skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Do you ever wonder why audio mixing panels have all those buttons and knobs instead of just one big slider labelled "volume"? It's because audio engineers benefit more from the complexity than they lose out from the time taken to learn it.

I've actually worked extensively on audio hardware and software. The mixer slider is there because audio engineers don't benefit from having to type in a float value for gain and need to adjust up and down to balance levels. That said, most effects that affect perceptual loudness have an autogain feature such that the mix fader doesn't need to be changed because of the complexity introduced.

A better example is routing in audio software. This is way more complex than users imagine it to be, and that's because the interface is a simple "connect input to output" that abstracts the underlying complexity.

> A simpler interface is only achieved by making assumptions about how people will use the product, and these assumptions often cause issues for people.

No, it isn't. That's why UI/UX is a different skillset than engineering - discovering how to intuitively present something that isn't complex (note: the complexity of the problem is not the complexity of the interface - if you equate the two, you're doing bad interface design).

> What is the value of instant feedback?

I see what I want and move on instead of fiddling around.

> Simply design your document editing software with two windows, the one on the left shows the textual source, and the one on the right shows the compiled document. These can be kept in sync in real time.

There's a difference between "can" and "should." Now you have to look two places - where you are editing, and where it is rendering.

Like I don't know why software folks are so keen to throw away 50 years of HCI research that's led to local maxima in terms of interfaces - WYSIWYG is not preferred because it's easier to develop or maintain, it's because users actually find it easier than remembering how to invoke the exact sequence of characters in a document to get what they want!
> I've started to realize that many people have been holding on of building things waiting for "that next big update"

I’ve noticed this too — I’ve been calling it intellectual deflation. By analogy, why spend now when it may be cheaper in a month? Why do the work now, when it will be easier in a month?
Browsing their site I found an article that is making light of the suppression of women voters by using sexist tropes.

> Hundreds of thousands of women across America were left standing utterly clueless as to what to do at a voting booth after their husbands failed to tell them who to vote for.

> Voting at several polling stations ground to a halt after all of the booths became occupied by bewildered women. "This is a disaster," said poll worker John Bingham. "We've had thirty women taking up every booth for the past three hours, just staring like deer in headlights. We offered to bring them lunch while they made their choice, but they couldn't decide on a restaurant."

> At publishing time, voting stations had been forced to designate one voting booth for men only to allow voting to continue.

Given the history of women's right to vote, current laws causing women to needlessly die, and that many women today are undoubtedly being coerced by spouses to vote a certain way, calling this simply tone deaf would be extremely charitable. It is only truly funny if you have "women, am I right" as one of your shibboleths. Without that, it is clear misogyny.

All this to say I don't think a site promoting sexist views is a good alternative for a site that has made a master-class punchline out of trying to take a terrorist bigot off the air.
"Indiscriminately attacking other people with chemicals devices", although that isn't as catchy.

Sure, you can have your vehicle as loud as you want and emit whatever you want, if you recapture all those sounds and substances again before they hit innocent bystanders and their property.
I think that's meaningfully different. If you ask for chess advice, and get chess advice, then your request was fulfilled. If you ask for your photo to be optimized, and they give you a different photo, they haven't fulfilled your request. If GPT was giving Go moves instead of Chess moves, then it might be a better comparison, or maybe generating random moves. The nature of the user's intent is just too different.
Being aware of its own limitations, for example. Or being aware of how its utterances may come across to its interlocutor.

(And by limitations I don’t mean “sorry, I’m not allowed to help you with this dangerous/contentious topic”.)
You mean the conspiracy that everyone, CNN included, thought had teeth at first, but then realized it didn't and shifted their reporting accordingly? That one?

Unless you can show me where, this year, CNN repeatedly said Trump shouldn't be elected because he explicitly colluded with Russia in 2016, you're trying to compare apples and oranges.
Then pay with your wallet.
There's plenty of video content being uploaded and streamed everyday, i find it hard to believe the more data will really change something, excluding very specialized tasks.
Asset volume is just a price issue in these days. You can reduce the price by using clever caching, with programming language choices, or higher compression rate.. but in the end it is not a real problem anymore in the overall infrastructure architecture. Read-only assets can be copied, duplicated, cached without any worries that they might need to be re-synced soon.
The same FAANG companies found guilty of depressing wages through collusion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

Your question is why is it wrong to depress wages? Yeah, really tough question.

Now consider OPT visa workers which are being paid even less, plus companies get an extra 8-10% discount because they don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare.
There is no shortage of skilled workers here. Only corporate greed.
Honest question, how would you expect systems to get external knowledge etc without tools like the OP is suggesting?

Action oriented through self exploration? What is your thought for how these systems integrate with the existing world?

