skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I basically agree with this. Which is why I run a Linux box for gaming, and why I don't play games that have this problem.

I used to play Quake-likes, and there are people who are just that good out there, but it assuages the ego so much more to call them cheaters. I saw this all the time on CS - as soon as someone even halfway good joined, everyone called them a cheater and the game dissolved. I eventually realised that this is not an anti-cheating problem, but a community/personality problem with the people that like playing these games. So I stopped.
Do you think it will escalate to the point that client side checks will be worthless? Say in 5yrs I can let an AI watch the screen and control the mouse and keyboard. From the rootkitted computer, it can't tell I used an external AI to control the USB keyboard and mouse.
> The model of non-self-interacting gravity is a particle we call a "graviton," and it probably describes reality very well when the gravitation involved is so weak that its self-interaction is undetectable.

Can you please elaborate, the first part of the sentence says graviton is for non-self-interacting gravity, the second part of the sentence says graviton is for self-interacting (if 'its' in 'its self-interaction' refers to the graviton).

I don't intend to nitpick the sentence, just trying to understand the theory and I don't even know if particle means self interaction or the opposite and can't parse it here either...

If the answer is graviton is for non-self-interacting: what is the model for the other case (where gravity does self interact) and what would cause that self interaction if not the graviton?
This archived website has a few (very terrible) pictures, and some videos that refuse to play for me. They say it's very hard to photograph without over-exposing, but still.

https://web.archive.org/web/20021017031149/http://home.eunet...
copy_file_range already works on zfs, but it doesn't guarantee anything interesting.

Basically all dupe tools that are modern use fideduprange, which is meant to tell the FS which things should be sharing data, and let it take care of the rest.
(BTRFS, bcachefs, etc support this ioctl, and zfs will soon too)

Unlike copy_file_range, it is meant for exactly this use case, and will tell you how many bytes were dedup'd, etc.
576 CS-3 nodes costs around $900 million, which is $1.56 million per node.

It takes 4 nodes to serve one 70B model or $6.24m. It is unclear how many requests they can serve concurrently for this, they only report on tokens.

A cluster of 128 MI300x, which has a combined 24,576GB and can serve up a whole ton of models and users, 4 racks total, is in the ~$5m range, if you don't go big on networking/disk/ram (which you don't need for inference anyway).

While speed might be an issue here, I don't think people are going to be able to justify the price for the speed (always the tradeoff) unless they can get their costs down significantly.
Isn't Windows running under a hyper-v hypervisor these days anyway?

In practice, I'd settle for a peer Windows OS, like the WSL2 kernel, with the rootkit seperate from my main work one. Can I run two copies of Windows simultaneously as peers?
I'm not quite sure what you are on about.

What bearing does what you mention have on the question on whether things got more or less complicated?

> Also, when expected outcomes don't align with perceived results, it's usually best but not very human to doubt yourself.

Eg this seems like something that would apply equally well at any time?

> Whoever has Shor/Grovers going first, has a advantage equitable to winning the AGI race... That too can win wars.

We have plenty of quantum resistant options, and people are already switching over.

And the story of the Enigma and its encryption shows that cryptographic and its breakage was already important back in the day.

> Nothing is simple and perceived simpleness is on the clock, for everyone.

How is this different now than before, though?
Unfortunately it's quite easy to overheat a teflon pan on an induction stove.
Not sure if you're referencing it but there was a recent scandal where it was suspected someone playing against Magnus might have had a wireless butt plug to enable some cheating...

The sibling comment makes a point about anonymity, I find these discussions interesting in comparison with the only online competitive game I play these days. It's Tekken, and neither the current rendition nor the previous one had any real form of anti-cheat. For the current Tekken 8, supposedly some players have been banned after manual review from the company of replay data, which of course doesn't scale. But at the same time it doesn't really matter. Cheaters don't seem to be that prevalent, their ability to spoil the experience of a match is limited by the fact that matches are short, and people can spoil the experience in non-cheating ways like plugging, lag switching, using a weak computer, and for some sensitive players they'll get unreasonably upset by ki charging/teabagging/taunting/continuing an attack after KO. The status of the highest rank is also not that much -- the most status comes from performing well at the big in-person tournaments, where it's going to be harder to cheat and players are somewhat de-anonymized. If the positive incentives to cheat are minimized in the first place, you don't need so many negative incentives like rootkits.

(It always amazes me how custom controllers and even keyboards are allowed in fighting game tournaments, officially certain macros are banned and at least for Street Fighter certain modes of leverless controllers got banned, but it'd be hard to perfectly enforce. And it's been hilarious to see the increasing use of fake buttons or controller-hiding covers/jackets because it was assumed some players were able to see inputs out of their peripheral vision before they were registered in-game and adjust.)
That's one of business goals of OpenAI, which is to disrupt work and school.
Thankfully it seems like AI is best at automating the most tedious and arguably most useless endeavor in software engineering- rewriting perfectly good code in whatever the language du jour is.
Sure, if it doesn't exist before you order it.

