skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> False positives are fine for this use case.

But false negatives would not have been, and you don’t have the luxury of choice. Even if the LLM had highlighted twenty matches, there’s no guarantee the one good one would be in there, it might just as well have made twenty false positives.
Hunters observe wildlife. They don't just shoot wildlife whenever they feel like it.
All of what you mentioned looks like a possible contributing factor, but this one stood out to me:

> Or perhaps people who are less lonely are generally more knowledgeable/well-informed about these individuals.

I'd go as far as saying, people who are less lonely are more interested in those individuals in the first place. Celebrities are social objects. There's nothing inherently interesting in life or personality of any specific celebrity - what makes them interesting is that other people know about them too, so discussing them is a way to bond with others, have fun, etc. Lonely people do less of that, so they have less of a motivation to care about celebrities in the first place.
> Chronic loneliness is linked to mental health issues like depression and anxiety, as well as physical health problems, including weakened immunity, cardiovascular disease, and an increased risk of mortality. Lonely individuals tend to experience lower self-esteem, heightened sensitivity to social rejection, and difficulty forming or maintaining relationships. They may also perceive social interactions more negatively, creating a cycle that reinforces their isolation. In older adults, loneliness is particularly concerning, as it is strongly associated with cognitive decline and dementia. In children and adolescents, it can hinder social development and academic performance.

I think they are trying to learn more about it to see if there is something that can be done in cases where there are negative outcomes. Not where someone is alone and happy.
It's a countermeasure to intensive scraping by bots for AI purposes that was costing them a lot of server costs.
The flipside of this argument is that it enables Chinese industrial interests to operate on strategies with 10+ year time scales, whereas Western markets seem to focus on the next few quarters. This is probably very efficient for some businesses, but not for big industrial corporations with long development timelines.
I get what you're saying, but I also think you're being reductive in devaluing wealth creation.

Why is a company worth more today than it was five years ago?

Because it's generating more revenue, has more assets... is better at doing whatever {company thing} is.

One can argue that (a) {company thing} isn't good for humanity at all and/or (b) a company which generates more money isn't really more successful, but merely a side effect of capitalist valuing.

And maybe...

But I'd say there's a pretty strong argument that Buffett is worth what he is because BH made multiple companies very much better at doing what they do. In the same way that Ford or Walton made their money by building companies that did what they did better.

And I'd add in the perspective that science and discovery without engineering into mass application is... a hobby with limited impact. The real litmus test is "Can you use this to improve many people's lives?"

And when you do that in a capitalist society, you usually have a chance to make a lot of money.
Sorry, the film's yellow and LED's blue lights combine to make white (or, more accurately, a color that makes white when the RGB filters are open 100%).
The linked article is a summary of a much longer article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00088-3).

From the conclusion of the original article:

> Shared reality fosters social connections between people and increases confidence in one’s knowledge because it is corroborated by others. While lonely individuals report feeling disconnected from others in terms of their interests and ideas it was previously unclear to what extent this is true with respect to the zeitgeist—defined here as the widely shared perceptions between members of contemporary culture.

I kinda get what they were looking for but knowledge and description of "celebrities" seems like a poor metric for many reasons including somebody just not interested in celebrities. For example, one can be lonely but online all day and so very connected to the "zeitgeist." Or one can have many interactions with other people but never discuss
celebrities.

But, ignoring all that, the headline suggested that loneliness alters something in the brain akin to how blindness alters ones view of reality. Or maybe it's the different way of thinking and talking that leads to loneliness.
Maybe the instructions and marketing can suggest to use a pillow?
Exactly. To highlight: the point of social objects like celebrities is to bond over them with other people. Obviously, lonely people do less of that.
I'm no economics expert, but I gather certain industries are known as 'natural monopolies' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

I don't know what the precise defining lines are, but I can certainly see how you'd make more money running an electricity cable to a home with no electricity, than running a second cable to a home that already had an electricity supply in place.

And Wikipedia says "frequently occurs in industries where capital costs predominate [...] examples include public utilities such as water services, electricity, telecommunications, mail, etc" - starlink does sound like capital-intensive telecommunications.