Why does the OP's suggested mode of integration make you think of those older systems?
The Cosmos Teems with Complex Organic Molecules
So the moment that someone wants to hire a bilingual child care worker who has a fairly obscure second language (vs. English/French, English/Spanish, English/German, etc.), you think it's perfectly reasonable to 10X the pay rate?

Ditto if a museum is hosting an exhibition of art from some tiny country, and wants a few docents who can read the inscriptions?

Ditto if ...
> My hands just "know" what to do. Funnily enough the moment I start actively thinking about certain passages that ability worsens by a lot.

At least playing is mostly an entertainment. Passwords is where the shit happens. I recently lost a 20y old account thanks to this.
Let me know if you'd like to try Version Story! I'm happy to add you to our whitelist.
I'm surprised no one here has factored in the very real risk of getting laid off.
Aww... have you ever heard about price dumping to kill the competition? Kindle would be a good example here :D
There are a few tools here like e2b and modal. No affiliation.

[1] https://e2b.dev
[2] https://modal.com

I’m in the same space, but we run the code that devs already write using LLMs to orchestrate them.
Of course -- I don't expect people grinding paycheck-to-paycheck to be spending time mulling over their political ideologies or the merits of proposed policy proposals. And in fact, that's exactly my point. I'm not disparaging their situation, I'm describing it.
They have posted great news segment videos again
I've been programming since the early 90's, and back then pretty much all my coworkers were other US citizens. I started to notice a shift toward the mid 90's and then, by the late 90's, they were practically all Indians on H1B visas. Nobody from Russia, China, El Salvador, Brazil, Japan, Botswana, Ethiopia or even Bangladesh or Pakistan - virtually every programmer I met was an Indian citizen in the US on an H1B visa. I saw this across ten employers in two different states. Every tech conference I went to, regardless of city, was full of Indian citizens with heavy accents, and me.

There's a prevailing belief that US employers prefer H1B visa holders because they'll work cheaper and not complain about poor working conditions but if that's true... why computer programmers, specifically? Why are there _any_ Americans in the organization? Surely the product owners, project managers, scrum masters, HR staff, janitors, facilities maintenance, receptionists, directors, VPs and CEOs could be filled cheaper and less complainier by an H1B visa holder too?

I have yet to find a plausible explanation why specifically computer programming (and no other career) is dominated specifically by Indian citizens (and no other nationality).
Labour protections doesn't mean you are protected from being fired.

You have to pay people the minimum salary depending on their trade, you have to give them 5 weeks of vacation, pay overtime, pay for health insurance and so on.

Employers can't exploit their employees, but employees still have to do their job.

But there is also a big area of the economy where employers ignore the law and treat employees like shit. For example, service workers are not generally treated well in Austria, and many are afraid of losing their job so they don't complain to the authorities.
They are advertising on their website, extremely prominently, that they are fit for your all of identity management needs.

Are they allowed to put a single paragraph in their license file that runs counter to all of their other marketing, advertising, and communication efforts? For sure!

Is it shitty to do that? I think so. Just be upfront, it's not hard. If your software isn't fit for security-critical applications, don't pretend it is.
For what it's worth, a lawyer _did_ ask the presiding Judge Christopher Lopez to tell Alex Jones he definitely can't do that and solidify this in writing the terms of bankruptcy, and the judge simply refused to even try on the basis that everyone involved is an adult and ought to know better.
Well a tetrahedron can be split into four tetrahedra and an octahedron...
You mean I would host at home? I like the idea however I maybe should get a separate internet package for that purpose I think, as to not mess with what I do at home.
Sadly you're not alone. Around 47% of Americans (especially older folks) still believe CNN (MSM in general) tells mostly the truth, and should be believed, because they'd never dare to be politically motivated rather than objective.
The "unicode" program (in Ubuntu's package repository) gives the Unicode entry for any character:

$ unicode ℘
U+2118 SCRIPT CAPITAL P
UTF-8: e2 84 98 UTF-16BE: 2118 Decimal: &#8472; Octal: \020430
℘
Category: Sm (Symbol, Math); East Asian width: N (neutral)
Unicode block: 2100..214F; Letterlike Symbols
Bidi: ON (Other Neutrals)
Age: Assigned as of Unicode 1.1.0 (June, 1993)

Or you can ask Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%e2%84%98 (manually URL-escaped for HN)
This is a bad comparison. Intelligence didn't appear in some human brain. Intelligence appeared in a planetary ecosystem.
Denis Leary: I want you to pull this bus over on the side of the Pretentiousness Turnpike! I want the shiny people over here, and the happy people over here.
For those complaining that it's not "the worst song of all time," yes, we all know it's not the worst song. This includes the clickbaiters who claim it is.

