skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You say lavabit, but that's actually an example of them needing the private keys... so I'm not sure what you're on about there.

But regardless, I've seen this argument plenty of times. However, I don't know how much tinfoil is in that hat.

On one hand, I would not be surprised to learn that some of the encryption standards have backdoors in them. I'd mostly be interested in how they kept it secret for so long. But does it even matter? You're worried about backdoors in the algorithm for encryption when that's just a single link in the chain. To my knowledge, backdoors in various NSA encryption types have only been suggested and theorized about. However, we already have real world proof that hardware and software backdoors not only exist, but have been used. So, worrying about encryption being backdoored while chatting on a smart phone chock full of chips like the modem which has direct access to your phone's memory and has internet access doesn't make sense to me.

But on the other hand, unless you really piss off someone in the government, they are not likely going to be worried enough about you to use any of those tools. What we really need to be worried about is any aggregation of the data about you into groups. Most likely, they can already form these groups (and let's face it, likely already are) from freely available data we willingly post online. History has already shown they don't need to use their AES backdoor to discover you are likely an "undesirable" and should be deported / placed in a camp. But even if it was hard, an intern could probably slop together an AI to scan a person's online posts and develop a persona, and that's good enough.
> Intel’s chief people officer, explained that the company had been spending approximately $100 million annually on free and discounted food and beverages

I haven't done any napkin math or anything but that seems like a colossal figure.

Ok, napkin math... Intel was at 125k employees, trending down. So $800/employee. If every employee was 5 days a week and used the free-coffee/food-discount every day (obviously not true) that'd be 365*5/7 = 260 days. $800 / 260 = $3/day.

That's at least somewhat believable, in the ballpark of plausibility.
Not a bad move by Red Hat. Red Hat lost the battle of the cloud to Azure, AWS, and Google, but AI is still a nascent space. vLLM's deployment model fits neatly into Red Hat's traditional on-premise / support-centric business model.
Seems like you're listing highly regulated industries not human interaction.
My bad for attempting to start a discussion on a discussion thread.

I hope you’re not this miserable and rude in real life.
Show HN: GazeFilter – A Web-Based Eye-Tracking Solution
Hello HN,

I've built a web-based eye-tracking solution that can be embedded into any website or even used with OBS Studio. It handles webcam access, calibration, different detection models, gaze tracking, and works entirely on the client side. All you need is a relatively up-to-date popular web browser, a connected web camera, and a well-lit environment around you.

A long time ago, I was looking for an eye-tracking solution for web browsers. I tried using WebGazer, but it didn't meet my requirements. The performance was lacking because it relies entirely on JavaScript for computations. Additionally, its appearance-based calibration, which uses low-scale eye image patches, struggled with extrapolation, making it poor at predicting out-of-screen gazes.

To overcome these challenges, I started developing a JavaScript library, gazefilter.js, focusing on model-based gaze calibration and using WebAssembly for heavy computation. However, integrating such a library can be complex. It requires handling device selection, creating a calibration procedure, managing errors, and more. Since web browsers allow cross-origin messaging, I realized that a more user-friendly (and developer-friendly) approach would be to offer this as a web application. Gazefilter can be opened via an HTML iframe inside another website, handling all eye-tracking-related tasks. It allows end-users to select devices, choose detection models, read tips, and calibrate the gaze point.

You can try it out at gazefilter.app. Since I don't use any client-side analytics and the documentation is still a work in progress, I'd really appreciate any feedback. Whether you're integrating it into a website, setting it up with OBS Studio, or just trying out the demo to see real-time eye-tracking in action. You are welcome to open issues on GitHub or share your experience here.
Tor is mentioned. But that will probably put a big red alert on you, and is anyway too slow and too blocked for daily usage.
/e/ OS, an ungoogled Android by Murena with Firefox and ublock and using website instead of apps, and Signal for all your conversation, and you're already okayish.
Use the Spotify artist ID[0] to find the Wikidata entry, and then grab the Tidal artist ID from the Wikidata entry to match the correct artist on Tidal. Even better if you use album IDs. (Brain explodes if you could use a song ID.)

Realistically, Wikidata may not have enough of this data populated, but it is nice to dream. And it seems plausible that MusicBrainz or similar might have enough data.

[0] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1902

[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P4576

Edit: P1902 has 57000 uses and P4576 has 7000. So YMMV big time.
I am an immigrant. Unfortunately, my very life and physical security depend on my job performance, at least as decided by the government.
> Is that an accurate reading of what you're saying?

Not at all.

> I.e., Mexicans are inherently more corrupt, and Europeans inherently less corrupt. By their nature.

Not sure what you mean "by their nature" but it sounds like you're saying it's about genetics which is definitely NOT what I'm saying.

Culture is a context. It's not biological, it's artificial.