If it's already been made, someone may even pay you to take it away.
I cannot let go of the green mid 2000s Steam user interface aesthetic
Indeed, my English typing was significantly improved once I had to type a lot in IRC---I can type around 120 WPM nowadays. That said, the tendency to do Slack huddles seems much more complex than typing speed. Writing has an intrinsic delay compared to speaking, and that delay can sometimes suppress important informations without realizing. For that reason I'm fine with huddles from managers, but would prefer a dedicated meeting or textual conversation over other huddles.
Traindex: Transform Workforce Skills with AI-Powered, Personalized Training
Traindex at www.traindex.io is an advanced workforce training and skill development platform designed to help organizations upskill their teams with ease and efficiency. It provides end-to-end solutions for creating, delivering, and managing training programs tailored to unique team needs.

Traindex stands out with its AI-powered skill assessment engine and customized learning recommendations. Unlike traditional training platforms, Traindex doesn’t just track course completion but assesses individual skill gaps, delivering personalized learning suggestions to maximize growth. Its real-time analytics dashboard tracks training ROI, enabling leaders to make data-backed decisions that align with business goals.
I can't rely on marketplaces doing a decent job at this - that's why I use Fakespot [0] by Mozilla!

[0]: https://www.fakespot.com/
> lag compensation

That's already done entirely server side. It could only be. If you mean predictive positioning from the client side you can do that with far less state than gets transmitted today, and you could factor in the other players momentum on the server side to see if prediction would even be necessary in a given frame or not.

The server could also send lots of phantom updates so the player client has no idea which objects are real and which aren't. The hacks could work around this but it would take a lot of power to do so. There's room for asymmetric counterhacks here.

As for the other types of bots those are far less useful and more detectable by naked eye without wallhacks, which ironically, is because lag compensation is server side, these hacks do not have a deterministic outcome when used.

When you look at a video of what a wallhack enables and how much state data gets transmitted that shouldn't be, I would be embarrassed to have such unworthy netcode in the 2020s. They've had 20 years and have done next to nothing.
Fakespot – Use AI to detect fake reviews and scams
No, because none of these tools use copy_file_range. Because copy_file_range doesn't guarantee deduplication or anything. It is meant to copy data. So you could just end up copying data, when you aren't even trying to copy anything at all.

All modern tools use FIDEDUPRANGE, which is an ioctl meant for explicitly this use case - telling the FS that two files have bytes that should be shared.

Under the covers, the FS does block cloning or whatever to make it happen.

Nothing is copied.

ZFS does support FICLONERANGE, which is the same as FIDEDUPRANGE but it does not verify the contents are the same prior to cloning.

Both are atomic WRT to concurrent writes, but for FIDEDUPRANGE that means the compare is part of the atomicness. So you don't have to do any locking.

If you used FICLONERANGE, you'd need to lock the two file ranges, verify, clone, unlock

FIDEDUPRANGE does this for you.

So it is possible, with no changes to ZFS, to modify dedup tools to work on ZFS by changing them to use FICLONERANGE + locking if FIDEDUPRANGE does not exist.
Sorry, I can't understand the idea, why iron is bad and what does it have to do with blood donations?

I mean I know iron and blood are related but this particular statement just won't compute
“Some of you may lose your jobs, homes, or families, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.”
This was such a great challenge to follow. I learned a ton about different programming languages, their advantages and disadvantages, their idioms and paradigms.

Overall this was just such a great event! Thanks for organizing it!

(A silent observer)
> The author says that a Bookshop.org list they created that links back to Shepherd is ranking #2, and this kinda makes sense to me. Bookshop.org sells the books, it makes sense that would rank above a site that only links to (and makes money from) sites that sell books.

In other words google is giving preference to a site that probably pays them for ads to a site that is effectively a competitor (since the site would make revenue from affiliate links that google might have gotten from ads, especially if the user liked the site and went directly there for future book recommendations).

Also, if I am searching for the "best" of something, I want something with commentary, not a list from a vendor without relevant information for choosing the right product.
>It is now very easy to sprinkle in regexes to validate user input , like email addresses, on every controller instead of using a central lib/utility for that.

