skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Aye. I can't find that part spelled out anywhere for CA. (There's probably case law on the topic, but IANAL.)

My lay interpretation is, I think, the same as yours: In order to avoid doing illegal things, one would have to walk a mile to cross the road in your example.

And as a lay jaywalker: I'm absolutely certain that I would never do that; I'd simply cross the road when when it was safe to do so. (I'd also like to hope that I would have the time, money, and opportunity to have a turn in front of a judge for any resulting citation because this kind of result is absolute horseshit.)
Absolutely. Hot pan, hot fat, let the egg set enough not to tear before you try to turn it.
No worries at all. And thanks for the additional color.
I think you're missing the broader analogy here; Cheap LLMs == LLMs everywhere. Cheap food == People everywhere.

I'm no Malthusian, but the paradox holds here pretty well.
I believe most people use AI to help them quickly figure out how to use a library or an API without having to read all their (often out dated) documentation instead of helping them solve some mathematical challenge
No need to fork Swift to accomplish that.
I'm not a Google employee but I've heard enough stories to know that a surprising amount of code changes at google are basically updating API interfaces.

The way google works, the person changing an interface is responsible for updating all dependent code. They create PRs which are then sent to code owners for approval. For lower-level dependencies, this can involve creating thousands of PRs across hundreds of projects.

Google has had tooling to help with these large-scale refactors for decades, generally taking the form of static analysis tools. However, these would be inherently limited in their capability. Manual PR authoring would still be required in many cases.

With this background, LLM code gen seems like a natural tool to augment Google's existing process.

I expect Google is currently executing a wave of newly-unblocked refactoring projects.

If anyone works/worked at google, feel free to correct me on this.
Any company that makes big money on
long-living multiplayer games?
This is a great example of how these massive for-profit companies can be actively harmful to the public good. I'm not sure how to combat these issues, which are genuine challenges against freedom everywhere, but perhaps stronger oversight from our elected leaders should be involved, the way Congress is able to put a check on our public institutions.
If you don’t have AppleCare, it costs $1400+. M2 Pro here that I’m waiting to fix or upgrade because of that.

What’s more annoying is that I’d jus to get a new one and recycle this one, but the SSD is soldered on. Good on you for having a backup.

Do not own a Mac unless you bought it used or have AppleCare.
Have you ever looked at how many things actually require showing an ID? The list is endless. Nothing is ever heard about that by those who oppose voter ID, why is that?

I live in Sweden where I have to show my ID when I vote. I lived in the Netherlands where I had to show my ID when I voted. Everybody has to, everybody does it, nobody - and I mean nobody - has any problems with this because everybody understands the need.
I understand we will be able to disable that just in case? I don't want a Microsoft Windows telemetry dejavu.
8 authors attached to this.

> SimpleQA is a simple but challenging benchmark for evaluating the factuality of frontier models. A main limitation in SimpleQA is its scope—while SimpleQA is accurate it only measures factuality under the constrained setting of short, fact-seeking queries with a single, verifiable answer. Whether the ability to provide factual short answers correlates with the ability to write lengthy responses filled with numerous facts remains an open research question.

OpenAI going to have some rounds of layoffs in the future.
I wish I could get access to the "App'x 29" being referenced so that I could better understand the judges' understanding here. I assume this is Federal Appendix 29 (in which case a more thorough reference would've been appreciated). If the Appeals Court is going to cite the Federal Appendix in a decision like this and in this manner, then the Federal Appendix is as good as case law and West Publishing's copyright claims should be ripped away. Either the Federal Appendix should not be cited in Appeals Court and Supreme Court opinions, or the Federal Appenix is part of the law and belongs to the people. There is no middle there.

> I think the search should be allowed without warrant because even though a accidental collision is possible odds are so strongly against it that the courts can safely assume there isn't

The footnote in the decision bakes this property into the definition of a hash:

A “hash” or “hash value” is “(usually) a short string of characters generated from a much larger string of data (say, an electronic image) using an algorithm—and calculated in a way that makes it highly unlikely another set of data will produce the same value.

(Importantly, this is NOT an accurate definition of a hash for anyone remotely technical... of course hashing algorithms with significant hash collisions exist, and is even a design criterion for some hashing algorithms...)
All from public domain and competitive programming + some proprietary modifications + multithreading is custom too. It's free but not open source yet.
Everything says "wants to make changes to your device". I accidentally installed EAC that way.
would be slow to use COT on simple requests like 1+1
Yeah I’m paranoid like I said, but this case it seems like the hash of a file on google’s remote storage flagged as potential match that was used as justification to request a warrant. That seems common sense and did not involve employees snooping pre-warrant.

The Apple CSAM hash detection process, that the launch was rolled back, concerned me namely because it was run on-device with no opt out. If this is running on cloud storage then it sort of makes sense. You need to ensure you are not aiding or harboring actually harmful illegal material.

