skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nice. Now we can probably ask to move there half of the too nosy rubocop rules from the main rubocop repo. And then to never install rubocop-obsession!
Cutting edge technology. Those Orion smart glasses use a totally novel display using micro-projectors bouncing light through waveguides etched into the silicon carbide lens. The glasses also apparently use 10 custom chips.
To your point, I don't buy the truth of the statement. I work in big tech and am convinced that 25% of the code being written is not coming from AI.
But also there's parties there with a big interest in circumventing these securities, and have done so for decades. The new release of RDR for PC (shamefully asking $50 for a 14 year old game) was cracked within days, if not earlier, of its releae.
Supermaven is an incredible intellisense. Most code IS trivial and I barely write trivial code anymore. My imports appear instantly, with high accuracy. I have lots of embedded SQL queries and it’s able to guess the structure of my database very accurately. As I’m writing a query the suggested joins are accurate probably 80% of the time. I’m significantly more productive and having to type much less. If this is as good as it ever gets I’m quite happy. I rarely use AI for non trivial code, but non trivial code is what I want to work on…
> Am I less deserving of a ticket?

This is literally a question of morality.
Why is it objectively evil? Is it because the consumer pays more? Is it because the artist and venue don't make as much as they could? I didn't like scaling, but I don't consider it evil.
adding ads is easy, adding ads that work is not.

Google can easily monetize a search for "dentist in $city" where your intent is to spend money, OpenAI would have to monetize "sum up this email" where money is not involved at all.
That is weird, because it works for me and I've never noticed, that it didn't worked in the past. (Thunderbird 115.5.0 on Debian)
Waymo probably now has the second best self-driving system as well as the best self-driving system.
Depends if they include test code in this metric. I have found AI most valuable in generating test code. I usually want to keep tests as simple as possible, so I prefer some repetition over abstraction to make sure there's no issues with the test logic itself, AI makes this somewhat verbose process very easy and efficient.
La Chasse au Pinard
There's lots of stuff you can measure. It's not clear whether any of it is correlated with productivity.

To use your example, a user with an LLM might say "LLM please fix this" as a first line of action, drastically improving this metric, even if it ruins your overall productivity.
Supermicro and Asus are just about the only ones who make the motherboards I need in my COTS on-prem/dc stuff. Why don't more manufacturers target the server x64 market? It's sorely needed. I've built entire systems with SM, but they've long had issues, there just aren't many alternatives in the space.
you mean like pingpong?

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/08/man-v...
Well no, because they ruin the online experience making people not play the game.

(in theory, GTA online has had / still has huge problems with bots and cheats but still earns the publisher hundreds of millions a year)
Thanks for the reply. These are compelling points.

I agree not to fail on insert too by the way. The insert is sort of an enqueuing action.

I was debating if a microservice should process that queue.

Since you are a PaaS the distinction might be almost moot. An implementation detail. (It would affect the api though).

However if Postgres added this feature generally it would seem odd to me because it feels like the DB doing app stuff. The DB is fetching data for itself from an external source.

The advantage is it is one less thing for the app to do and maybe deals with errands many teams have to roll their own code for.

A downside is if I want to change how this is done I probably can't. Say I have data residency or securiry requirements that affect the data I want to encode.

I think there is much to consider. Probably the why not both meme applies though. Use the built in feature if you can, and roll your own where you can't.
I suppose Valve, who trained a neural network to detect/ban cheaters exhibiting unnatural behavior.
> The problem is when it's not fair competition. Certainly Tesla has received government subsidies, but I expect their numbers to pale in comparison to whatever money the Chinese government has directly and indirectly poured into BYD.

Then we should provide more government subsidies to US automakers for making EVs. The good in having more people driving cars that are more energy efficient and use cleaner energy would outweigh the costs of the subsidies.
Most programming is trivial. Lots of non-trivial programming tasks can be broken down into pure, trivial sections. Then, the non-trivial part becomes knowing how the entire system fits together.

I've been using LLMs for about a month now. It's a nice productivity gain. You do have to read generated code and understand it. Another useful strategy is pasting a buggy function and ask for revisions.

I think most programmers who claim that LLMs aren't useful are reacting emotionally. They don't want LLMs to be useful because, in their eyes, that would lower the status of programming. This is a silly insecurity: ultimately programmers are useful because they can think formally better than most people. For the forseeable future, there's going to be massive demand for that, and people who can do it will be high status.
Yes but then it would be more logical to say "AI makes our devs 25% more efficient". This is not what he said, but imo you are obviously right.
I'm surprised that people think that id'ing is a big deal, considering you get your ID scanned when going to a nightclub these days.
Mm.

I'd would say that text is capable of being extremely useful even when no human reads it, because of source code, maths proofs, etc.

