skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, heritability is orthogonal to the question of whether a trait is determined by genetics.

But traits like IQ, height, and eye color are both (A) highly heritable and (B) substantially shaped by genetic factors. In casual online discourse, I believe that (B) is usually taken for granted, so it's glossed over, and when people say that any given trait is "heritable" they're also assuming that (B) is true for the trait. At least, I am guilty of that lapse.

And I take your point about language.
Well that's true and has been pretty glaring, but they've needed to do that in cases where models seem to fail to grasp the some concept across the board and not in cases where they don't.

Like, every time an LLM gets something right we assume they've seen it somewhere in the training data, and every time they fail we presume they haven't. But that may not always be the case, it's just extremely hard to prove it one way or the other unless you search the entire dataset. Ironically the larger the dataset, the more likely the model is generalizing while also making it harder to prove if it's really so.

To give a human example, in a school setting you have teachers tasked with figuring out that exact thing for students. Sometimes people will read the question wrong with full understanding and fail, while other times they won't know anything and make it through with a lucky guess. If LLMs (and their vendors) have learned anything it's that confidently bullshitting gets you very far which makes it even harder to tell in cases where they aren't. Somehow it's also become ubiquitous to tune models to never even say "I don't know" because it boosts benchmark scores slightly.
You're right, but I can't fix that. What I can do is help HN readers who didn't know about that filter list. Maybe they can help the people they know.
I have both a German mobile number and landline number, and have never once received a scam and spam call on either in the 8 years I have been living in Germany. I guess it is a problem of having a public contact number on a website.
> If the company doesn't store any "personal data", GDPR has nothing to do with it. It's strictly about "personal data"

You’re still obligated to respond to requests, even if it’s no response. And data regulators will still follow up on groundless complaints.

DMCA is strictly about copyright violation. If you’re not violating copyrights it should have nothing to do with you. But that isn’t how things play out in reality.

> have any quotes/sources for this?

No, just anecdotal. Every Magic Circle firm, however, will happily file complaints in multiple jurisdictions for you.

I’ll admit I’ve used GDPR a touch vindictively after a customer service interaction went poorly. Lots of requests, wait for a minor fuck-up, escalate to multiple data regulators because I technically have multiple nexuses. European equivalent of copying your state AG on a letter, except the burden to respond is on the company.
Like a scam caller who then genuinely helps you somehow
You are comparing things that you implicitly assume to be the same, when clearly they are not. Students aren't payed for their work; the education system doesn't benefit from students' work the way companies do from workers; schooling is compulsory (children must attend school by law, but law doesn't force people to have a job).
I'd think anyone capable of installing an adblocker in Chrome would be able to install Firefox + an adblocker.

Obviously it would be better if adblocking wasn't required in the first place.
This is insane... Is this sarcasm?
where the fuck is simonw in this thread

xd
rip

>404 Not Found
Wait, what's your endgame here?
Why is this different than a brick-and-mortar to you? Do people feel they are "private" when shopping in a retail store with AI cameras tracking patterns and behavior, names and purchases collected at checkout, loyalty "discount" cards to get even more data, etc? Even without your name, they can identify you by recognition alone, aka. an anonymized cookie used to track a specific user's behavior.

Somehow people think visiting someone else's private website grants them privileges to be entirely anonymous - it does not anymore so than shopping in a physical retail store.

If we keep going down this path, websites will require a full ToS/EULA just to access the site...
I've been using Codeium's vscode extension (have also tried out vim & emacs 'extensions') and it's my favorite (out of the free ones - that is)

the ctrl-shift-i for "inline chat - sort of", generate docstrings, control over context, I dunno, a couple small details that make it a little better.

I don't know what model they use but it's quite fast and I don't personally notice an "iq penalty" although I'm sure there is one
Cool HTML design without JavaScript
This attestation doesn’t change a ton with that, though. The point is to provide chain of custody — it got to my computer, from pypi, from ???. The PGP signature, much like a self-signed android app, verifies that it continues to be the same person.
Can recommend consent-o-matic Chrome extension which automatically selects "no" to everything!

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/consent-o-matic/mdj...
You could think of it like that, except it supports anything

But yes, convention over configuration (and we still expose the knobs if you want em)
If you are just running a static websites, maybe. But if you are going to run a website with any services on it (video content, eCommerce, member management, etc) you are going to have partners. Establishing a browser session with every single one would be pretty onerous (and honestly much worse for privacy) so a first-party cookie is a pretty good compromise.
If any other profession was as consistently wrong as pollsters are, would they be taken seriously?
I think the main job of pollsters is to provide content for corporate media (the closer the polls the better for attracting eyeballs for advertisers).
And they do this job admirably. It just has nothing to do with the election.
> I think all the major browsers block third party cookies now. Bad actors can use other fingerprints to do tracking.