I get there are slippery slopes or whatever but the fact is you cannot just store whatever you wish in a rental. I don’t see this as opening mass regex surveillance of our communication channels. We have the patriot act to do that lol.
Batteries on wheels: The untapped potential of EVs [pdf]
If we assume that text and images are made for human consumption then there is a limit in how much we can consume. In fact I doubt there is much room for our society's per-person media consumption to increase. There is obviously room for growth in fewer people seeing the same content, and room for some "waste" (i.e. content nobody ever sees). The upper bound (ignoring waste) would be if everybody only saw and read content that nobody else has ever seen and will ever see. But if we assume society continues to function as it does the real limit will be a lot lower.

Now maybe waste is a bigger issue with content than with food. I'm not sure. Both have some nonzero cost to waste. It might depend on how content is distributed
Status quo, there is no change here.

The old example is the email server administrator. If the email administrator has to view the contents of user messages as a part of regular maintenance and that email administrator notices lawful violations in those user messages they can report it to law enforcement. In that case law enforcement can receive the material without a warrant only if law enforcement never asked for it before it was gifted to them. There are no fourth amendment protections provided to offenders in this scenario of third party accidental discovery. Typically, in these cases the email administrator does not have an affirmed requirement to report lawful violations to law enforcement unless specific laws claim otherwise.

If on the other hand law enforcement approaches that email administrator to fish for illegal user content then that email administrator has become an extension of law enforcement and any evidence discovered cannot be used in a criminal proceeding. Likewise, if the email administrator was intentionally looking through email messages for violations of law even not at the request of law enforcement they are still acting as agents of the law. In that case discovery was intentional and not an unintentional product of system maintenance.

There is a third scenario: obscenity. Obscenity is illegal intellectual property, whether digital or physical, as defined by criminal code. Possession of obscene materials is a violation of criminal law for all persons, businesses, and systems in possession. In that case an email administrator that accidentally discovers obscene material does have a required obligation to report their discoveries, typically through their employer's corporate legal process, to law enforcement. Failures to disclose such discoveries potentially aligns the system provider to the illegal conduct of the violating user.

Google's discovery, though, was not accidental as a result of system maintenance. It was due to an intentional discovery mechanism based on stored hashes, which puts Google's conduct in line with law enforcement even if they specified their conduct in their terms of service. That is why the appeals court claims the district court erred by denying the defendant's right to suppression on fourth amendment grounds.

The saving grace for the district court was a good faith exception, such as inevitable discovery. The authenticity and integrity of the hash algorithm was never in question by any party so no search for violating material was necessary, which established probably cause thus allowing law enforcement reasonable grounds to proceed to trial. No warrant was required because the evidence was likely sufficient at trial even if law enforcement did not directly view image in question, but they did verify the image. None of that was challenged by either party. What was challenged was just Google's conduct.
Client <-> Server architecture can still take you a long way. Culling what you send to the client and relying less on client-side "hiding" of state, server authoritative actions with client-side prediction, etc.

At the end of the day someone could be using hardware "cheats" but you can get down to a pretty good spot to stop or disincentivize cheaters without running rootkits on their devices.
And it’s not particularly close. ~65% of households own their home.

That rate is higher now than in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. It rofl stomps the pre-war era.
Q3 capex came lower than expected (though full year slightly up). Could be an interesting proxy to watch ahead of Nvidia earnings.
Recessions typically are pullbacks of the market sector for 1-2 years, but not necessarily slowdowns in growth, though there is no globally accepted definition for a recession.

Depressions typically have stagnant growth, starting in one sector, and expanding; with no prospects and a duration that can last years (plural). You can have a depression where everyone says they are hiring, but no hiring actually occurs.

Cost of living crises naturally occur during the latter crises given the chaotic nature of deflationary and inflationary forces (money-printing). They are not mutually exclusive.

Payroll data collection has problems with accuracy, people claiming unemployment also have data collection problems. Its not uncommon for the government to withhold unemployment benefit approval until some arbitrary bureacratic requirement is met with no means to contact someone to resolve it timely. I know several people who received their 18 month unemployment effectively as a lump sum and they spent days of labor trying to overcome those hurdles.

This causes a delay of action, and bursts in time (temporally) which cannot be compared except as an average. Revisions are subject to problems too.
The January 1977 issue: <https://www.digibarn.com/collections/mags/byte-covers/BYTE-1...>
Thanks for the information! So, if the subsidies are in the form of tax rebates and subsidized loans, is it safe to say, the full economic benefit of these subsidies as a percentage of vehicle sales revenue is single digits? If so, it seems like there's little reason to doubt that BYD would be immensely successful in the US without tarrifs.
Your citation blames the size of vehicles for the increase in danger, not A pillars specifically. And the demonstration was how many children could be sitting in front of a pickup truck before the driver could see them.

