skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No problem, use Spotube instead, it is free and open source.
I think it all boils down to goals. If we need a standard health care and standard education, we will need standardization. If we need to handle special personal cases, we need special treatment. Things can be improved, but frankly I am amazed at how process oriented our education and health care has become.

Follow the steps specified by a school, get the minimum marks specified, that means you have learnt the basic skill set needed by you to function in society. If you need to learn extra, there are other channels available.

Same thing with health care. A patient shows some numbers, treat those numbers. If something feels off, the doctor takes the call. That's why we still have human doctors and not AI.

Also, one major difference between education and health care, in education the customer is different from the one who pays. So the goals get differently from the start(make my kid the best mathematician-parent(paying), I want to be a footballer-kid). So who should the school listen to :)
On the vendor's side, there's incentive to reduce the costs per token, but also an incentive to sell more tokens.

On the consumer's side, it's more about what the alternative would be, and the alternative is getting a human to do it.

Right now the general quality of the LLMs is good enough to be a tool, but not good enough to fully replace humans using it — I've seen GPT-4 called an intern, I'd agree having seen student code not too long before ChatGPT came out, and you don't want to let students do a whole project unsupervised either. Even though o1 is better, I think it's still at the "interesting, but not good enough to leave unsupervised" level*.

For tasks where the AI is competent enough to be interesting for whatever task, even if it took 10 kW to run the compute, at $0.1/kWh that's often cheaper than offshoring to a poor country.

As the world's entire electricity supply is 2 TW, which is 250 watts per capita, I think it's not at all implausible that enough people decide that the output of various AI (not just LLMs, also vision, audio, robots etc.) are valuable enough to demand enough of that electricity to make the prices rise.

* and I'm not just saying that because when it gets that good none of us will be employable any more
Death by a Thousand Efficiencies: Why You Too Should Be Afraid of Automation
I'm with albedoa on this one. Loading things only when you scroll to them makes for a terrible scrolling experience.
Awesome. I was just looking for something like this this week. I was thinking logseq + nvim + textual but bubbletea is also great.
And queries should start with WHERE.
DMARCbis is around the corner: what's changing
Hi everyone. I've built an app that makes it possible to read public companies' 10-K filings on the phone conveniently, like an eBook. It's optimized for a comfortable, adjustable reading experience. Reports can be quickly navigated and searched. Currently it just loads the latest 10-K of the company you pick. Support for earlier years' reports, or more filing types like 10-Q and 8-K might be added later if there's demand. For now just putting it out there, curious what you think! Thanks
Seeking discomfort is not intuitive

I am perhaps less comfortable than others as a baseline. I could seek discomfort by say, listening to people eat with their mouths open, to little avail
> The ideal API would be one that is both high level but allows fine grained control... but we don't have one yet.

What kind of fine grained control are you talking about here? I never felt like I was missing anything when doing even complex SQL (unless I am forced to use a crappy MySQL, which problems are not inherent to SQL itself).

Quite the contrary actually: despite having this amazing high level of abstaction, most developers are ignorant or don't care to properly index the data, add integrity constraints, manage the locks or think about transactions.

In 99% of the non-SQL code that I see, developers don't even go further than nested loops containing IOs, so I don't think that letting them decide which tree/trie is appropriate for a user case (for example) would help in any way.
I'd be looking for a new job.

People like OP are the reason why there is so much skepticism about the new generation of AI.

>I just copy pasted all the answers I found on stack overflow into our live trading database at it works like a charm.

-- OP from a previous wave of computing.
Or you get an invite from a friend who always has a bunch of them. Although many people don't realize the expectations and can't cope up with the demands. RED is awesome, but in 2024 it might be hard to start from scratch.
Quitely disabling it is also a big risk. Because you're signalling that in all probablity you were aware of the severity of the issue; Enough so that you took steps to patch it.

If you don't disclose the vulnerability then affected parties cannot start taking countermeasures, except out of sheer paranoia.

Disclosing a vulnerability is a way shift liability onto the end user. You didn't update? Then don't complain. Only rarely do disclosures lead to product liability. I don't remember this (liability) happening with Meltdown and Spectre either. So wouldn't assume this is AMD being secretive.
These two types of fun have been sometimes categorized as “type 1” and “type 2” fun:

https://medium.com/@yinonweiss/the-four-types-of-fun-a745ec5...
Please don't start flame wars here. The earlier discussion was at least tangentially related to batteries.
As a study of UI the piece is pretty interesting in that it reminds one of all the maps in GitS. I'd like to suggest that the interesting thing about GitS maps is what they don't show. Each map shows exactly what the protagonist wants at that point in the plot. The green screen attribute of the maps is perhaps a feature - colour is only used if it is necessary to present the required information.
You can get an answer using Open AI API:

https://demo.athina.ai/develop/a3b77c90-fbb5-4401-acd0-c29ab...
Last I heard the science did not replicate. He is just unusually tolerant to cold
Substack psychologist Adam Mastroianni argued that if you need advanced statistics to tease out some effect in the soft sciences, it is actually likely that the effect is bogus.

