skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ok yeah. I think the thing that trips me up with this argument then is just, yes, when you regard humans in a certain neuroscientific frame and consider things like consciousness or language or will, they are fundamentally nondeterministic. But that isn't the frame of mind of the human engineer who does the work or even validates it. When the engineer is working, they aren't seeing themselves as some black box which they must feed input and get output, they are thinking about the things in themselves, justifying to themselves and others their work. Just because you can place yourself in some hypothetical third person here, one that oversees the model and the human and says "huh yeah they are pretty much the same, huh?", doesn't actually tell us anything about whats happening on the ground in either case, if you will. At the very least, this same logic would imply fallibility is one dimensional and always statistical; "the patient may be dead, but at least they got a new heart." Like isn't in important to be in love, not just be married? To borrow some Kant, shouldn't we still value what we can do when we think as if we aren't just some organic black box machines? Is there even a question there? How could it be otherwise?

Its really just that the "in principle" part of the overall implication with your comment and so many others just doesn't make sense. Its very much cutting off your nose to spite your face. How could science itself be possible, much less engineering, if this is how we decided things? If we regarded ourselves always from the outside? How could even be motivated to debate whether we get the computers to design their own chips? When would something actually happen? At some point, people do have ideas, in a full, if false, transparency to themselves, that they can write down and share and explain. This is not only the thing that has gotten us this far, it is the very essence of why these models are so impressive in the certain ways that they are. It doesn't make sense to argue for the fundamental cheapness of the very thing you are ultimately trying to defend. And it imposes this strange perspective where we are not even living inside our own (phenomenal) minds anymore, that it fundamentally never matters what we think, no matter our justification. Its weird!

I'm sure you have a lot of good points and stuff, I just am simply pointing out that this particular argument is maybe not the strongest.
OP here.

What would you compare the tools on? Be specific
It's a great book, but my personal opinion is that it would have benefited from an editor that recommended some small changes. The previous edition had a TOC which was barely usable because all funny jokes in chapter names like "8 Conditional Manatees". Besides, there were too many jokes embedded in some sections, which made them difficult to follow. I think some of these issues are getting addressed in the current edition.

Nonetheless, the book is very well written and all figures and examples show great attention to detail. I found Gelman et al Regression and Other Stories better for teaching newcomers, and surprisingly insightful. Statistical Rethinking is a good choice for a second course, but perhaps too informal at that stage.
From the article:

> Finally, miss me with the “but someone can screenshot Signal” genre of objections.

> As Latacora noted, people accidentally fuck up PGP all the time! It’s very easy to do.

> Conversely, you have to deliberately leak something from Signal.
> They love to boast about technical achievements instead of doing something that would actually enable real-world regular-usage scenarios.

For mobile Linux in particular, I found that it's quite the opposite, I see projects like Phosh and KDE Plasma Mobile constantly showing UI and UX improvemnts (albeit at a slower pace than desktop projects), while basic hardware support is non-functional.

Of course I'm not expecting every UX/UI dev to abandon their project to jump into low-level kernel development and bring support for more devices, but it feels like the desktop environments are developing for a device that doesn't exist.

> Is it even possible to use Linux on desktop without ever having to edit config files or run commands in the terminal?

On a modern Linux distro (that isn't one of the "advanced" ones), the answer is yes. If you install something like Mint or Ubuntu, you have a graphical app store and driver manager (which AFAIK you only need for NVIDIA GPUs).
Grifts all the way down. Making society constantly pay the cost to litigate, & the time & the energy & the attention sucked by constant deliberate pointed misdeeds (and too often bring allowed to get away with it) is an attack on open society. And it's what these jokers are up to.

Musk's companies have abused the FOIA process by demanding every little thing be marked as confidential proprietary company secret. https://bsky.app/profile/bsky.esghound.com/post/3layyzand722...

Musk threatening researchers looking at foreign influence campaigns of social media. https://bsky.app/profile/noupside.bsky.social/post/3lb3iqhwj...

These are the actions of the adversary of open society.
Wait until that same throwing out the accumulated wisdom is applied to the US government...
Love the book but I always thought this needed a little bit more explanation. It seems in our world people seek power for many reasons and only a small minority seek it simply to make people suffer. For example, people seek power to increase their own safety and pleasure. The suffering of others is incidental to their goals. In addition, since suffering is universal and requires no human actor to inflict. It seems rather like a huge waste of effort. I think it's better to read O'Brien's statement as something more specific to the world of 1984 and Big brother rather than something general that applies to all power seeking. We don't really learn that much about the workings of the inner party and the kind of propaganda that they are subjected to or subject each other to, and this might be evidence of what that looks like.
The notion of a startup gaining funding to develop a fantasy into reality is relatively new.