Of course, even if nobody cares to take on Starlink in the broadband satellite internet market, there are a bunch of incumbent cable and cell phone companies. So it's not like starlink are on course to an internet access monopoly.
How to define and revisit your career goals
Does it justify the expense and the shortcomings though? Horses also have some advantages over tanks, like refueling from the grass on the roadside but they become mostly ceremonial anyway.
> People interested should look at

People, evidence is, should be better educated in the History and Philosophy of Science (and in Mathematics and in Logic). It should be part of the mandated curriculum.
I couldn't get pytorch to use the mac GPU at all. I didn't spend ages on it - like about a day. In general I find the build environment on mac really annoying compared to say Linux so it may be that with more patience it could be done. IT was also on my work computer and setting up Xcode command line tools on my work mac is super annoying for whatever dumb reason, but basically getting any kind of prebuilt python version (like say the ones that ship with rye) to talk to your Xcode if it's not in the same path as the one that built the python version is annoying, so then you're looking at building the whole of python which is not that hard but (when I tried it) meant it broke the next time Xcode upgraded. I tried symlinks to the sdk etc but that was no bueno for reasons I don't quite remember. And then even having done that and patched pytorch it didn't actually run GPU accelerated.

So bottom line is it might be possible to make it work but in my brief attempt I couldn't get it to work.

If you're at all linux-capable I would say it's hands down a better dev experience in every way (and that's coming from someone who's used macs for years and years in both a professional and private capacity).
I've often said I would LOVE a modernized version of CDE. Smooth out some of the edges, GREATLY improve the font rendering, etc. but keep the feel that this is a system designed for work. I love the polish of macOS, but there's something about the feel of old-school Solaris 8 that I really miss. It felt like it wasn't a toy. It was meant for something more important than that.
Exactly like how you evaluate respectability on any platform including the web. Not like there are reliable checkmarks everywhere you go.
tests/theorem-rand.scm is beautiful!

e.g.

theorem vec-zip
∀ v ∊ (Vector-of Short)
(vector-zip + v v) = (vector-map (λ (x) (* x 2)) v)
Nations can and have done all those things.

Possibly an argument can be made that forced nationality based on geography tends to make those things less likely than they are in Stephenson’s fictional world.
Both Google results and Spotify "most streamed artists" stats are heavily gamed, but in different ways and by different groups, so no surprise they diverge.
> Still in these very days we meet random people who in normal random conversation tell us (as part of other matters) of coincidental devastating effects.

You may have. I haven't met anyone who has had any effects other than feeling mildly sick for a day or two afterwards. That's the thing about anecdotal evidence.
Can't you apply the exact same logic to Google and Google's services being bundled together? The bundle is their product; nobody's forcing anybody to use the Google services bundle, but you're certainly at a disadvantage if you don't - the exact same - as with Apple, not using their provided APIs/following their ridiculous rules/not upsetting daddy or he'll take your app away is the exact same thing.

Probably worse so as Google don't seem to copy the features of companies and then spin them as their own all the time like Apple gets away with. Or to kill/remove/restrict competing apps when Apple decides to get into the market for something, or just generally as a "punishment" for not following Apple's strict rules (that only exist to benefit Apple, whilst they tell consumers "it's all 4 u baby").
> With today's hardware, you can bet you will get more performance per $ spent than by changing the software.

With today’s hardware and today’s cost of software engineers…
” killed C++ as an attractive modern language”

I’m not sure were you got this perception that it’s dead.

C++ remains the only game in town in many domains.

That said, _unless you work in those domains_ there is no good reason to use C++ IMHO.

Apart from the legacy codebases, there’s lots of C++ greenfield development.

” the ability to include C++ code and libraries from others ”

Libraries in vcpkg - a large number - are compatible enough to be used in this sense. It’s possible your specific domain is lacking contributions or you’ve been looking from the wrong places?
cool, now every smartphone can not only track your position but also exact movements. :-) /s
The west is afraid to as much as lift a finger to put this terror to a stop.

This is pure caricature, with no connection to reality.
Google's empire is under siege
No, I spend something like ten to sixteen hours a day in front of software that doesn't freeze up just because I don't cuddle it.

I've got some devices behind a NAT I'm lazy with, I reboot them maybe once a year or so.
Your religion example isn't helping.
The huge Medium.com overlay asking me to sign up does a nice job epitomizing Angular before I ever get to the substance of the article.
Privacy isn't free and comes with its own costs. I give up on a lot of things but I also realize programmers and ops people need to eat too, and servers, bandwidth aren't free.
Use ocamlformat and set "profile = janestreet"
The analysis in New Scientist isn't based historical trends. It's a causal analysis based on the rapid deployment of new low-carbon generation on China's grid, which is being deployed at rates higher than expected demand. Of course you could be right -- maybe forward demand will be much higher than anticipated, or maybe all of those solar panels will turn out not to be plugged in or something. But you need to make a stronger argument for this than one that just casually glances at a historical time series.
Modules could be better, the problem are some greybeards and lone warriors (thankfully not all), that insist using C++ as it was plain old C.