How many of those non-reproducible studies showed a robust effect, in contrast to the barely there effect?
You could, but is it difficult imagining situations which would be uncomfortable, and yet would also lead to personal growth?
Pantheon is so underrated!

If you’re a fan of GitS and/or Pantheon, I encourage you and anyone else to check out Psycho-Pass. It really blew me away. It manages to be at once a more gripping police procedural, like GitS, and especially like the spin-off series Stand Alone Complex, and it tries pretty hard to match the philosophical prescience of Pantheon. It also has a lot more humanity, without shying away from the psychological and cybernetic related weirdness that those series share. It also shares a production company with GitS in Production I.G.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Pass
I played around making these things before, it's a fun exercise. Interesting to see that's where things may be heading.

My example was asking for a poem about the headlines (good example of info they don't have, and something that's very hard to do mechanically).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37015591
I did have success with that in changing gender, though in general I do not like points of no return.

I once wished to be a man during the week and a woman on the weekends.

In my attempt at nonmonogamy, I've had more mixed results. That is harder
It's not Microsoft being careless about CAs. That's been made on purpose by them to comply with some request in order to keep a slice of their market.
You measured that after a warm cache, or did you measure loading all the JS bonanza vs loading an ssr html?

I would think that using React as an SPA application makes sense, but not if you want to sprinkle some interactivity inside some html pages.
It's hit and miss.

They have one of the largest cyber security operations worldwide and regularly track and dismantle criminal operations. There's some great people working there.

Then there's Azure. Which is used by large organizations and you would expect it to have the utmost care when it comes to security. But it often does badly, in several instances it allowed different tenants to access information from one another, something unheard of on AWS. For example: https://www.securityweek.com/microsoft-patches-azure-cross-t... or https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/05/tenable_azure_flaw/ or https://borncity.com/win/2023/08/03/microsoft-as-a-security-...

There are so many cross tenant vulnerabilities that there could be some overlap in those URLs, and it's a bit late at night for me to read those carefully, but you get the idea.

They do get the most flak about Windows, which used to be a non networked, single user OS.
> Unlike DELETEs, UPDATEs don’t trigger cascaded actions - they only involve triggers that are explicitly defined.

That's not entirely true. ON UPDATE CASCADE is a thing for foreign keys, at least in PostgreSQL (which this article is talking about), meaning that the foreign row referencing the row gets updated. Though, personally, I would never use ON UPDATE CASCADE, as it seems kind of funky.
You get the same safety guarantees with diesel by using the [`embed_migration!`](https://docs.diesel.rs/2.2.x/diesel_migrations/macro.embed_m...) macro and running your applications on startup. Diesel decouples that as there are situations where you might want to work with a slightly different database as defined, for example if you don't control the database.
> Hardware is hard because it's manufacturing. You can't "iterate quickly", every iteration costs millions of dollars and so does every mistake.

This is true for injection molding and yet we do that all the time in small businesses.

A mask set for an older technology can be in the range of $50K-$100K. That's right about the same price as injection molds.

The main difference is that Solidworks is about $25K while Cadence, et al, is about a megabuck.
> Even if much of that caring is box ticking rather than actually looking into the security (hello ISO27001), you’d expect it to result in generally a security conscious culture.

If the whole value is in ticking the box, why would that develop a culture that values anything more than the tick?
> Both healthcare and education faced similar pressures in the 20th century. As knowledge expanded exponentially, systems needed to scale up to serve more people. The solution? Standardization. Create protocols, establish benchmarks, develop universal procedures. It worked – sort of.

I'm not so sure standardisation due to scaling is really as the cause of this. None of the problems the author points out are really novel observations; I've been hearing this sort of thing my entire adult life, 25 years now. So why doesn't anything change?

I suspect the cause is more a lack of trust in people, as well as a fear of things going wrong. Maybe that comes out of scaling: no one really knows what anyone is doing and everyone is a "stranger". So we have all these controls because we don't trust the nurses to nurse, the teachers to teach, etc.

I feel this matters because without identifying the cause, you're not going to find a solution, which is probably to think of ways to increase trust, and to increase societal acceptance that sometimes things go wrong and that's okay, because sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

I'm not really sure how to go about that though – a big part of the problem are toxic media outlets that will abuse any incident to attack $disfavoured_politician without regard for truth or fairness. The incentives for politicians are pretty skewed.

I don't think that "self-directed learning pods" or "community-funded clinics" are really the path forward. It all sounds very nice, but you can't really run the entire country's system on this for a number of reasons. Sounds more of a libertarian pipe dream than anything else.
You can also teach your skill. I do that, although not full time, but there is money to be made. If you are reasonably good at your craft you can teach novices and you can make sure they get their money's worth. Or give training at a company. I teach creative coding for lighting designers and vj's and if I could do it every day of the year it would net me a good income. However, the market is too small to live off.
This makes no sense. How can you source objective facts about the world by further devaluing and undermining those who's job it is to do it?