Some people are touting this as a major feature. "I don't have to pull in some dependency for a minor function - I can just have AI write that simple function for me." I, personally, don't see this as a net positive.
I cook eggs in a stainless steel frying pan several times a week, and I just use plenty of butter. The egg doesn't stick. Also, don't let the butter burn, and don't let the pan get too hot.
They wrote their own json parser which used strlen() all over the place, which is O(n), resulting in O(n^2) complexity for json parsing. The guy shimmed the function to return a cached response if it was called with the same string consecutively, which it was for parsing the JSON. The JSON contained the items in the real-money store btw.
This is correct. Sadly, this is also unhelpful. As long as you can't guarantee that the cooking utensil is from newly-made and clean black plastic from a reputable source, there is still risk. Think about a random convenience store item. OTOH e.g. a green or red utensil is free from that particular risk (unless a new investigation finds something for these types).

That is, a reputable source, e.g. an established cookware company, may proclaim that their existing black plastics are fine, safe for cookware, and have been tested. But a smart move for them would be to stop using black plastics for cookware, because a customer will just remember one highly reductionist association: "cookware + black plastic = poison". It's not always true, but it may sometimes be true, and that's enough.

Even if the particular research will be found lacking by new investigations and reproduction attempts, a lot of people will still remember this association for years, due to its shock value, simplicity, and trust to The Atlantic (which is generally a really good resource).
> I know I used to he better at multiplication when i didn't have calculators all around me.

My manual calculation skills were at their peak in seventh grade in school, when we were allowed to use a calculator for the first time (and thus the exercises got harder) but simultaneously I usually forgot to bring mine.

But yeah, I don't think I could think better in general, when I did arithmetic better.
Most consumer PTFE coatings are declared to be safe up to 450°F. It is trivially easy to heat a pan beyond that temperature on modern gas, electric, and induction ranges in less than ten minutes. The margin of safety is demonstrably nonexistent and it’s wild to me that we just accept this risk constantly, everywhere, anytime we eat food (whether at home or from a restaurant).
Why not sex? You only have to meet a few men and a few women to observe different preferrences for different strategies to the same problems. Even different perception of problems at all in the first place.

You can't imagine how that can result in different code?

It's the least remarkable claim imaginable. Though I'm not sure this study quite proves it.
I think hating that is kind of a choice. Like sure it's bothersome, but if you didn't grow up there and spend a decade in school doing a lot of writing by hand then the only substitute is to do a crap tonne of writing by hand as an adult. The investment in time for such a small pay off as filing out forms being less of a hassle likely isn't worth the full investment of time required. So, if you just accept it for what it is, then don't mind the extra time required when filing out forms, I guess it's not so bad.
But aren‘t other LLMs just going to scrape the dataset and pre-learn the answers?
Deploy a Database Cluster Across Multiple Kubernetes Clusters
Do you believe that the LLM understands what it is saying and is applying the logic that you interprets from its response, or do you think its simply repeating similar patterns of words its seen associated with the question you presented it?
> You think, then you type. They happen at different times!

Really? I can certainly type while thinking cause I did so while writing this very sentence, and I have assumed that they are pipelined and improving one without another is meaningless up to some threshold. I should note that I don't think in English, but I can pull English words incrementally from my mind so I don't think that matters much anyway.
You can, and people do, resell Windows licenses in Europe. Microsoft seethes about it, but can go fuck itself, because this is legal.
Germans have this "StVO" which regulates the rules in traffic and also what happens if you not follow them. Crossing a red light can result in a ticket, no matter whether you are a pedestrian or driving a car. Naturally, doing that in a car is a strict no-go, while pedestrians, if there is no car traffic, you will see them ignoring it. Still, they can be fined for doing so regardless whether there was car traffic or not. However, breaking the rules laid out in StVO is not a felony. It can become one if we talk about reckless driving which results in dead people.

Away (enough) from traffic lights, crossing streets is perfectly fine, but you have to watch the traffic. Walking on a street (i.e. not just crossing it) can be considered a "traffic hazard" (if there is any traffic to begin with) and may result in a fine as well. One thing clearly forbidden is crossing an Autobahn by foot which is why there are always bridges or tunnels to cross it, for pedestrians and other traffic alike.
I would agree with you. In general, humans have still not resolved any certain theory of knowledge for ourselves! How can we expect a machine to do that then?

In reality humans are wrong basically most of the time. Especially when you go off a humans immediate reaction to a problem which is what we force LLMs to do (unless you're using chain of thought or pause tokens).

That being said there still is a notion of truthfulness because LLMs can also be made to deceive in which case they 'know' to act deceptively.
Is this comment an implicit endorsement of giving blood as a health benefit because it allows to slough off heavy metals or something? what…? News to me.
In other words, tech based solutions to human problems always fails at some point probably because the problem creators can also use tech.
You’re comparing cameras against different product segments.

Laptop cameras are significantly smaller in all dimensions than phone cameras. Most laptop cameras are 1-4MP. Most are 720p (1MP), and a few are 1080p (2MP). The previous MacBook was 1080p

For reference, a 4k image is 8MP.