> “They are larger, heavier and higher up from the road than smaller cars and create blind spots that make it challenging for drivers to see vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists,”

I drive a car with enormous A pillars (coupe version of a convertible) and never have issues seeing the children playing in the street because of it. Likely because most 8 year olds would be at eye level with me.

A modern F150 however, an entire car could be obscured by the long, high hood of those.
With Musk's hard shift of TwitterX to the political right, Grok is going to be trained more heavily on the Trump/MAGA views. Being commercialized by the separate AI company, that's going to be a partisan-intentional AI from the beginning.
Sounds a bit like Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amn...
The Virtue of Being Forgotten
I worked at startups for 7 years. Interestingly, WARN acts are mostly irrelevant for startups because they are only triggered when a certain number of people are about to be laid off (100 or more, I believe). When an employer accesses your employment record, they can see very detailed information. A WARN act filing is neither comprehensive nor detailed.
you are comparing a sedan and suv though. byd seal is a better comparison to model 3
15 years ago China was opening up and looking to become more free over time. As such I would oppose any tariffs in the belief that drawing them closer to us is for the better. However now that Xi is in power he has been doing everything to oppose US (and EU, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam...) interests and so I'm forced to support tariffs. In principal I favor free trade, but when I expect war with someone else I can't support them or allow them to get control of things we will need to fight that war.
Because they risk getting punished by angry shareholders and risk lawsuits and risk losing customers if they deviate from the corporate speak to say anything substantial.
I'm not the person who posted the paper.
AI will generate even more spam and scam sites more trivially.
OpenSSL Launches Business Advisory Committees
OpenSSL is launching Business Advisory Committees for Distributions, Committers, Small/Large Businesses, Individuals, and Academics. Nominations open Nov 4, with invites going to active members.
We've migrated our pyenv poetry application - that's pretty complex with data pipeline flows and apis. The only issue we had was loading .env files - we had done some custom env var scripting as a workaround to an AWS issue and that was hard to migrate over. However, once that was done (and was due to bad implementation initially outside of poetry), moving from poetry to uv was rock solid. No issues and it just worked. I was surprised.
There are a few broad areas of risk in AI.

1. Enabling goes both ways, therefore bad actors can also be enabled by AI.

2. Accuracy of suggestions. Information provided by AI may be incorrect, be it code, how to brush one's teeth, or height of Arnold Schwarzenegger. At worst AI can respond against the users interests if the creator of the AI has configured it to do so.

3. Accuracy of Determinations. LLM-as-a-Judge falls under this criteria. This is one of the areas where a single error can magnify the most.

This post says:
What about guardrails?

Guardrails are a separate but related topic. They are a way to prevent the LLM from saying/doing something harmful or inappropriate. This blog post focuses on helping you create a judge that’s aligned with business goals, especially when starting out.

That seems woefully inadequate.

When using AI to make determinations there has to be guardrails. Having looked at drafts of legislation and position statements of governments, many are looking at legally requiring that any implementers of AI systems that make determinations must implement processes to deal with the situation where the AI makes an incorrect determination. To be effective this should be a process that can be initiated by individuals affected by this determination.
95% * 95% = 90.25%
FBI and Apple „can't”, but 3rd party do and they do it cheaper every day.
> Private Cloud Compute

That's such a security theater. As long as nobody can look inside their ICs, nobody knows what's really happening there.
In what other realm of life does "taking full responsibility" absolve you from any consequences? It "shows empathy," what? Suspect: "I murdered someone and take full responsibility, and I empathize with the victim's next of kin," Judge: "Thank you for your candor all is forgiven, you're off scot free"

If a CEO did not take full responsibility, what would be different?
There's a ton of gamers that like to figure out how the game itself works. There's a ton of them trying to figure out how anti cheats work, sometimes to cheat, but more often because they're curious, resourceful teenagers taking it as a challenge.
> To my experience, AIs can generate perfectly good code relatively easy things, the kind you might as well copy&paste from stackoverflow, and they'll very confidently generate subtly wrong code for anything that's non-trivial for an experienced programmer to write. How do people deal with this?

Well, just in the last 24 hours, ChatGPT gave me solutions to some relatively complex problems that turned out to be significantly wrong.

Did that mean it was a complete waste of my time? I’m not sure. Its broken code gave me a starting point for tinkering and exploring and trying to understand why it wasn’t working (even if superficially it looked like it should). I’m not convinced I lost anything by trying its suggestions. And I learned some things in the process (e.g. asyncio doesn’t play well together with Flask-Sock)
Love zrok.io, I work on its parent, OpenZiti. It makes me wonder; OpenZiti makes PKI much simpler while providing the secure overlay, we even used our SDKs to demonstrate zero trust overlay networking built into MQTT - https://github.com/ekoby/mqziti... could that be useful for your use case??
* on M1 and M2 variants.
> Or do they have 25% trivial code?