Basically, it is no different than renaming .js to .ts to take advantage of some stuff in Visual Studio Code, while keep writing plain old JavaScript.
You're walking headfirst into the copyright, CSAM, pornography hole of content moderation here.
If it’s good enough Socrates it’s good enough for Socra-me.
The consumption of boulevard media is implied, either directly or via friends.
Someone implementing a file hosting service on top of Bluesky would explain a steep growth in user accounts. ;)
m0ney?
Things weren't actually that different 35 years ago. Your computer would get slow; you'd buy a new one. It would be faster for a while. Repeat. I've been doing this for 35 years, so I remember.

The amount of money spent on software development was a lot smaller and there were far fewer programmers. And they were creating a lot of bloated nonsense that you could install on your 8086, commodore 64, or whatever. Windows 1.0 is a good example. That was released nearly 35 years ago.

These days the one thing that's different is that hardware ages a lot slower. I've been on several laptops with 16GB since 2012. Back in 2012 that was a lot. Now Apple seems to still find 8GB more than enough for anyone (Bill Gates pun intended). Things are moving much slower with hardware.
So you tax them for CO2 and then subsidize them for the same reason?

How does help anyone else than salaries for tax and subsidy administrators?
Yes, from the Discussion section of the paper:

> Prior work even finds that celebrities that generate common ground between strangers are disproportionately discussed in conversation, suggesting shared celebrity knowledge can provide a “foot in the door” to forming ties with others

Heh, I know that studying obvious things is the "bread and butter" of scientific study, but it's still funny to read sometimes...

"Hello, fellow coworkers! How about the local sports team, did you see them play last night?"
"Epoch went from dominating the cartridge-based game market in Japan to a distant third practically overnight." is the third sentence.
I fully agree it's a legal problem, which is what my point was from the beginning — depending on the circumstances, it might apply to you or not.

Companies both have to have a set of "processes" in place for legal/compliance reasons, and an employee is liable if they do something that's outside the recommended practice (like using a personal device when forbidden by such policies).

Still, the focus should be on liability and ensuring compliance with legal terms, and an employee needs to make sure they do that. In some cases, that's easier done with a separate computer. In others (when there is no direct spelled-out requirement), downsides of using a separate device outweight the benefits of making compliance with legal terms easier.

As a side note, a browser zero-day is probably even more likely to target work computers, so that example is pretty bad — company data remaining on personal devices by accident is where the problem really is.
>In some nearby universe the games industry looks very different and sometimes people go "remember Half-Life? It's a shame Valve went out of business and the sequel was canceled."

Meanwhile in the current universe, we sometimes go "Remember Half-Life? It's a shame Valve became a massive success and the sequel was cancelled."
> Still basically everyone!

I will hasard that the amount of people who would like a desktop computer with no customisability whatsoever and wouldn't be better served by actually pluging a laptop to a monitor is basically zero.

And well, that's what the article is pointing. That and the uter irrelevance of the base model and how extremely marked up the actually useful model is, all par for the course with Apple.
Const generic expressions are still being worked. They are what is blocking portable simd. They are also a much cleaner way to implement things like matrix operations or really anything where a function with two or more arguments of one or more types returns things that have types that are a combination or modification of the input types.
If people use BlueSky as a magnet link for illegal content it will quickly become a problem.
Your knowledge will be the limiting factor. For the same price though you can get an Adafruit Trinket (https://www.adafruit.com/product/1501) which has a lot of potential.
Whoops, either he edited his comment or I misread it. Probably my mistake.
Something that's been talked about every so often is that there aren't representative (generational) pop icons for the past few generations (probably from millenials onwards).

One theory from Japan, that I still remember and think is most likely, is that the democratization of entertainment since the 80s and especially from the 90s onwards with the invention of the internet has eliminated the very concept of pop culture.

Back in ye olde days a person's choices for entertainment were fairly limited, basically a small regional selection. People in the same locale ended up consuming the same entertainment and thus gravitated towards forming similar tastes and directing their fervor on that small selection of entertainment.

Entire generations identify with icons of their time like Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, Marilyn Monroe, Ingrid Bergman, Elvis Presley, and so on. Entire generations sang "the song of their people" so to speak.

Today, though? Everyone can access any entertainment they want from anytime anywhere. The entertainment consumed by one person is very likely completely different from that consumed by a person right next to him; entertainment has been democratized. There is no longer a "song of our people" because everyone has a "song of me", there are no longer generational icons because everyone has their own icon.

