Bar.new
Receiver #<Bar:0x000000012006eae8>
hello
=> #<Bar:0x000000012006eae8>

Notice that `self`, the implicit receiver or "default object," is in fact an instance of the class `Bar`, even though the actual method invoked after going up the `Bar.ancestors` chain is on Kernel.

Hence, there are no globals - every method is invoked on some `self`, explicit or implicit, and method lookup goes up the ancestor chain until you bottom out at Kernel or BasicObject. Note that Kernel is itself an Object.

This is still an oversimplification. I recommend reading Metaprogramming Ruby and playing around in a REPL after reading the docs on Object, Class, Module, and BasicObject.
Hi! Very cool results. Are you able to share some numbers about the slope of the scaling curve you found, i.e. how performance responds to a growing nr of demonstrations?

Academically I'd also be very interested how much of a data efficiency improvement you achieved with the pretrained model + task specific post-training versus from-scratch task specific training - like, if post training requires say 50 additional demos, and from-scratch on smaller model requires say 250 demos (or whatever) to match performance, that would be an interesting quntification of the efficiency benefit of using the big foundation model
Marketing Statistics for 2024
Your comment, if correct, is far better than the NYT article, explaining what happened and why in five short paragraphs.
oops: Eispickel => ice axe, not ice pick
> Do not take St. John's Wort! That's got all kinds of side effects.

That's to simple, but be aware of the side effects when you take it. I still prefer it to any other antidepressants, especially for short time use. Except maybe 5htp.
Tech leaders line up to flatter Trump's ego
Yes. This thread reads a bit like a convo between AIs, almost but not quite talking past each other.
A good definition should not depend on transient state of affairs.
I heard there was a secret vault onboard.

This rumor wasn't mentioned in the article.
Nice introduction, but I think that ranking the models purely by their input token limits is not a useful exercise. Looking at the MTEB leaderboard is better (although a lot of the models are probably overfitting to their test set).

This is a good time to chill for my visualization of 5 Millionembeddings of HN posts, users and comments: https://tomthe.github.io/hackmap/
So it baffles you that people trust their own experience and developed intuitions instead of just throwing them out because some big name people contradict them?
Using the Strangler Fig with Mobile Apps
Yeah exactly, it's a thought experiment about infinities... Is someone going to publish a study concluding that Hilbert's Hotel couldn't be built on Earth too?

Why are people even spending money on this research? What are they trying to prove/disprove?
I agree. There's also a quick demo video which is very well done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCNQFHjgotU

It doesn't answer some obvious questions I have though:

1. What are the limitations? Presumably it doesn't work with assembly, external C libraries etc. What about unsafe code? Traits? Heap allocation? Threads? Etc.

2. How is this different to other projects, e.g. Kani? Kani uses the CBMC checker which can use a variety of SMT solvers. IIRC symbol execution is a different approach to SMT solving but I can't remember the details. What practical impact does it have?
It is hard to say. I use to be a pack a day smoker but I think I would even be shocked by the level of smoking if I was transported back to 1985 at this point.

We seem to romanticize the past as if before smartphones kids would spent their time reading Aristotle and doing calisthenics.

No one had a smartphone when I was a kid and instead I spent hours a day playing Nintendo or watching trash TV.

On the other hand, it wasn't that long ago that people could go to the grocery store and push a shopping cart without looking at their phone the whole time.

I think these are just the problems of a society of abundance.
And they only named it that due to the fact they could not trademark a number, like 386.
I’m baffled (boom boom) as to why the vents aren’t designed such that they don’t allow water ingress - surely this would just be a matter of a manifold with a float in it, or a Tesla valve or similar. Fails safe, no power required.
Intel's processor naming scheme:
- 286
- 386
- 486
- 585
From the article: "Intel believed it was justn’t a big deal". Is it a thing in English language to form "justn't" like that as a shortcut for "just not"?
Chatgpt and perplexity both answer that question perfectly fine.
Embarrassingly enough, Google's Gemini Advanced (which I got for free with a Pixel Pro phone but would cost 200$+/y) failed to answer it.
After the 22x22x22, the how seems to no longer be an issue and it's more about scaling the cube to the minimum density of the printer.