One would hope so. Google cancelled the plans https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-scraps-plan-remove...
new URL

https://legiscope.com/blog/hidden-productivity-drain-cookie-...
"cookie" banners are required for any tracking, not just teaching based specifically on technical cookies.

Blocking 3rd party cookies has no impact. Everyone and their cousin can technically track you with first party cookies.
>But a lot of businesses assume they need to ask permission for placing any cookies, which is simply not correct.

Partly because of laziness, partly because of pessimistic legal compliance.
> actively tracking a user beyond their visit to a website is difficult or borderline impossible for website owners, as it would require a court order.

I am skeptical of this claim. Partially due to the existence of trackers, beacons, 3rd party cookies and fingerprinting methods.

> Identifying users typically requires a court order to process IP addresses

And this one as well.
I do tell them that. I can't help everyone, but I can help some.
Actually, all the cases you mentioned does not necessitate any consent from European users as long as you don't send these data to any third party. The only thing is, if you plan to store logs over time, it should be anonymized after 25 months. It's not that bad.
Maybe an analogy will make it click: If you have marijuana on you in a country where marijuana is illegal, then finding marijuana on you is illegal. If you don't have marijuana on you, you're not doing anything illegal.

Replace marijuana with "personal data" and imagine it is about websites with visitors within EU. If they're not storing, processing and/or transmitting personal data, there is no compliance requirements (from GDPR at least).
'smartphones' needed a reason to exist, the internet provided that. I doubt we would have had them without it. AI will drive whole new product categories that didn't exist that will then transform our society even more.
The author thinks this is unlikely because it only has an ~1800 ELO. But OpenAI is shady as hell, and I could absolutely see the following purely hypothetical scenario:

- In 2022 Brockman and Sutskever have an unshakeable belief that Scaling Is All You Need, and since GPT-4 has a ton of chess in its pretraining data it will definitely be able to play competent amateur chess when it's finished.

- A ton of people have pointed out that ChatGPT-3.5 doesn't even slightly understand chess despite seeming fluency in the lingo. People start to whisper that transformers cannot actually create plans.

- Therefore OpenAI hatches an impulsive scheme: release an "instruction-tuned" GPT-3.5 with an embedded chess engine that is not a grandmaster, but can play competent chess, ideally just below the ELO that GPT-4 is projected to have.

- Success! The waters are muddied: GPT enthusiasts triumphantly announce that LLMs can play chess, it just took a bit more data and fine-tuning. The haters were wrong: look at all the planning GPT is doing!

- Later on, at OpenAI HQ...whoops! GPT-4 sucks at chess, as do competitors' foundation LLMs which otherwise outperform GPt-3.5. The scaling "laws" failed here, since they were never laws in the first place. OpenAI accepts that scaling transformers won't easily solve the chess problem, then realizes that if they include the chess engine with GPT-4 without publicly acknowledging it, then Anthropic and Facebook will call out the performance as aberrational and suspicious. But publicly acknowledging a chess engine is even worse: the only reason to include the chess engine is to mislead users into thinking GPT is capable of general-purpose planning.

- Therefore in later GPT versions they don't include the engine, but it's too late to remove it from gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct: people might accept the (specious) claim that GPT-4's size accidentally sabotaged its chess abilities, but they'll ask tough questions about performance degradation within the same model.

I realize this is convoluted and depends on conjecture. But OpenAI has a history with misleading demos - e.g. their Rubik's cube robot which in fact used a classical algorithm but was presented as reinforcement learning. I think "OpenAI lied" is the most likely scenario. It is far more likely than "OpenAI solved the problem honestly in GPT-3.5, but forgot how they did it with GPT-4," and a bit more likely than "scaling transformers slightly helps performance when playing Othello but severely sabotages performance when playing chess."
The next step up is "heaven banning":

https://x.com/nearcyan/status/1532076277947330561
This seems like the best way to go. Companies should have to respect "do not track" and browsers should have to enforce it to the extent that it is technically possible. And "do not track" should be per-domain at least.
Scummy companies won't magically disappear or stop scummy practices. We can and should blame them, but it's pretty much obvious that the legislation (despite good intents!) resulted in a de-facto shitshow that failed to recognize basic social/behavior sciences, technical details, or anything else.

It should've been an user-agent centered feature rather than individual website gimmick - that's the only way it could've possibly worked. After that, companies can try to continue doing whatever shit they want to try, but none of their identifiers would be persisted unless user agent allows it. (This does not account for fingerprinting, but that's a whole other story.)

Instead, legislators made some weird decisions that failed to account for human and corporate nature (greed), and we ended up with more popups and banners than ever.
I have to schedule multiple interviews in the day so I can at least feel normal by the last one. I'm at my current job because I scheduled three interviews in a day, including a hour drive to a physical location for the second one.