It used to be that startups would be created to do something different with existing tech or to commercialise a newly-discovered - but real - innovation.
Jay Bhattacharya, an NIH critic, emerges as a top candidate to lead the agency
In 2012 Youtube did the Red Bull stratos live stream with 8m concurrent users. We're 12 years later, Netflix fucked up.
I'd think to make it practical you'd have to have kind of (semi-) automatic space based assembly infrastructure that builds them and launches them. Launching these probes individually seems like it would be impractical. Building that infrastructure wouldn't be easy at all and I don't see that happening in the next 50 years.
AI isn't unleashing imaginations, it's outsourcing them
I highly recommend these free online courses if you want to boost your skills. Whether it's programming, digital marketing, or design, you'll find everything you need to grow at no cost. Don't miss out on this opportunity to learn from the best at your own pace, for free!
I've really been digging blue sky the past few days. Being able to mute keywords has made my experience very close to old twitter, and there's real mature debates going on in places where they don't devolve into trolls screaming at each other.

YMMV, but I am hopeful that blue sky is going to keep improving and its culture of easy muting keywords will prevent the mass reach of trolls that are toxic to the community.
These successful predictions are all generally variants on modeling galactic dynamics, though. The trouble is that galaxies and galaxy clusters are very messy places, so it's hard to make sure you've incorporated all the relevant physics.

By contrast something like baryon acoustic oscillations are very simple to model, so you can be quite confident that you've incorporated all the relevant processes. And in that regime LCDM performs beautifully and MOND completely fails. So it's reasonable to suspect that in more complicated environments the problem is that we're not modeling the systems correctly rather than that there's new physics going on.
https://archive.is/0OWr3
LiveSky: Live grep of Bluesky posts
That's probably where there's a big advantage to being a company like Nvidia, which has both the proprietary chip design knowledge/data and the resources/money and AI/LLM expertise to work on something specialized like this.
What you say is partly true, but it goes beyond that. It's not that uncommon to see even straight up anti-capitalist comments here that still get upvoted, or the kind of "market solves all" talk getting downvoted into oblivion. So I'd say there's a hefty chunk of the userbase that is also leaning strongly left economically.
> but it is more general, because it also lets you express relations between tables themselves (e.g. this "table" is built from the relationship between two smaller tables), and it does so without requiring extra special case semantics like VIEWs.

If I understand you correctly, you can easily get the same with ephemeral models in dbt or CTEs generally?

> Because of this, it's easy to write small fragments of Datalog programs, and then stick it together with other fragments, without a lot of planning ahead of time, meaning as a language it is very compositional.

This can be a benefit in some cases, I guess, but how can you guarantee correctness with flexibility involved?

With SQL, I get either table or column level lineage with all modern tools, can audit each upstream output before going into a downstream input.
In dbt I have macros which I can reuse everywhere.

It's very compositional while at the same time perfectly documented and testable at runtime.

Could you share a more specific example or scenario where you have seen Datalog/ Logica outperform a modern SQL setup?

Generally curious.

I am not at all familiar with the Logica/Datalog/Prolog world.
I think the issue here is with the word "tried" and what that communicates. I think "compared" would be far more appropriate.
This is great. I played Solitaire for an hour, maybe two.
>Children in schools that implemented the program were 13% less likely to report being bullied

And of course the goal is to prevent bullying from being reported so this is an absolute win for educators.
That’s a really cool idea! I haven’t heard of it before.

> Torrents.csv is a collaborative git repository of torrents, consisting of a single, searchable torrents.csv file. Its initially populated with a January 2017 backup of the pirate bay, and new torrents are periodically added from various torrents sites. It comes with a self-hostable webserver, a command line search, and a folder scanner to add torrents.

Do you know of any other interesting projects that involve p2p/torrents/debrid/i2p/tor or adjacent things like dht/freenet/willow/veilid?

Here’s some interesting debrid stuff I found that may be of interest to you or others.

https://github.com/debridmediamanager/awesome-debrid
Wouldn’t the average car safety be significantly below a Tesla Model Y anyway?
This is truely living the dream, well done mate! It is indeed crazy that cabinetry costs the same as the technology.

How does the cat restroom exhaust work? Always on or does it have a sensor?

Do the cat doors prevent sound getting into the kids' rooms from the living room?
Which field would that be?

I.e. I understand now that it's seemingly about more than simple querying, so me coming very much from an analytics/ data crunching background am wondering what a use case would look like where this is arguably superior to SQL.
You're in luck. Part 5 of the book is about building a virtual machine to run lisp simalated at the register lelvel: https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/b...

Writing a network between n such machines is left as an exercise to the reader.
> I use a free gym.