That, and clearly money.
> Your house is at high risk of being destroyed, and if it does you barely have the assets required to rebuild.

Or it becomes worthless when no one else has anything and demand tanks
Now think of the thousands of people who die each year trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea for a better life.
I might disagree with that and agree on the context approach. „The Truth“ does not exist and it would be much more helpful to have context related answers without one mayor view which needs to dominate.
Nightshade, the Law, and the CFAA – Poisoning attacks are potentially criminal
The basic point is an exercise in at least one older freshman text (Kittel & Kroemer?) but at least this paper does go on beyond and finds some strings (eg "I chimp, therefore I am") that are likely to be typed before the heat death of the universe, if not before extinction of chimpanzees.
Kafka would be proud. We're gone from the dream of a semantic web to industrial grade non-sense spreading automatically.
> Why are people even spending money on this research? What are they trying to prove/disprove?

That it takes much fewer than infinite humans and infinite time to produce the most pedantic paper possible.
enough bro. don't feed the troll.
Gates has plently of problems with reality (eg he spent years trying to deny / suppress the Internet as we now know it, along with many extremely questionable business practices and an utter disregard for user privacy and security IMHO), and a Nobel is very evidently no guarantee that all a winner's thoughts are correct. They may be right about aspects of AI or not.

It baffles me that some people seem to succumb to the "argument from authority" fallacy.
Machines aren't out by themselves for anything. The machine owners on the other hand, they are out to make a profit. So human workers compete with machine workers for the profit f the owners, and at least here I'm sure we can agree who wins in the end. Because as popular the comparison with the horses vs cars might be, at some point the machines will be smarter than humans with or without AGI. From that point on, any job a human would be able to do, and I mean any job invented or not, a machine would do cheaper and probably better. Zero options for the jobless humans from that point on, zero money to spend except welfare/UBI. And even that doesn't sound very appealing, because humans will look at the machine owners with jealousy and yeah I expect quite some fuss with many only unpleasant outcomes.
> Why are people even spending money on this research?

"This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors."
Ask HN: Who else is annoyed of "await" in JS?
Why do we need to put await in front of async calls? I hate it. In other languages like python you don't have to. Why can be await not be the default so I don't have to write it and specify asynchron when I need it?
To answer the general question, of "if somebody got away with X, how can we know it happened?":

If somebody robbed a bank at gunpoint and was never caught, can we know it happened? Obviously yes.

What if somebody "merely" embezzled from one, and there's a "hole" found in the banks books and money missing, but nobody who did it or how? Still, I'd wager yes, one coudl tell by the results.

What if somebody used illegal means to get leverage on some stock buying/selling, it became know, but they weren't punished and got to keep their profits? They got away with it, but we do know it happened.
You can't build faster than demand is rising (because building increases demand again). Except if demand goes down due to an external crisis. Or if you magically could double housing with a snap, but once again later once that new housing gets occupied... more density means more job means more opportunities.

"Just build more" is not a solution on its own, at all.
It's just barely possible that this is not an entirely serious paper. Scientists like to have fun too, you know?

Not to mention that frivolous research has been known to pay surprising dividends.
As an attendee I can say that online conferences make absolutely no sense at all and I don't know a single co-worker or dev who actually likes them.

Here are some of the reasons why online conferences are extremely shit:

- Live streams often don't work reliably

- If live streams work they have other issues, which make it pointless, like having the speaker in view but not the slides they share, so you don't see what they talk about, or they have zoom issues, or they have issues with the angle of the camera, or audio sync issues

- Many online conferences use weird never-heard of software, which never works for all participants, have unintuitive UIs and chat functionalities, etc.