But I'm curious: 238 wpm * 0.75 words per token * 16 (waking) hours per day * 83 years * $10.00 / 1M output tokens (current API cost for 4o without batching) means the current cost of making as many tokens as a human can read in a lifetime is $92,300: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=238+words+per+minute+%2...

With these numbers, a well-written project with even a billion lines of code would be a rounding error even if only a thousand people used any specific such software and none of that was ever shared with what other people wanted to get done.
Back when communities hosted servers instead of companies, it seemed less common, even though it was easier to do.
Still wondering what kinda special sauce that Blizzard is using in Overwatch. In my literal thousands of hours of playtime I encountered so few blatant cheaters its probably still in the double digit. Are there probably a good amount of cheaters I didn't realize were cheaters? probably, but does it really matter if you don't realize they are cheating?
I wholly disagree with the comic, but a anti AI art take I’m more sympathetic to: https://x.com/soi/status/1815584824033177606?s=46
>> Party A discovers very high probability evidence that Party B is committing crimes within the property ...

> This isn't accurate: the hashes were purposefully compared to a specific list. They didn't happen to notice it, they looked specifically for it.

1. I don't understand how the text that comes on the right side of the colon substantiates the claim on the left side of the colon... I said "discovers", without mention of how it's discovered.

2. The specificity of the search cuts in exactly the opposite direction than you suggest; specificity makes the search far less invasive -- BUT, at the same time, the "everywhere and always" nature of the search makes it more invasive. The problem is the pervasiveness, not the specificity. See https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=aiforecastthway

> And of course, what happens when it's a different list?

The fact that the search is targeted, that the search is highly specific, and that the conduct plainly criminal, are all, in fact, highly material. The decision here is not relevant to most of the "worst case scenarios" or even "bad scenarios" in your head, because prior assumptions would have been violated prior to this moment in the legal evaluation.

But with respect to your actual argument here... it's really a moot point. If the executive branch starts compelling companies to help them discover political enemies on basis of non-criminal activity, then the court's opinions will have exactly as much force as the army that court proves capable of raising, because such an executive would likely have no respect for the rule of law in any case...

It is reasonable for legislators to draft laws on a certain assumption of good faith, and for courts to interpret law on a certain assumption of good faith, because without that good faith the law is nothing more than a sequence of forceless ink blotches on paper anyways.
The round trip time is due to the speed of light, no amount of money and hardware thrown at the problem, on earth or in space, will improve that.
Whenever you have more than one offer, there is room for negotiation.
Traditional Japanese timekeeping kind of did both. The "am" and "pm" time periods started at midnight and noon, but the clocks themselves started at dawn. The hours counted down from hour 9 to hour 4 (they did not use 3-1). Each of the hours was approximately two modern hours, but their individual lengths changed every two weeks to keep the periods aligned with the sun. The twelve hours on the linear clock dials ran: 6,5,4,9,8,7,6,5,4,9,8,7 (and then a final 6 to match the first six, since it was a linear instead of circular dial).
If you use it as advanced IntelliSense/auto-complete, it's not any worse than with typed languages.

If you just let it generate and run the code... yeah, probably, since you won't catch the issues at compile time.
Without kernel level anti cheat you can detect (some) other usermode cheats, but not kernel level cheats. With kernel level anticheat, you can detect the vast majority of other kernel level cheats. Vanguard is effective enough that most successful cheaters are using external devices and DMA to bypass the kernel altogether (or they just use Macs because Apple doesn't allow Vanguard). And despite Riot's insistence to the contrary, they have not "detected" DMA cheats.
Googles ad business is pop-ups and fake download buttons. What makes you think they care about user security vs making money?
> Some of us take it personally if we cannot do everything using only the keyboard.

It doesn’t help your 1password problem here, but there is a changeable shortcut to put focus on the Dock which then can be navigated with the arrow keys and space/return: (fn) + Control + F3

Must be activated in System Settings → Keyboard → Keyboard Shortcuts → Keyboard.

Those are rather old shortcuts, at least since 2003 or so. But I just found out that Control+F2, which puts the focus in the menu bar, doesn’t seem to work for me. Maybe the builtin display brightness, maybe another app? I changed the shortcut to something custom and now it works.
I've been using portable macs for the last 25 years.

Never had AppleCare or any other extended warranty program.

Did just fine up to now.
That could be said of any device you own, ever.
Unfortunately due to tariffs, p.v. systems for private people are still not cheap at all compared to other countries... Tariffs to protect... Nothing, because we produce essentially nothing, just some inverters.
I think if the hashes were made available to the public, we should just flood the internet with matching but completely innocuous images so they can no longer be used to justify a search
100% of Sundar Pichai could be replaced by an AI.
It's going on a tangent, but one naive take which continues to amuse me when it comes up is community/third party servers and policing of cheating. As though delegating that responsibility is the goal or that it would scale to handle the size of modern playerbases including the ratio of admins to players to be able to monitor and respond to (alleged) cheaters
Latency significantly reduces the effectiveness of culling via the server. There will always be a place for client side anti-cheat if games are running on players' computers.
I think that too but google claims something else.
I use Ansible to setup my servers, and also all my workstations.