Europe has a different cultural context than Mexico. Mexicans in Europe will behave differently than in Mexico (and vice versa) which is what the experiment mentioned in the OP showed.

As to why this is... maybe the fact that Mexico has +95% rate of impunity might be a factor (sarcasm).

https://www.impunidadcero.org/impunidad-en-mexico/ (in Spanish)
> I know zero other parents who don't care whether their kids are learning.

Nobody said that.

While I don't think you deserve to be downvoted, the reason you are is that you are complaining about generalization ("the kind of thing that could only be said by somebody who is not a parent") while immediately generalizing, implicitly, that commenters on Hacker News are not parents. I am a parent, I care about my son learning, and the experiences I've seen for very young children (less than 5) are very close to daycare, even at the very best schools.

It isn't saying much that very young children learn best with one-on-one time with a very engaged adult, which isn't something you can do in daycare. Some people believe that learning occurs because of a specific ethnic heritage, using a pile of money, or a piece of technology. If these are your beliefs, then it can be hard to make any progress whatsoever.
I get culture shock on HN these days. People on HN advocating for locking down school computers? What in the dystopia is happening?

I'm personally glad that they're circumventing these "protections." At least, they'll learn something along the way.
I think many people have very positive experiences and data, at scale, speaking to the kind of success Edtech can have.

I was involved with a study by the Center for Game Science (University of Washington), led by Zoran Popovic (of Foldit fame), with over 40 000 kids in the US, Norway and France participating, from grade 1 to the end of high school. I think the numbers were 93% of kids managing to achieve mastery in solving an equation for x in one hour and a half of this, starting from first principles in their learning (it didn't matter what they knew before or didn't).

This was met by downright hostility from some schools systems, with the institutions saying in essence "it's impossible kids learn like this", ignoring empirical evidence in the process. Teachers on the other hand, thought it was great and had a profoundly positive impact on their students. Nordics seemed to be less averse to letting their students progress along this path. Ultimately the company that had developped the game went towards more traditional school publishing with paper methods + digital tools, which in my opinion is vastly less efficient, but that has the huge benefit of being something school systems know how to buy and implement.

This is meaningful when looking at the promise of edtech, because a lot of what's called edtech is frankly of poor quality, but some things are pure gems, and saying edtech has failed like the author of this article is not only misguided but dangerous in the extreme for the kids, often from underprivileged backgrounds, who benefit the most from this kind of cooperative, adaptive, and gamified approaches.

These approaches don't feel like school, they don't feel complicated, and kids can just have fun and explore and learn logical rules, verbalize what they are doing with one another and help one another, progress at their own pace, and end up learning stuff considered "hard" when it really isn't, like math, physics, chemistry, etc, ie logical ruleset that can be represented with meaningful manipulatives and made into a fun learning journey.

Here's a 5 minutes vid the center for Game Science published at the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdrraeJyhoQ
Some numbers here: https://dragonbox.com/about/algebra-challenge
NatWest blocks staff from using WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger
Montessori worked on this problem, and did a fairly good job, but somehow it's still under the radar that we could revolutionise our educational system according an already proven model.
You should also see the criticism of "The Dawn of Everything", ie way overstating the veracity of certain history that they're trying to use to support Graeber's polemics on anarchism.

In typical Graeber fashion, the book is very fun to read, but he's an unreliable narrator of history, which is why they could only get a no name historian to be involved in an attempt to add credibility.

And FWIW, I'm also very skeptical of Pinker.
Stop spreading the horse tranquilizer thing. It's anesthetic not for horses but both for humans and animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine#Medical_uses
Exams are a poor measure of proficiency. Proficiency is gained by doing and stretching a skill over time. You can measure that in small increments than a periodic exam. At the end of a period, a student would have a body of work to demonstrate proficiency rather than relying on a single day.

When I taught at university there was a disparity between exam grades and the physical body of work they had submitted over the years. You'd see the grade and be shocked the did so badly. The grade reflected proficiency in examinations, not in the subject.
The complex impact of state-led urban change on residential communities in Korea
Well I won't reiterate all of 'bad education' by Bryan Caplan but to my mind exams are imperfect because:

1. Schools are not equal. It's not fair to compare students when they usually have no choice over their teachers.
2. Exams cover an arbitrary syllabus controlled by undemocratic exam boards.
3. Topics are chosen by exam boards that can be examined not by importance.
4. Students who perform poorly under stress of exam conditions are punished for it.
5. Exams serve no real purpose. Children are not chickens being graded for sale. They're at best a weak signal of aptitude.

I would much prefer exams to serve as a prerequisite of sitting a future course rather than an assessment at the end. That way teachers can actually teach rather than continuously repeat the same content.
this is the event that the article is analyzing:

> Marie Gluesenkamp Perez won a congress position, running a campaign that is pro deregulation. This is confusing because deregulation is supposed to be a conservative thing, and conservative things are supposed to be right-wing things.