I was so done with it I wore something between a Hawaiian shirt and a dress shirt to the last interview. This kind of approach is the only thing that works for me.
The title phrasing makes it seem like a Myocardial Infarction is a good thing.
I did extensive work in Visual Basic 6. Nearly all of the GUI's I created had resizeable windows that scaled gracefully. It was really straightforward to hook the Resize event.

I considered this table stakes for any thoughtfully-written piece of software. There were of course exceptions for fixed dialogs that weren't interacted with for long and comfortably fit any small screen.

The page or two of hand-crafted code tended to be at least as readable, and often moreso, than the declarative HTML and CSS gooblygook that's common today. And in practice as a user I found the result tended to be more useful than many of the so-called "responsive" websites I see today - which tend to hide content in annoying ways, ignore opportunities to compact whitespace, plaster the screen with outsized ads, etc. - to the point I sometimes request the "desktop" site in my mobile browser in an effort to chase down a more humane experience.
You sound like an advocate for telemarketers. Am I correct?

I doubt very seriously that the pool of people who have knowingly and intentionally and explicitly opted in/consented to telemarketing - that is, without any dark pattern involvement and with a clear and unmbiguous consent experience, is very large. In fact I think it is infinitesimal because I can’t recall seeing such a consent UX- they ALL involve dark patterns. And if you pair that with “marketer who diligently implements all state & FTC requirements and does timely and accurate processing of removal requests, I think that the 3 relationships left are web app UX testers.

I think the world would be a better place without telemarketing or email marketing. Maybe a “one email per year” limit per merchant who you have actually paid money to and not opted out of.
Maybe the legislation simply should have required DoNotTrack to be honored.
Nvidia should change their brand logo to a shovel.
A Linux Desktop for the Family
> for example, just 12 hours ago, Facebook got hit with another $700 million fine. You don't have to be Facebook for the chilling effect

This one?

"The EU fined online giant Meta almost 800 million euros on Thursday for breaching antitrust rules by giving users of its Facebook social network automatic access to classified ads service Facebook Marketplace." - https://fortune.com/europe/2024/11/14/eu-fines-meta-840-mill...

Because if so, that's going to have the opposite of a chilling effect, as it is anti-trust.

Likewise, what Apple got with Ireland, while Apple has to pay, it's something Ireland did wrong by illegally giving Apple a tax dodge to encourage it to base itself in Ireland rather than anywhere else in Europe — if that's "chilling": good. We don't want tax-dodgers. If Apple can't be profitable in Europe without dodging taxes, something's gone very badly wrong for them.

Now, I'm not saying the EU doesn't over-regulate, as that kind of claim about any government is like saying that a software project contains zero functions that are never invoked by a user. But I am saying the scope of your rhetoric is not sufficiently supported by the evidence provided.
Yes, but for some reason he plays the "mamba". Seems dangerous.
Looool
Best comment
If you can get it on your clipboard, you can usually paste it into Google or append to `https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/` and get the answer.
It may have been as password rotation was a requirement thrown around, but to my knowledge it's not come up in assessments for a long time.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42105869
But credit is where credit's due -- not a bad Danzig impersonator
It's not:

1. That would just be plain bizzare

2. It plays like what you'd expect from a LLM that could play chess. That is, level of play can be modulated by the prompt and doesn't manifest the same way shifting the level of stockfish etc does. Also the specific chess notation being prompted actually matters

3. It's sensitive to how the position came to be. Clearly not an existing chess engine.
https://github.com/dpaleka/llm-chess-proofgame

4. It does make illegal moves. It's rare (~5 in 8205) but it happens. https://github.com/adamkarvonen/chess_gpt_eval

5. You can or well you used to be able to inspect the logprobs. I think Open AI have stopped doing this but the link in 4 does show the author inspecting it for Turbo instruct.
D: Drink in pubs till 10pm including no alcohol purchases after 10.

That's the law here in Scotland. As annoying as it is, the same law doesn't apply in the rest of the UK but it's reasonable.
It's free (for now)
The second cookies are blocked the industry moved to fingerprinting and other methods

It's like piracy, there's only so much you can do plugging holes

Cookie banners always felt like a feel-good solution. Made worse by inconsistent UIs, differing button texts, long explanations, etc.
The pony express put significant cost burden on the sender per message, which is inherently self regulating.
It totally does make the distinction.

If you use cookies for auth, no need to disclail it.

Better, you don't need a banner even of you do track users for anybody with DNT. So you can offer a seamless experience.

They just don't care.
Shame you weren't around when it was the subject of discussion amongst locals.
Not that familiar, but this is sid, which is where debian development happens.

If there's a huge drop, it is most of the time because a package a lot of software depends on got updated or modified (e.g. built with different options) and it caused ABI changes, thus causing rebuilds of everything that depends on it.
And if that data is "transferred" to a 3rd party for that analysis (aka. a REST call into their API) then you are back to requiring these annoying banners.