- Zero community vibes

- Despite it being online they still impose maximum limits on how many people can view a single session, like WTF? Unlike with a real conference where you just have to show up 5 minutes early to a talk you find yourself unable to view the online talk you wanted to see unless you start queueing in the virtual queue an hour or longer in advance

- 0 networking opportunity, which is the main reason why people go to conferences

- Tickets are still expensive even though you only get 1% value of the in-person equivalent and that 1% is still shit

Overall online conferences are a complete waste of time and I will never attend one again. Most speakers don't give a complete new talk at big conferences either, so every single talk that people give were already given at smaller conferences, or tech meetups and you can find almost every talk on YouTube in a much better more convenient format so really the value of the online conference is near ZERO. Networking is the main reason and that is non existent online.

Just my 2 cents
The paper doesn’t say that either. They only call the original theorem misleading. I understood that their point is the same as yours - that infinity won’t happen in a finite time period.

> The long-established result of the Infinite Monkeys Theorem is correct, but misleading.

> Non-trivial text generation during the lifespan of our universe is almost certainly impossible.

> The Finite Monkeys case shows there will never be sufficient resources to generate Shakespeare.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277318632...
Can you share a picture of the coin, that sounds like such an amazing historical artifact, regardless of whether it's actually by Pythagoras.

(also between this and Plato's failed Olympic career I feel like there's a lot more to the ancient Greek Olympic games than I'm aware of)
They did, however the vasa was modified mid-build to have higher ceilings in the royal stareroom and therefore a substantially higher centre of mass, as this change had knock-on effects all over the design. They added something like a meter and a half of height, and it was substantially more massive than necessary as it was built into already laid down timbers that had been intended to accommodate a lower topdeck level.

So… there are parallels. A wealthy owner saying “I want this”, and a shipbuilder deviating from a previously established design to meet their whims, resulting in compromised stability.
Is Rust really bullet proof though? I've spent a lot of time fixing concurrency bugs (race conditions), it's one of those things that I'm very very good at but even then it feels like you're Indiana Jones dodging the hidden traps.

Haskell promises to solve concurrency and the Rust boys are always claiming that it's impossible to write buggy code in Rust.. and the jump from C/C++/C#/Golang to Rust is much smaller than to Haskell..
How do you get these high amounts for the internet?
In my country (EU) 600Mbps costs below $15 and I know that's not the most popular fee level. $100 or even $50 on the internet only (not counting video subscriptions) sounds like something too high for the vast majority around me.
>you can't undo over 50 years of research on the subject so easily

Sure you can if the research was bogus to begin with, sponsored in many cases, and merely taking for granted/referencing some previous results without verifying them, which is often the case.
Love, loss and algorithms: the dangerous realism of AI
(Haven’t worked with hazel and I couldn’t find much in the documentation so this may be wrong)

Because that case is non-exhaustive. It will match a list with 0, 1, or 2 elements, but the last arm matches a list with exactly 2 elements, not 2 or more, so as soon as you get to 3 or more elements, there’s no code to execute.
Yep, voyage-3 is not even anywhere in the top of the MTEB leaderboard if you order by `retrieval score` desc.

stella_en_1.5B_v5 seems to be an unsung hero model in that regard

plus you may not even want such large token sizes if you just need accurate retrieval of snippets of text (like 1-2 sentences)
Men Arrested for Transcribing a Movie, Posting Details to a Website
Franklin Open, whatever it may be, could well have slightly higher standards than Arxiv, but it isn't exactly Nature or Science...

(but try telling that to The Grauniad!)
Search for MTEB Leaderboard on huggingface
'precursor' is a bit of a stretch, as in the sixties MCUs weren't conceived yet. It's rather a fancy version of a solderless breadboard. It's been a long time since I've seen them and I never had one. I started with the competition, a Philips Electronic Baukasten.
(assuming this is JavaScript): there's a difference between awaiting a promise, and just declaring a promise.

Sometimes you want to declare a few promises first, before running await Promise.all() - sometimes, you don't even care for the results of all of the promises, and just want the first result to complete (promise.race)
Your version of the question has the qualifier "in local elections".