The claim is that this is a good thing, if the culture sees "conservative" as a valid tool for specific problems, and not a signifier of a political party
I think the EdTech revolution hasn’t truly happened yet, but it feels inevitable. In fact, the PISA Test might soon incorporate LLM prompting. I’m not kidding. Things are accelerating in every direction, and I’d rather brainstorm here on HN than focus solely on the article, which I think is a valuable resource regardless of whether you agree with it.

Just my two cents, not claiming this is groundbreaking, but hoping to provoke insights from smarter and more experienced folks here:

- Education should be a blend of virtual and physical, working with both individuals and groups.

- Kids should be able to set their own pace but also have structured routes to accelerate when possible.

- Curriculum could be streamlined into core components: today, you can learn subjects like chemistry, physics, CS, math, and biology through various Python packages. So, why not start by learning a programming language?
Well damn, that’s a lot more specific and empirical than I was expecting given the title. Fascinating stuff, talk about a useful setup for studying the issue! “AI is useless to many but invaluable to some” (as mentioned in the abstract) is a great counterpoint to anti-AI luddites. No offense to any luddites on here ofc, the luddites were pretty darn woke for their time, all things considered
Looking over https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support, it seems there is good conformance on C++11 and C++14 but there are gaps on C++17+ among gcc, msvc, and clang.
It's cool idea to use the MoviePy for gif creation, I will try
The definitions are a bit different than in C++ but the overall effect is the same: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/expressions.html#...
Nope, no Apple CPU core has such performance.

That single lib call must have used the AMX accelerator, which is separate from the cores and shared by a group of cores.

So that AMX accelerator performance may be greater than of all CPU cores together. AFAIK, some Apple CPUs have one AMX accelerator for the big cores and another AMX accelerator for the smaller cores, but in any case there is no chance to hope that if you have obtained 1 TFLOP/s when running the program on 1 core you will get much more when running it on multiple cores, because all cores of the same type will use the same shared accelerator.
ok, strange
It should be illegal for companies to do this to us. Our only option is to not use cell service? Bah.

Further enhances my feel that internet connectivity should be a utility, not a for profit service at all.
I would love to do a Kafka analysis. :-)
> Because it's a set of puzzles on a 2D grid. We don't live on a 2D grid so it's already on the wrong track.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Intelligence is about learning patterns and generalizing them into algorithmic understanding, where appropriate. The number of dimensions latent in the dataset is ultimately irrelevant. Humans live in a 4D world, or 3D if the holographic principle is true, and we regularly deal with mathematics 27 or more dimensions. LLMs build models with at least hundreds of thousands of dimensions.
I physically cringe when I think of some of the things I said to my coworkers when I was fresh out school and definitely knew what I was doing and had a much better way of doing things and they just didn't understand.

I do think it's sort of a rite of passage, especially for the dorky socially awkward kids like I was who all of a sudden have a real job and don't really know how to interact with people.
I think mass government surveillance has been around since the mid-90s. In each successive administration it has been expanded. There's an excellent book called "No Place to Hide" by Robert O'Harrow, Jr. Written around 2002, it details public and private surveillance and how much of a losing battle it was for privacy. In 2002.

As for Wired, I has been a subscriber for 15 years but the magazine became 80% advertisements, 15% paid promotional articles, and 5% actual news. The online has gotten a little better but.. Matt Honan destroyed Wired.
True, for a corporation it's not that long. But as a developer it's nice for there to be momentum for platform updates.

I discovered last week that .NET Framework v3.5 is still technically supported. Shudder.
What was your motivation for getting the degree? It does not seem, from your story, that its absence blocked the growth of your career; were there subjects you wanted to learn for which self-education proved difficult, or does the credential itself have some value?
Computerization barely helps with "customized skill-based education" outside of parts of certain topics (some areas of math, notably, are very well-suited to it). Detailed feedback from humans is vital in many topics and for learning many skills, and, as they say, that doesn't scale. We can do it, but it means spending a lot more on teachers, so we aren't going to. We may eventually get a half-assed version involving LLMs or whatever nonsense, but that will be brought in mainly as a way to get by with fewer teachers (they're cost-diseasing into something we can't afford any more, it seems) not to increase educational quality.

My expected outcome for all of this is that the gap between rich and poor students will grow, as only rich students will continue to have decent student:teacher ratios (their ratios already tend to be a ton better than public school kids). Paid tutoring will become common somewhat farther down-market than it currently is, as more people choose to pay extra just to cover what their tax money used to, but no longer does.
Then I would ask anyone to keep building on knowledge rather than training for an arbitrary benchmark. Filling your short-term memory with knowledge to be then dumped straight after will get you a good exam mark but doesn't mean you have anything close to a solid grasp. Most schools (in the UK in particular) optimise for grade outcome because that's how they are judged, that's not the same thing as being good at a task.
You are 100% correct, people mostly follow incentives. The problem is that, for many politicians, "this thing" in "I did this thing and people keep voting me in, so I'm going to continue doing this thing" refers to the starving and/or defunding of education.
That can work too... "To get to the ketchup section, I can go via fresh produce row or via bread row or via canned food row... Which path do I pick? Going via produce row is faster but I need to pick up some hot dog buns..."