Or, more common for ecommerce, "transferred" into an advertising algorithm so the business can gain more similar customers. Oh the horror!
The joy of installing VB4 from something like 20-30 numbered 3.5in floppy disks. Now a patch for a modern game that fixes a typo is 2 gigs.
> and there's now an industry dominated by a small handful of players (Osano vs OneTrust)

Because of that there are now neat categories of cookies / cookie purposes.

Would be nice if we could select one time in our browser “necessary cookies only”, and that would be communicated to every website visited, without the need for a banner. But that’s user friendly and that’s anathema to the modern web :)
This all seems right to me. As for your figured bass comment, you could have something like iii^6_4 for an e minor chord with the B in the bass, when the key is C major. But if you were writing it next to the staff you wouldn’t need to write the iii - it’s implied by the bass note and the figures, and classically figured bass writes the minimum it has to, for example just 6 instead of 63 for a first-inversion triad.
Hm. Could've sworn it had one back in 2009…
So how to these things actually work?
Like most of the programmers of my generation, BASIC was the first language I learned. BASIC was so pervasive in the 80s and 90s. Nearly every computer came with a copy of some flavor of BASIC. Even my 6th grade math textbook had an appendix with educational math games in the form of BASIC source code listings.

So long and thanks for all the fish Dr. Kurtz!
For the record, I don't think brick and mortar stores should have an automatic right to surveil and study the personal information of in-person customers without their consent but I agree that ship has largely sailed.
> If you have marijuana on you in a country where marijuana is illegal, then finding marijuana on you is illegal. If you don't have marijuana on you, you're not doing anything illegal

This is a good analogy. By making the marijuana illegal, you also implicitly widen search powers. You can’t arrest someone you think smells like weed if weed is legal. (Or answer a neighbor’s complaint that they suspect they’re growing weed.)

Same idea. If you say you aren’t storing personal data and I say you are, someone’s got the authority to check. Those checks and confirmations cost time and money. With a complain-investigate set-up like GDPR (and American securities law), the burden is on the respondent.
No one said a thing about race. Look up a definition of "ethnocentric" please; ethnocentrism also refers to cultural normativity. Specifically, I was referring to the following idea which can be found on the Wikipedia article on the term "low information voter":

>Linguist George Lakoff has written that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against what liberals assume to be their own interests and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, he said, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters.

It seems to me you are the one applying racial priors to my comment.

As for the second jerky thing you said:

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/how-poverty-af...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1238041

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(22)00428-7/abs...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5266697/

https://neurosciencenews.com/poverty-neurodevelopment-behavi...

https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c13830/revisions/...

https://academic.oup.com/jrsssa/article/179/2/535/7068210?lo...
> She's really good at what she does.

I too try to avoid falling into the all-too-typical trope of reflexively hating on what's broadly popular just because it's popular. While I'm also not a big fan of Swift's music, I agree it's consistently very well executed. I also think she deserves genuine respect for remaining both artistically and financially successful for well over a decade without imploding like so many pop stars seem to. I suspect this requires both intelligence and strength of character.
"The median age of an “Abbott Elementary” viewer is 61 on ABC and 36 on streaming services, according to Nielsen data. For “The Bachelor,” the median age of a viewer is 60 on traditional TV and 32 on streaming."
gopher is still active, see gopher://sdf.org, access via lynx
Yeah, if you can drive your car or put fuel in it and you need to drive for your job... Guess what happens? You don't have a job.
> i think this has everything to do with the fact that learning chess by learning sequences will get you into more trouble than good. even a trillion games won't save you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

Indeed. As has been pointed out before, the number of possible chess positions easily, vastly dwarfs even the wildest possible estimate of the number of atoms in the known universe.
> In general: Southern+Central EU wants to build a new USA. Northern states meanwhile want to reduce the power of the EU. A common market is really the only thing we want.

As someone from the north (specifically Sweden) who now lives in the south (specifically Spain), I'm not sure there is majority in either places, either directions, to state this with confidence. Lots of swedes are happy with EU and wants to make it stronger, and lots of Spaniards who had enough of EU and wants it weaker.

Maybe it looks differently in the center/eastern parts, haven't spent much time there admittedly.
Why can you not publish the interesting parts? Is it something you will be able to publish later?
No, you can generate with them using diffusion.
Vision Pro is different. It has a finger gesture to "tap".

The iPhone eye tracking mode relies on dwelling with your eyes, making it much slower than tapping, therefore not a good option for people without disabilities. Unsurprisingly, the setting to enable it is under Accessibility.
I default to never answering now. Every time I feel like it might be an actual person on the other end and risk answering, it has turned out to be a scammer or spam call. Not sure why governments don't do more against them - scam and spam callers have destroyed phone communication.