Gwern, how did you end up with free gym? Interested for myself.
It's even better when the teachers are the ones doing the bullying.
I've used vendor-specific C++ compilers with no bounds checking and a barely conforming stdlib, so by your logic C++ has zero bounds checking... Defaults matter!
This could be placebo, but it could also be "self-healing" effects or just natural variation over time (which would cause a similar amount of patients with worse results) or a combination of this or something completely else.

Maybe you can rule out some of this, but I'm asking the question: Is the placebo effect the only plausible explanation for this numbers? I don't think so.
Must be nice to be Twitter when the user think it is part of their democracy. Google does way more public services but people dont credit them that much.
> [High AC cost.] Perhaps we have too many windows letting in too much sunlight...

My office has automatic blinds that open and close according to some climate control system. The blinds are within the double glazing, so they can't be damaged by weather (or cats). The nice version for a home would be something like [1].

I'm sure the owner could program the automation so they only change position if no-one is in the room. There's no point having sunlight streaming into an empty room.

[1] https://www.betweenglassblinds.co.uk/
To be fair, there are relativistic generalizations of MOND, in the sense of relativistic theories that simplify to MOND dynamics in the low energy case. My understanding (this not being my field) is that they're sort of kludgey and non-calculable and that no one takes them very seriously. All the "real work" on MOND is just done using the classical stuff.

And yeah, that seems like pretty terrible cheating. It's one thing to hang a big theory on a single conjecture, but you still need to be trying to prove the conjecture.
> ...turned out to be correct

What we have learned so far is that our theories and models are only correct up to our ability to precisely observe and measure.

In that sense, Newtonian physics is still very much correct under a very wide set of circumstances, and as such amazingly useful.

GR improves on that (adds precision) on what would be extreme cases for NP, but it is likely as correct as Newtonian laws are: up to a point.

All this to say that "correct" is not the right term to use: many of the theories are simultaneously "correct" with sufficient constraints and a particular error range. What matters more is if they are useful in predicting behaviour, and that's where I like using "correct" instead (as above).
You are forced to use macOS if you want to make apps for macOS. If there's some difference between an older macOS and the latest one, you can't run said older version, get to the bottom of what's happening, and patch your application to fix it on the M4 Macs.
Also every convertible ever
> The banana equivalent to Covid-19

This is a bad comparison given that in that case the disease would only kill a very small percentage - less than 2% - of the population and mostly affect the older and weaker plants after which the rest of the population would develop immunity against the fungus. If this were the case it would not matter at all and we'd be eating Cavendish bananas for a very long time yet. That is not what this fungus does, it has the potential to devastate crops without any significant chance of the development of natural immunity.
The biggest surprise for me was seeing the desks with no mouse pads (or if you wanted to build it into the cabinet you'd probably want to stick down a desk pad).

But I also in my circles everyone takes their own keyboard/mouse/pad/headphones as those are the things it's hard to adjust to - admittedly my priorities could be completely different.
Tesla has the highest fatality rate, so that is ruled out! :)

Secondly, it is the coupling of electronic controls with unintuitive manual backups that create the danger.
https://nypost.com/2024/11/15/business/contenders-trump-is-v...
You are the one telling people their comments provide no value. That’s far more aggressive than using a word not even directed at you
One difference between dark matter and Neptune is that the existence of Neptune is falsifiable. The formulation of dark matter inherently is not. Falsifiable hypotheses is the cornerstone of science.
This wasn’t a “real” fight in the ring. It was clearly a hype/money fight only. The late 20 year old boxer has a massive following (or hate following) with younger age groups; and Mike Tyson brings the older age groups out. Mike has earned somewhat of a legendary status.

Leading up to the fight, there were many staged interactions meant to rile up the audience and generate hype and drive subscription revenue, and subsequently make ad spots a premium ($$$).

Unfortunately, American television/entertainment is so fake. I can’t get even be bothered to engage or invest time into it anymore.
Deliverability, price, pricing model, api/automation, UI, email builders, support, etc.

The article is just “why we chose breva” and is very specific to you. As far as I can tell you didnt even use half of the offerings since they were ruled out purely due to pricing models.

EDIT: just an example. If I wanted to know about sendgrid and how it compares, the only information this page gives me is “it has an overage charge”. How am I supposed to consume this article as an informative comparison?
It's a blowup from this document.[1] That's worth reading.

- Drone activity is up, and drone overflights of nuclear plants are being detected. One drone crashed and was turned over to cops.

- The most common report (63%) is one of lights in the sky, no additional data. Most unresolved cases are in that category.

- The next biggest category is spherical objects. Most of those turn out to be balloons.

- Starlink satellites generate a fair number of reports.

- MIT Lincoln Labs is apparently integrating the Gremlin system.