The parent's version doesn't, so the answer assuming that it talks about the main USA elections, and not local or any random election that just happen to be conducted in the USA, is quite valid.

In other words "in the USA elections" implicitly points to a specific kind of elections (the presidential ones), different to "USA local elections" or "any kind of election within the USA").

You might argue "in the USA elections" doesn't anywhere prevent the more generic interpretation, but I argue that that's how most people would understand and answer such a question.
Amazing, it can show me the weather if I type "what's the weather" and tripadvisor slop if I type "places to eat in $place". Truly revolutionary, let's bump their valuation by another 50 bil
> At some point we as a society need to agree on our truth in order to get anything done.

These are known as half-truths. We do settle for lies in order to do whatever it is people feel they need to do.

We also settle for lies because there are just things we don't understand yet, but our models are currently correct, and possibly collapsing over millenia to a stable truth.
A monkey with keyboard already wrote Shakespeare, duh. Other monkeys called it Shakespeare.
It would still be great to know how it compares?

Why should I pick voyage-3 if for all I know it sucks when it comes to retrieval accuracy (my personally most important metric)?
Unfortunately the steam deck is owned by a company with mountains of cash and pays a team to make it as open and consumer friendly as possible.
> information about local places, Google is still king.

I try to use OpenStreetMap as much as I can (I have a deGoogled smartphone and OpenStreetMap works well enough) but it is true that Google Maps is better (at the cost of privacy of course).

But in terms of search... I can't remember of a time where I tried Google because I couldn't find with Kagi and ended up finding something with Google. On the contrary with the Kagi lenses it's often a lot easier to get specific results.
Very few ship designers say that.
Yes exactly. What I hear is physics teachers saying they know better than Bohr and Einstein.
> get counseling for your mental illness, instead of inappropriately airing your problems here publicly on Hacker News for all to read

You should take your own advice. His comment from over two years ago may have been unpleasant, but you hectoring him for it now, apropos of nothing, is downright creepy and indicates an unbalanced mental state.
The Most Iconic Speculative Fiction Books of the 21st Century
Why Europe's car crisis is mostly made in China
Perhaps they're finitists, or ultrafinitists?
Direct link to the statement:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7233792... (no account needed)
That sounds like a terrible idea to me not gonna lie
How is Nvidia CEO the biggest company in the world a charlatan when he says there will be no more programmers in 5 years? Can you explain? That's why I made this post to hear opinions incomprehensible to me.
Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention, but didn't he forget to mention that numbers must be displayed in unary form and just jumps right into checking "111", as if one hundred and eleven is prime, when he is actually checking if 3 is a prime.
Our pricing for Prisma Postgres indeed presents a bit of a mental shift compared to traditional database providers:

We charge for query volume, not for compute!

We believe that ultimately this is a more intuitive way for developers to think about database cost.

Generally, our goal is that developers need to only think about _queries_ — we'll take care of everything else to make sure those queries can run efficiently. Developers shouldn't need to worry about compute, scaling, downtime, etc.
Nice; that raises some interesting questions as to what Valve is planning here. Steam/Proton on macs would make a lot of sense for them hard as it may be. People booting linux on their macs to play games would really annoy Apple probably.
Yes. SIP means Apple is the real sudo now. You can’t disable their special relationship on their computers
"Dumb"-smartwatches for kids allow the kid stay in touch and be located, without getting sucked into anything addictive.

Quite popular in my 9 year old's class, where the kids are generally "free range" (Scandinavia), and nobody wants to get them a phone.
Random number generator enhancements for Linux 5.17 and 5.18 (2022)
Yet another Electron app... In comparison, ChatGPT's awesome client is native.
I'm critical of the low number of embedding dims.

Could hurt performance in niche applications, in my estimation.

Looking forward to try the announced large models though.
You're replying to a 3 months old troll account anyway. They won't bother to read it and they don't care to participate in good faith.
The Compendium
Technically it is Apples to Apples