The first step is to run a bootstrap script, then run a tailor made playbook for each situation.

Those specific playbooks haven't been made public, but I wrote something[0] last year about how to setup an Android development environment using Ansible, and as part of that shared my bootstrap script.

[0]: https://hth.is/2023/01/02/android-ansible/
Is there evidence of this. I’d be interested to know more.
Question to more senior Mac users: how do you usually decide when to upgrade?

I bought my first Macbook pro about a year and a half ago and it's still working great.
No wonder their products are getting worse and worse...
Cloud providers don't seem too relevant to a discussion of CI for kernel and driver development.
Most Linux cheats don't even bother with kernel modules, a process running as root can read and write arbitrary memory in the game process without an unprivileged usermode anticheat having any way to know it's happening. It's embarrassingly easy compared to the hoops you have to jump through to maybe avoid detection on Windows.
Thanks for the recommendation - I had never heard of them, but I'll definitely give them a look whenever my current appliances die.
And all the code on which it was trained...
I don't think it matters. As long as the US has a strong base of car companies serving its own market. It needs this manufacturing capability to lean on during a large scale conflict.

Imagine how much better off Ukraine would be if it had had car factories it could have turned into tank factories.
Because games were less common. If you look at community hosted servers now they commonly have more anti cheat, not less. Counterstrike with FaceIT and ESEA. Even FiveM for GTA V rolled out a custom anti cheat before it was added to the official game.
AMD should be much more successful with Tesla, Microsoft and Sony all using their chips exclusively in their top devices, but look like big corps milked the deals to the point AMD have no profit at all. Nvidia salespersons and marketing department are clearly decade ahead.
I've always wondered about this too. It should be pretty easy to recognize statistical outliers. I'm sure cheaters would start to adapt but that adaptation might start to look more in-line with normal skill levels so at least the game wouldn't be utterly ruined
This may have been intended as a joke, but it's the only explanation that reconciles the quote for me.
Right, it’s a cost, and the people who’d have to pay it are Live Nation, who make money off the current system. So we’d be asking a corporation to pay to reduce its own profits.

That’s the sort of thing that only happens after a settlement with the government. Which, in the case of LN, is 100% what needs to happen.
You shouldn't use the rate as an indicator. They did something similar to what I did on my hallucinations benchmark (https://github.com/lechmazur/confabulations/), only using questions where at least one model made a mistake. I added this note:

"The benchmark includes questions where at least one LLM confabulated, in order to minimize the number of questions requiring human assessment. Because of this, and since the questions are intentionally adversarial, the absolute percentage should not be used to infer that LLMs frequently confabulate. This leaderboard does not reflect a "typical" hallucination rate."

> instead of teaching the model how to look for answers from an external source (e.g. RAG)

My benchmark specifically focuses on the RAG use case. Even with provided texts, current models still hallucinate.
> Apple is well on its way to ensure you can only run things they allow via app store

I don't think Apple's behavior actually reflects this if you look closely (although I can certainly see how someone could form that opinion):

As a counter example, Apple assisted with their own engineers to help port Blender to Metal (https://code.blender.org/2023/01/introducing-the-blender-met...):

> Around one year ago, after joining the Blender Development Fund and seeding hardware to Blender developers, Apple empowered a few of its developers to directly contribute to the Blender source code.

I'm assuming similar support goes to other key pieces of software, e.g., from Adobe, Maxon, etc... but they don't talk about it for obvious reasons.

The point being Apple considers these key applications to their ecosystem, and (in my estimation at least) these are applications that will probably never be included in the App Store. (The counterargument would be the Office Suite, which is in the App Store, but the key Office application, Excel, is a totally different beast than the flagship Windows version, that kind of split isn't possible with the Adobe suite for example.)

Now what I actually think is happening is the following:

1. Apple believes the architecture around security and process management that they developed for iOS is fundamentally superior to the architecture of the Mac. This is debatable, but personally I think it's true as well for every reason, except for what I'll go into in #2 below. E.g., a device like the Vision Pro would be impossible with macOS architecture (too much absolute total complete utter trash is allowed to run unfettered on a Mac for a size-constrained device like that to ever be practical, e.g., all that trash consumes too much battery).

2. The open computing model has been instrumental in driving computing forward. E.g., going back to the Adobe example, After Effects plugins are just dynamically linked right into the After Effects executable. Third party plugins for other categories often work similarly, e.g., check out this absolutely wild video on how you install X-Particles on Cinema 4D (https://insydium.ltd/support-home/manuals/x-particles-video-...).