We all have probably 25% or more trivial code. AI is great for that. I have X (table structure, model, data, etc) and I want to make Y with it. A lot of code is pretty much mindless shuffling data around.

The other thing is good for is anything pretty standard. If I'm using a new technology and I just want to get started with whatever is the best practice, it's going to do that.

If I ever have to do PowerShell (I hate PowerShell), I can get AI to generate pretty much whatever I want and then I'm smart enough to fix any issues. But I really don't like starting from nothing in a tech I hate.
CISA, CRA, and PLD: some updates on government regulation of open source
> WARN acts are mostly irrelevant for startup

Well yes. If you're at a startup you should assume you're always a few months from being laid off. Everyone should assume that. You're fighing to survive; the default is dead.

Dropbox, on the other hand, is not a start-up. It's had to file WARN notices [1]. "Nobody can do a background check on a company to see who they laid off or fired before they work there" is false.

[1] https://www.warntracker.com/company/dropbox
> Does Google now have 25% subtly wrong code?

How do you quantify "new code" - is it by lines of code or number of PRs/changesets generated? I can easily see it being the latter - if an AI workflow suggests 1 naming-change/cleanup commit to your PR made of 3 other human-authored commits, has it authored 25% of code? Arguably, yes - but it's trivial code that ought to be reviewed by humans. Dependabot is responsible for a good chunk of PRs already.

Having a monorepo brings plenty of opportunities for automation when refactoring - whether its AI, AST manipulation or even good old grep. The trick is not to merge the code directly, but have humans in the loop to approve, or take-over and correct the code first.
To err is human. To err at scale is AI.
I think the interesting thing here is the difference between Not Attempt and Incorrect — the goal here seems to be to reduce hallucination
Narrator: it did not, in fact, save the day.
That's exactly what I tell my friends.

I can't play certain games, because they don't run on Linux and even if they did, I am not gonna install a rootkit to run them.
If I look at the comments of this post my conclusion is that using "true" and "know" is hiding what the actual result is from a lot of people. So people get stuck on meaningless discussions. Seeing this makes me conclude that it is a bad choice from the knowledge transfer point of view for the scientific community. It would be better to use more objective/less emotionally charged words (which is what I understand by scientific language).

If I now talk about my personal experience, when I read this article I have to "translate" in my head every appearance of those words to something that I can work with and is objective. And I find that annoying.
Show HN: An AI celebrity voice generator and video lipsyncing tool
Hey everyone, we've built KlipLab: a web-app that allows users to create TTS voiceovers and lip-synced videos using the voices of celebrities, public figures, and fictional characters. You can also upload your own audio and video files and have them lip-synced.

This was inspired by our need to streamline content creation for our Instagram page @compsci.brainrot.
I still use Basecamp for this kind of stuff.
Who claims that he is speaking the truth and not some marketing jargon?
It would not only take a lot of developer resources, but also computing power.
I’ve lost 60 pounds and my health has improved considerably. I was overeating out of boredom and stress. I’ve been able to reduce my blood pressure medication. My blood sugar is much more controlled. I started riding a recumbent bike for an hour and a half a day due to concerns of losing muscle along with fat.
And BP says they will pay to clean up their mess. But then spends the next two decades suing to not pay
M1 Pro compared to Intel was so big step ahead that I suppose we all are still surprised and excited. Quiet, long battery life and better performance. By a lot!
I wonder if M4 really feels that much faster and better - having M1 Pro I'm not going to change quickly, but maybe Mac Mini will land some day.
Jumping in to try to settle on common ground.

It's not that there isn't a benefit to under eating. Demonstrably there is.

Nor is there a strict disadvantage to overeating sometimes - it keeps you alive and is a great way to store food.

It's just that we probably regularly did both. We probably ate a lot, then very little, either on daily, monthly, or annual cycles. So it just so happened that beneficial things took advantage of those cycles as the right time to do beneficial things.

Think of it this way: I need to defrag my hard drive, but I cannot do that when I'm playing games. It's not that there's a benefit to stopping playing games, it's just that that's when I can defrag. It's probably similar with all the autophagy benefits of fasting - we were probably regularly not eating so we did it then. During eating we can't really do all that good stuff.

And conversely, I really need to build muscle and brain tissue, and that's probably easier to do when I'm calorie rich. It's just the right time, and I can count on a calorie-reduction later to do the other stuff.

We just never have that calorie deficit anymore.
I had not seen that one, so I looked it up.

This was reminder to me that art is subjective. I don’t get the outrage. I kinda like it.