What's needed, and what Gremlin is supposed to provide, is telescopic cameras at multiple locations that can be quickly focused on a single target. Lights in the sky seen from one point don't tell you much, but if you have three separated cameras pointed at the thing, you know where it is.

The old GEODSS system, from the 1980s and still operating at a few locations, was similar, but aimed at near-space objects. The Ground-Based Optical Deep Space Surveillance System was a set of about eight telescope pairs worldwide. This was the beginning of automated astronomy. Each station surveilled the whole sky, and checked off all lights against a star map. Anything unknown got looked at. Both telescopes would point to the same object, and the telescopes were far enough apart to triangulate low-orbit satellites. Three sites are still running, and have been upgraded several times.[2]
GEODSS was tied into various USAF and NORAD radar systems, so items of interest seen on radar could be looked at, too.

GREMLIN sounds like a mini version of GEODSS. More local, and intended for in-atmosphere objects.

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/14/2003583603/-1/-1/0/FY2...

[2] https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/2197...
Yeah, this is what I was thinking! The Templars would be so disappointed...
If you knew how to design programs you could run it all on a single box and wouldn’t have to design “systems.”

I’m being slightly facetious, but only slightly. If you really think everything is solvable with arrays, you are not going to scale well and of course you’re going to need to throw a lot more hardware at the problem.
Actually, I think an abacus ring is a great idea or it could be multiple rings on the same finger where the main benefit is you could keep keep count of something. If you had three rows of small beads, you could theoretically keep track of up to a thousand things, all without a battery and with perfect accuracy. Additionally, you could keep track in a very low profile way if the beads were on the inside of the ring toward the palm of your hand and you manipulated them with your thumb. The beads would have to have a slight friction to them so they stay in place but are still easy to move. But in general I like the idea and it's at least as appealing as the op Casio watch ring.
Why no one mentioned the term “vaporware”?
Isn’t this a classic example of one?
The only time someone says "absolutely no one thinks/says/does X" is when they are politely accusing someone of lying or bullshitting.

No, they're saying they have reason to believe your characterization is inaccurate. And it's not in the least adversarial to do so. It's a normal and healthy part of everyday discourse, actually.

You should welcome it.
Drove across Indiana to attend the Fort Wayne hamfest. The crowds were underwhelming.

Tweaked my react based BitGrid simulator some more.
I don't think it's hard for the LLM to treat a sequence of two tokens as a semantically meaningful unit, though. They have to handle much more complicated dependencies to parse higher-level syntactic structures of the language.
> if I as a 38-year-old had a mild liver impairment which could reduce my life expectancy to 60 (22 years from now) I should get priority over a 60-year-old with a debilitating, excruciating condition which will end his life in six months, merely because his life expectancy with the transplant may only be 70

No. Because it's mild and could reduce your life expectancy. Once it becomes worse and a will, yes--you should.
Probably because forgetting to pull the handbrake is a very common cause of accidents?
I bet they wanted something more obvious but were overridden by someone who wanted to keep the vehicle sleek and futuristic. If so, it's the worst kind of "I told you so" :/
Kick out the window with a very forceful boot kick with both legs.
It isn't Apple, it's Netflix.

Remember back in 2014 or so when Netflix users on Comcast were getting slow connections and buffering pauses? It didn't affect people who watched Netflix via Apple TV because Netflix served Apple TV users with a different network.

> In a little known, but public fact, anyone who is on Comcast and using Apple TV to stream Netflix wasn’t having quality problems. The reason for this is that Netflix is using Level 3 and Limelight to stream their content specifically to the Apple TV device. What this shows is that Netflix is the one that decides and controls how they get their content to each device and whether they do it via their own servers or a third party. Netflix decides which third party CDNs to use and when Netflix uses their own CDN, they decide whom to buy transit from, with what capacity, in what locations and how many connections they buy, from the transit provider. Netflix is the one in control of this, not Comcast or any ISP.

https://www.streamingmediablog.com/2014/02/heres-comcast-net...
This is taking it to another level.
Not really. You might think this after watching Angela Coulliers video, but when you read something like "25% of the universe's energy content is made of dark matter", they do not mean changes to some theory. They literally mean non-baryonic matter.
Maybe should also count the bad stuff Google does.
What's HN's take on "Immaculate Constellation"?

I'm pretty skeptical. UFO believers and the Ancient Aliens crowd don't typically adhere to the scientific method, and so news like this doesn't sway me much.

I usually ignore this stuff, but it is pretty wild to see congressional documents talking about "non-human intelligences" intercepting F-22s and forcing them to abort missions. Seems pretty fanciful.

What does HN think about this?
Conditions? You make it sound like going into the office is heading into the coal pits without PPE in the 1930s.

As I said, if they don't like it they can unionize and demand guaranteed WFH. Until that happens, this is shouting into the void.