It's cheesy, it's simple, Grace Slick hates it. All those factors make it fashionable to hate it, and it's been like that for a long time. However, it's also catchy, fun, and the lyrics are easy to remember. It's a karaoke staple for all those reasons, good and bad.

I mean, how can this song be the worst song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRE-LYqwAi8
Maximum clarity
OpenMP 6.0 Released with an Emphasis on Easier Parallel Programming
If it read the CLI docs it might just make the right calls (x —-ELO:1400).
Python's truthiness behavior was the trigger for one of my worst ever bugs early in my career, which not only pulled in senior engineering but also marketing/comms and legal to help sort out the mess. Not a fan!
I say “I work in machine learning, what kids these days call AI” ;).
There's no premium financing proper adversarial regulatory agency there. If the IRS is not taking its special ~30% of 300+ workers salaries there's a best effort by a regulatory body that's viewed as a waste of tax payer money if it just checks a few technicalities.
OpenMP is great. I’ve done something similar to your second case (thread local objects that are filled in parallel and later combined). In the case of “OpenMP off” (pragmas ignored), is it possible to avoid the overhead of the thread local object essentially getting copied into the final object (since no OpenMP means only a single thread local object)? I avoided this by implementing a separate code path, but I’m just wondering if there are any tricks I missed that would allow still a single code path
I remember a lecturer in undergrad psychology talking about this in the context of walking, and my walking felt really messy for a week, like when you start to become conscious of your breathing.
Ah, imagine that candy bar of omnivitamins! The rush of invigoration you'd get from a single morsel. Wow!
It's not gene therapy. Gene therapy changes DNA. The vaccine causes some proteins to be produced temporarily and then it goes away.

And those proteins make the immune system react to build immunity to them. The second half of that sentence is the definition of a vaccine. What do you think a vaccine is?

And nothing is ever literally 100% safe, but people exaggerate. It's ridiculous to reject something because it got exaggerated about at some point.
Modeled language, maybe.
Why bother? I can find already find tons of poorly-made cheap counterfeit crap on regular Amazon... Even when I don't want to. :p
That will free up the best technical minds of our generation to apply themselves to some _other_ socially useless application.
Salary is the most valuable thing, however. Because I would happily take a salary of 1 billion dollars with an awful manager and a no-fun team. And, conversely, I would never take a job with the best people on planet earth for a salary of one dollar.
I had missed this, the paper does mention D:

"Programming languages such as Eiffel and D have a Contracts facility; this paper
proposes a Contracts facility for C++."
Job Switching and Titles
Wasn't Middle-Earth repeatedly depopulated and ravaged by multiple continent-spanning wars?
Yeah I told them the same
> I suspect the path to general intelligence is not that, but we'll see.

I think there's three things that a 'true' general intelligence has which is missing from basic-type-LLMs as we have now.

1. knowing what you know. <basic-LLMs are here>

2. knowing what you don't know but can figure out via tools/exploration. <this is tool use/function calling>

3. knowing what can't be known. <this is knowing that halting problem exists and being able to recognize it in novel situations>

(1) From an LLM's perspective, once trained on corpus of text, it knows 'everything'. It knows about the concept of not knowing something (from having see text about it), (in so far as an LLM knows anything), but it doesn't actually have a growable map of knowledge that it knows has uncharted edges.

This is where (2) comes in, and this is what tool use/function calling tries to solve atm, but the way function calling works atm, doesn't give the LLM knowledge the right way. I know that I don't know what 3,943,034 / 234,893 is. But I know I have a 'function call' of knowing the algorithm for doing long divison on paper. And I think there's another subtle point here: my knowledge in (1) includes the training data generated from running the intermediate steps of the long-division algorithm. This is the knowledge that later generalizes to being able to use a calculator (and this is also why we don't just give kids calculators in elementary school). But this is also why a kid that knows how to do long division on paper, doesn't seperately need to learn when/how to use a calculator, besides the very basics. Using a calculator to do that math feels like 1 step, but actually it does still have all of initial mechanical steps of setting up the problem on paper. You have to type in each digit individually, etc.

(3) I'm less sure of this point now that I've written out point (1) and (2), but that's kinda exactly the thing I'm trying to get at. Its being able to recognize when you need more practice of (1) or more 'energy/capital' for doing (2).

Consider a burger resturant. If you properly populated the context of a ChatGPT-scale model the data for a burger resturant from 1950, and gave it the kinda 'function calling' we're plugging into LLMs now, it could manage it. It could keep track of inventory, it could keep tabs on the employee-subprocesses, knowing when to hire, fire, get new suppliers, all via function calling. But it would never try to become McDonalds, because it would have no model of the the internals of those function-calls, and it would have no ability to investigate or modify the behaviour of those function calls.
Difficulty ≠ Value

But we think it is, due to our learned industrious—which is the opposite of learned helplessness. We associate difficulty with reward. And we feel discomfort when really valuable things become very easy. Strange times.
The Onion Wins Auction to Take over InfoWars
Not sure where the OP to the comment I meant to reply to is, but I'll just add this here.