12MP is absolutely a massive resolution bump, and I’d challenge you to find a competitive alternate in a laptop.
M3 was built on an expensive process node, I don’t think it was ever meant to be around long.
Or a gift link: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/10/black-pla...

(@dang, please consider using it as the main link.)
It’s not, unless contexts get as large as comparable training materials. And you’d have to compile adequate materials. Clearly, just adding some documentation about $tool will not have the same effect as adding all the gigabytes of internet discussion and open source code regarding $tool that the model would otherwise have been trained on. This is similar to handing someone documentation and immediately asking questions about the tool, compared to asking someone who had years of experience with the tool.

Lastly, it’s also a huge waste of energy to feed the same information over and over again for each query.
what is his jam? blackberry is my favorite jam; blueberry is the worst, so i hope its not blueberry.
Ask the LLM what it thinks of tianenmen and we will understand what truth really means.
Nearly every woman I know in the sciences or engineering has a large number of stories of aggressive and inappropriate sexual advances, and in many cases outright sexual assault or rape in the workplace- typically from people in positions of power over them where they felt their careers were at risk simply from refusing the advances. Moreover, in most cases if they tried to report it or ask for help, even through official organization channels they were told there would be additional consequences if they didn’t keep quiet.

My workplace even had a sexual assault in the workplace training course where they coached us to stop co-workers from speaking if they started to disclose being victimized at work, I assume to avoid being legally responsible to respond appropriately.
I’ll take the hit, he was being a dick.
Having worked at both FAANG companies and startups, I can offer a perspective on AI's coding impact in different environments.
At startups, engineers work with new tech stacks, start projects from scratch, and need to ship something quickly. LLMs can wrtie way more code. I've seen ML engineers build React frontends without any previous frontend experience, flutter developers write 100-line SQL queries for data analysis, with LLM 10x productivity for this type of work.
At FAANG companies, codebases contain years of business logic, edge cases, and 'not-bugs-but-features.' Engineers know their tech stacks well, and legacy constraints make LLMs less effective, and can generate wrong code that needs to be fixed
Whenever you use [DllImport], the analyzer will nudge you to auto-fix it to [LibraryImport] which source-generates a marshalling stub (if any is needed) that then calls an inner [DllImport] that does not require runtime marshalling. This is very cheap since function address gets cached into a readonly static which then gets baked into the machine code once the JIT produces Tier-1 compilation for your method.

On NativeAOT, you can instead use "DirectPInvoke" which links against specified binary and relies on system loader just like C/C++ code would. Then, you can also statically link and embed the dependency into your binary (if .lib/.a is available) instead which will turn pinvokes into direct calls (marshalling if applicable and GC frame transition remain, on that read below).

Lastly, it is beneficial to annotate short-lived PInvoke calls with [SuppressGCTransition] which avoids some deoptimizations and GC frame transition calls around interop and makes the calls as cheap as direct calls in C + GC poll (a single usually not-taken branch). With this the cost of interop effectively evaporates which is one of the features that makes .NET as a relatively high-level runtime so good at systems programming.

Unmanaged function pointers have similar overhead, and identical if you apply [SuppressGCTransition] to them in the same way.

* LibraryImport is not needed if pinvoke signature only has primitives, structs that satisfy 'unmanaged' constraint or raw pointers since no marshalling is required for these.
"Knowing what you had to know to write that, would you dare using it?"

It's no worse than anything else related to block cloning :)

ZFS already supports FICLONERANGE, the thing FIDEDUPRANGE changes is that the compare is part of the atomic guarantee.

So in fact, i'd argue it's actually better than what is there now - yes, the hardest part is the locking, but the locking is handled by the dedup range call getting the right locks upfront, and passing them along, so nothing else is grabbing the wrong locks. It actually has to because of the requirements to implement the ioctl properly. We have to be able to read both ranges, compare them, and clone them, all as an atomic operation wrt to concurrent writes. So instead of random things grabbing random locks, we pass the right locks around and everything verifies the locks.

This means fideduprange is not as fast as it maybe could be, but it does not run into the "oops we forgot the right kind of lock" issue. At worst, it would deadlock, because it's holding exclusive locks on all that it could need before it starts to do anything in order to guarantee both the compare and the clone are atomic. So something trying to grab a lock forever under it will just deadlock.

This seemed the safest course of implementation.

ficlonerange is only atomic in the cloning, which means it does not have to read anything first, it can just do blind block cloning. So it actually has a more complex (but theoretically faster) lock structure because of the relaxed constraints.
Yeah that’s not how next token prediction works. To actually do multiple passes you’d need to do that yourself, making multiple calls and feeding the responses back to the model.
its pure nonsense.
Serious question. WHAT EXACTLY sits in Reality Labs? You can't expect me to believe the oculus vr glasses cost 4.4bn in R&D.