On the other hand IKEA did design their showrooms so there is exactly one recommended way to get to any section. I find this highly annoying, but they keep doing this, so I am guessing some people like it?
The Nature Comm paper is open access too.
> my hope is that we all practice humility

Sorry, this is a hilariously dumb take. When was the last time you saw Trump "practice humility"? Or even anyone on the maga right?

Democrats have their problems, but they are at least able to admit mistakes.
That's hypnotic
Whenever an architect leaves a company I work at, it is definitely felt. If your projects aren't silos then you need someone to glue everything together. You wont ship the same, and you will likely make more mistakes and everyone on call stands around confused, because nobody is there to provide technical guidance because everyone's trying to figure out how their own islands talk to yours.
Yeah, and in spite of that comment people are trying to offer a line of discussion that is in conformity to the guidelines you cited.

But it looks like you're more interested in policing the discussion according to guidelines than engaging in the discussion after people get hip to your policing.

At this point, I'm doubtful if you even tried to read the article that we're talking about because this exchange is starting to feel like a dramatic meta-demonstration of the subject matter (defensive communication) and the community's response to the subject matter (the editor's perceived ignorance of how their changes contribute to defensive behaviors) and I don't think that you are primed to appreciate the success of this achievement.
Really jarring reading that. I think I was in middle school when the AOL and the "internet" to me became a thing (lol) and sure there was a lot of time wasting stuff (chatrooms, games, etc.) but there was a huge huge field of just exploration and learning. I cut my tech teeth on that; minimal parent supervision, no gamifying or artificial motivators, just my curiosity.

I feel for kids nowadays. It was the wild west back then, everything was basically unrestricted and nobody had any clue of the consequences, but we didn't have companies actively trying to addict us to stuff.

No idea what the answer is.
I would add to this:

"A History of the Second World War in 100 Maps"

See: A History of the Second World War in 100 Maps
> They just gave patients a seemingly random score that nobody understood, on a scale of one to infinity.

I mean obviously it's broken UX and/or poor architecture overall. That's not an AI-creep problem.
As someone who worked at AWS it’s ironic how hard they dog food cellular architecture but when it comes to customers, all the offerings and docs are terrible, with the only information in obscure Re:Invent talks or blog posts.

I now work for a large customer and you would be shocked at the household names that basically put all their infrastructure in a single Account and Region. Or they have multi region but it’s basically an afterthought and wouldn’t serve any purpose in a disaster.
Has Kyle reviewed NATS Jetstream? I wonder what he thinks of it.
> More broadly tests are time limited so can’t test skills that take long periods of time to demonstrate a major issue for say programming.

Every programming class I've taken, in high school or college, was project based where the main source of grade were actual programs I wrote which actually did something.

The one exception perhaps being the AP test for AP CS.
As a former teacher and current parent, I hate ed tech for a variety of reasons:

-ed tech exists, by definition, on the greatest distraction machine heretofore known to humankind

-ed tech lets the tech do the grading, removing the ed from the loop. It abstracts away the teacher's mental model of my student's mind.

-ed tech is overwhelmingly short-response or multiple choice; this measures only the most basic forms of learning.

-there is rarely a physical artifact, making lessons and learning far more ephemeral. Often, I cant review previously-submitted work to see where my children have gone astray.

-ed tech has completely removed the physical aspects of education. Writing notes is better than typing notes is better than merely listening to a lecture, on a retention basis. Rather than actually submerge an object in a graduated cylinder of water to calculate its volume via displacement, its now a shitty online "experiment"

I could go on and on, and perhaps later I will in subsequent comments.
CFD-ACE+ Computational fluid dynamics solver
Plus it can't be denied that the system incentives holding smart kids back because they boost the metrics: GPA, standardized tests, graduation rates.
Try pgcli for color and completion.
They seem to have pivoted from protobuf tools to kafka alternatives. I don't think bufstream is OSS (yet). Or at least, they have very much de-emphasized their original offering on their site.
Korea let's go, thank you for this
…except today's kids are not at all computer literate. They simply know how to click around and sometimes type.
Love this brand. I've been meaning to buy something Polyend for a while, looks amazing.
I don’t think anyone is trying to keep bright kids down, but you need to ask.

Is it worth it to spend monumental effort trying to get not very bright children to meet some minimum requirement

OR

is it more worth it to just encourage and lift up brighter students.

I don’t think there’s a clear answer, but what we have isn’t it.