The intense political push from the Left to make any form of social cohesion and loyalty undesirable also hasn't helped. The dismantling and removal of tradition, religion, and nationalism/patriotism from society means there can't be a "song of the people" from outside of entertainment either.

So no, I don't think you're disconnected with today's culture. Rather, today's culture doesn't value social cohesion and unity as much as it does freedom and power. Everyone has their own icon and song, everyone is their own generation.
Justin Bieber, Ellen DeGeneres, Kim Kardashian, Barack Obama, and Mark Zuckerberg

The celebs in the test. I'm not sure I could say anything meaningful about Bieber other than he's a pop star from Canada. Similar for Kardashian - Instagram influencer with lots of cosmetic surgery and makeup. Is the test expecting me to know other details beyond the completely inane and superficial?

It would be even worse if they tested on athletes. I haven't watched any of the big US sports in decades. NFL, NBA, MLB - no clue. I guess I could answer a few questions about World Tour cyclists, but that's not likely to be on a test outside of Belgium or Italy.
The guy actually answers his own question quite effectively:

> It really only makes sense if you’re buying a computer for a reception desk or lobby area

That's the market. Reception desks.
I am not sure how this responds to the comment you are actually responding to. You say,

> Governments pay to keep food cheap
> A carbon tax will either drive up prices or [drive up prices]

So, this is just number rearranging. The public pays either way. Ok. The comment you replied to says

> Currently the public subsidizes the agriculture industry by paying for the consequences of the industry's carbon emissions.

So the public pays in this case too. More number rearranging. Not at all clear why this makes prices increase.

So why do you think this implies prices increase? Do you think the price of carbon determined by the government is too high? Or do you just want to ignore this externality until we pay it all at once?
The issue is that SpaceX, unlike any space company since some never-realized 1960s hypotheticals, is a flywheel company built around scaling.

They create demand so they can scale manufacturing that they can use to decrease prices that creates more demand... etc. etc.

You can't beat a company doing that by just getting "big enough" unless the scaling company (a) runs out of increased demand or (b) cannot convert increased volume into cheaper economics per unit.

Neither of those seem very plausible.
Thanks. Both joined after my time it seems.
> here is a bunch of criticism about make. Most of these can be answered by reading the manual. No I do not want anyone who understands make to respond.
I get that. Having read Real World OCaml back when it was an O'Reilly book, I had a hard time not thinking Core was the defacto OCaml std lib. And its horrible documentation made me think the OCaml community was dead - or at least brain-dead. It appealed to one type of learner: Someone who just needs to see type signatures and has no interest in examples of how it could be used.

After reading OCaml From The Very Beginning my stance softened. Learning PURE OCaml is a must. (if you want to do AoC with it). You may find yourself bringing in Core or Base, after you've got a good idea of a solution.

It's definitely a fun language for doing AoC... but it can become extraordinarily frustrating when you hit a wall and all the StackOverflow answers assume Core.
Yep. Look at tools for software engineers. Intellij runs incredibly fast on a large modern computer given what it does. Git is insanely fast given almost every command is a process starting from scratch, and then often scan your entire repository. And VS code is probably the poster child for getting good performance out of electron.

But I think we only have performance because we're spoiled for choice. People just wouldn't use these tools if they were slow. (Or they'd get fixed). In other industries, thats just not the case.

I have a friend in Australia who's a doctor. Apparently the computer system they use to look up medical records sometimes just freezes for 30 seconds at a time while it does who knows what. Its a real operational problem. But the procurement process is so complex that it'd be almost impossible to get someone who knows what they're doing to come in and fix the issue. Or hospital could move systems - but that'd probably cost them millions of dollars. Its crazy.
Now that you ask - previous instance was 20 comments ago, in an LLM thread.
Agree that it does make the product better, though if they put their RAM chips soldered on the board instead of in package, it would allow repair or upgrade without sacrificing the whole CPU unit.

GPUs do not put their RAM in the same package as the processor itself, and it does not sacrifice a significant amount of performance.

The M-series processors' primary benefit by a huge margin is its architecture that allows a higher memory bandwidth than say SODIMMs and that benefit is independent of the choice to put the RAM in the package.
Well that's what happens when you move away from compiled languages to interpreted.
For mummified binary dependencies, C# allows tediously fine control over stack frames in DLL function calls, and similar FFI systems are likely to be equally malleable; there's probably a blind spot towards reverse engineering in C++, due to the expectation that a random ABI should "just work".
I wonder if loneliness improves (at least correlates) creativity. Can I make myself inventive by becoming lonely?