> I suspect the path to general intelligence is not that, but we'll see.

I think there's three things that a 'true' general intelligence has which is missing from basic-type-LLMs as we have now.

1. knowing what you know. <basic-LLMs are here>

2. knowing what you don't know but can figure out via tools/exploration. <this is tool use/function calling>

3. knowing what can't be known. <this is knowing that halting problem exists and being able to recognize it in novel situations>

(1) From an LLM's perspective, once trained on corpus of text, it knows 'everything'. It knows about the concept of not knowing something (from having see text about it), (in so far as an LLM knows anything), but it doesn't actually have a growable map of knowledge that it knows has uncharted edges.

This is where (2) comes in, and this is what tool use/function calling tries to solve atm, but the way function calling works atm, doesn't give the LLM knowledge the right way. I know that I don't know what 3,943,034 / 234,893 is. But I know I have a 'function call' of knowing the algorithm for doing long divison on paper. And I think there's another subtle point here: my knowledge in (1) includes the training data generated from running the intermediate steps of the long-division algorithm. This is the knowledge that later generalizes to being able to use a calculator (and this is also why we don't just give kids calculators in elementary school). But this is also why a kid that knows how to do long division on paper, doesn't seperately need to learn when/how to use a calculator, besides the very basics. Using a calculator to do that math feels like 1 step, but actually it does still have all of initial mechanical steps of setting up the problem on paper. You have to type in each digit individually, etc.

(3) I'm less sure of this point now that I've written out point (1) and (2), but that's kinda exactly the thing I'm trying to get at. Its being able to recognize when you need more practice of (1) or more 'energy/capital' for doing (2).

Consider a burger resturant. If you properly populated the context of a ChatGPT-scale model the data for a burger resturant from 1950, and gave it the kinda 'function calling' we're plugging into LLMs now, it could manage it. It could keep track of inventory, it could keep tabs on the employee-subprocesses, knowing when to hire, fire, get new suppliers, all via function calling. But it would never try to become McDonalds, because it would have no model of the the internals of those function-calls, and it would have no ability to investigate or modify the behaviour of those function calls.
No it was not the real persons voice, it says it was a voice actor in the video.
I've had multiple friends ask to start training with me at my Muay Thai gym here in Brooklyn over the past week. At the very least self-defense is starting to cross people's minds.
Large Language Models Can Self-Improve in Long-Context Reasoning
Agreed, there's a lot missing here. Been using it a few hours now and here's a few problems with Diagram:

Pros:

- Some nice conceptual overlap with imperative programming. In theory could be very powerful.

- It comes with a nice set of product icons. This was the main draw for me TBH, I wish MermaidJS had these built in.

Cons:

- Having to regenerate each time you make a change. Needs a better UX, as you say. MermaidJS and others have nice web GUIs that react to changes, Diagram at best I can have side by side with my code editor and I manually regen with each change.

- Only outputs PNGs with white background? Why not transparent? Edit: You can change output format, and looks like there is a way to override some graphviz settings to achieve transparent background.

- Lots of rendering glitches, for edges in particular that seem to vanish at random.

- Justification is random - sometimes things center, sometimes they go to the top, sometimes the bottom, etc.

- Direction is completely broken. Clusters have a direction param that is entirely decorative as far as I can tell. It is impossible to tell what direction a set of items will end up having based on the code alone.

- Ordering is broken. You can group items with Python lists - cool! - but for some horrific reason Diagram ignores the list order and displays the items ordered by label alphabetically. Wtf? Edit: On further investigation this might actually just be reversing the list from the expected order? Hard to tell since direction is generally unpredictable.

I'm sure there are more positives, but the gaps have been so glaring and frustrating that I cannot imagine using this regularly in its current state.
This is an excellent point and a real litmus test.
If there really were a labor shortage companies would be providing training programs to build that labor force.

Instead they post job descriptions so niche only a liar could technically qualify.
Sadly not for a broader landscape... pushing chrome(and clones) by google nad MS is killing the web :(
This reminds me of “shadow banning” - instead of letting the misbehaving user know they’ve been banned, and let them find a way around it, you make them believe they’re not banned and let them waste their time interacting with the system (without actually interacting with others), this makes them spend less time on actual misuse and it makes the penalty for it more expensive. Good strategy. Cruel too.

So I don’t think that this is just entertaining PR, I can see why it’s better than simply banning the scammers. Still a question of cost though.