I'm not sure if anyone on the planet even knows why, deep down, #2 is important, I've never seen anyone write about it. But all the boundary pushing computing fields I'm interested in, which is mainly around media creation (i.e., historically Apple's bread-and-butter), seems to depend on it (notably they are all also local first, i.e., can't really be handled by a cloud service that opens up other architecture options).

So the way I view it is that Apple would love to move macOS to the fundamentally superior architecture model from iOS, but it's just impossible to do so without hindering too many use cases that depend on that open architecture. Apple is willing to go as close to that line as they can (in making the uses cases more difficult, e.g., the X-Particles video above), but not actually willing to cross it.
Exactly same story here.

For it's time, the 2015 model was a fantastic package: reliable and robust in form and function.

Would've kept going on it had Apple silicon and 14 inch not come around.

Barring super niche LLM use cases, I don't see why one would need to upgrade.
We are sorely lacking a "Make Computer Science a Science" movement, the tech lead's blurb is par for the course, talking about "SWE productivity" with no reference to scientific inquiry and a foundational understanding of safety, correctness, verification, validation of these new LLM technologies.
Most people do install Nvidia’s out‐of‐tree graphics driver. It is definitely a risk.
Dedicated to reverse engineering every update to vanguard? Huge waste of effort. They would probably just steal the source code.
VAC is absolutely terrible, are you kidding? You have to rage to get VAC banned.
Not impressed. I currently auto generate 90% or more of the code I need to implement business solutions. With no AI involved. Just high level declarations of intent auto translated to C++/Typescript/…
It should be - if a server firehose streams all players' network data to an analysis thing, it should be able to detect patterns of impossible accuracy and response time, even though there is some margin for error due to e.g. lag and packet loss (iirc intentional lag / packet loss are some strategies cheaters use to obfuscate things like aimbots, e.g. generating movements that shoot someone in the head but holding them back for a second or so so that in theory a competent player could have done the required motions within a second instead of 1/100th thereof)
Every time I've listened to a NotebookLM podcast on some article or blog post, I would have much preferred a simple AI text to speech of the same article.
It's worth noting that when you first install it, steam asks to install a service to assist with its duties, presumably for most install tasks. Steam has been around long enough and that service is now trouble free that it became part of the furniture most ignore as part of the background. That's aside from how users may be trained to hit 'yes' on any permission box that comes up to swat it away and play the game.
> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

I don't think the issue here is that he doesn't understand. I think the issue is he's lying.

He's almost certainly starting with the policy that he wants for his own self-interest, then working backwards from that to come up with BS arguments for it that sound good. He's not an idiot so almost certainly knows full well what he's doing.
ClickPy – Python Package Analytics
Right now it looks like a coin toss. He could well end up worse off. I'm not sure he thinks these things through thoroughly enough.
To some degree, yes. But there are actually many cheaters that intentionally don't play perfectly to avoid detection. That way they appear higher skilled but still within human range.
The first release set should be downloadable now for inspection. (It's binaries only, source is released for select components)
If that was what responsibility meant, then by definition any CEO is fulfilling their responsibility.

The moral meaning of responsibility here means that the CEO takes responsibility for the lives and livelihoods of those affected -- which does feel a bit hollow when the CEO presumably is not only not affected negatively, but probably will be rewarded for increasing shareholder value.
> exploiting the buyer's noble desire to support their favorite artist, make memories with friends, meet strangers, or have a transformative experience -- all for the sole purpose of financial profit

Buddy, what do you think Ticketmaster is doing?
CP is better described as "images of child abuse", and the argument is that the viewing is revictimising the child.

You appear to be suggesting that you shouldn't go to prison for possessing images of babies being raped?
Compared to what some Ideal sure. Compared to being raised or cared for by the state my guess is that would change.
I heard lines of code is a hot one.
Very cool! It's a bit off topic, but I used to enjoy Google's travel app, which had a feature that found the shortest path between many popular tourism destinations in a city. That way as close as I'll personally come to route optimization ;)
I want guilty people to go free if their 4th amendment rights are violated, thats the only way to ensure police are meticulous about protecting peoples rights
What a foolish remark.
They at least contain exactly who you worked for and the time period as well as possibly your title. None of that is provided in the WARN act.
I suppose that was an intentional choice, I can imagine running the amount of worlds that GTA has (iirc you only have up to 32 or so players in a world? Something like that) doesn't scale well cost-wise. IDK if AWS and co were up for the task yet back when. But since you earn in-game currency, not having a central authority check these things is... an interesting choice.

I suspect GTA VI may improve on these things and have centralised/dedicated/anti-cheat-guaranteed servers. Then again, it never impacted their profit margins so idk.