Influencers are parasites that have been made possible by broken, user-hostile platforms.

You are advocating for a deranged, dangerous world, where demagogues rule over large masses of idiots that can't tell the difference between AI junk and reality.
Additional context: Jeff Dean has been accused of fraud and misconduct in AlphaChip.

https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/03/26/satrajit_vs_google.pdf
Wait til you hit the toilet!
> Also sqlx.

The guarantees provides by sqlx are less strong than what's provided by diesel due to the fact that sqlx needs to know the complete query statically at compile time. This excludes dynamic constructs like `IN` expressions or dynamic where clauses from the set of checked queries. Diesel also verifies that these queries are correct at compile time.
I've always seen "immutable infrastructure" as another riff on the general theme of Postel's quip, LTI systems, functional programming, "just restart it" approaches all the way down, ... The general admission that systems with memories becomes rapidly much harder to reason about than over time than systems without memories.

Memory is of course also the only way to do anything useful when one interacts with the real world, it's very hard to eke out a decent living being an amnesiac genius at anything. I also think well-designed memory systems become harder to reason about much slower than poorly-designed ones -- take, for example, that NetBSD box that one guy spun up as a simple file server that was still working untouched and forgotten about 10 years later. There's bound to be some weird stuff happening on that system, but even so you could probably remote in and mostly find a system you could navigate and administer.

But when you don't have the luxury of time and experience to design such a graceful system (and none of us with day jobs do) you can reap a lot of those benefits by just trying to be as immutable as possible before you start causing major performance issues.
In the tweet Jeff Dean says that Cheng at al. failed to follow the steps required to replicate the work of the Google researchers.

Specifically:

> In particular the authors did no pre-training (despite pre-training being mentioned 37 times in our Nature article), robbing our learning-based method of its ability to learn from other chip designs

But in the Circuit Training Google repo[1] they specifically say:

> Our results training from scratch are comparable or better than the reported results in the paper (on page 22) which used fine-tuning from a pre-trained model.

I may be misunderstanding something here, but which one is it? Did they mess up when they did not pre-train or they followed the "steps" described in the original repo and tried to get a fair reproduction?

Also, the UCSD group had to reverse-engineer several steps to reproduce the results so it seems like the paper's results weren't reproducible by themselves.

[1]: https://github.com/google-research/circuit_training/blob/mai...
React Scan: Scan for React performance issues and slow renders in your app
I've generally agreed with this but found the UI (ie. HTML) story on the backend is utter shite. Namely it's usually been handled by templates which inevitably lead to ridiculously inconsistent UIs with so much redundancy. In contrast something like JSX is really good and makes building small components for reuse natural.

Fortunately there has been some change in this area. FastHTML is a batteries-included library for Python and there are numerous standalone HTML generation libraries that can be used with other frameworks like Django, e.g. htpy, htmy etc.

I've been using alpine on a static site and it's really quite impressive just how much of "the stuff you probably want js for" it covers. So much so that you can pretty much say "if you can't do it in alpine, maybe we shouldn't do it at all".
So I'm not sure what Google is referring to here. As you can see in the ISPD paper (https://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/Publications/Conferences/396/c396.p...) on page 5, they openly compare Cadence CMP with AutoDMP and other algorithims quantitatively. The only obfuscation is with the proprietary GF12 technology, where they can't provide absolute numbers, but only relative ones. Comparison against commercial tools is actually a common practice in academic EDA CAD papers, although usually the exact tool vendor is obfuscated. CAD tool vendors have actually gotten more permissive about sharing tool data and scripts in public over the past few years. However, PDKs have always been under NDAs and are still very restrictive.

Perhaps the Cadence license agreement signed by a corporation is different than the one signed by a university. In such a case, they could partner with a university. But I doubt their license agreement prevents any public comparison. For example, see the AutoDMP paper from NVIDIA (https://d1qx31qr3h6wln.cloudfront.net/publications/AutoDMP.p...) where on page 7 they openly benchmark their tool against Cadence Innovus. My suspicion is they wish to keep details about the TPU blocks they evaluated under tight wraps.
Peer review is not designed to combat fraud.
Please note that this comparison is outdated since at least 2 years, given that diesel-async exists for more than 2 years now and this page completely forgets to mention it.
If data isn’t actually removed until vacuuming, then are systems that perform SQL DELETES actually GDPR compliant? Because technically the private data is still there on disk and could be recovered. “Until the autovacuum process or a manual VACUUM operation reclaims the space, the “deleted” data remains.”
IMHO:
What we need is not another Router, there are already plenty out there which work with OpenWRT.

What we need are more "level3-"switches with 24/48 ports which work well with OpenWRT.

The only really good thing about this is the price.
> but that’s illegal

A billionaire is about to [re-]become the unfettered god-king of Amerikkka (this time with more kakistocracy!!), I wouldn’t take that (current && temporary) barrier as a blocker to innovation. Get a rough prototype together now and you may corner the market while we’re still here.

> catalog of rare antique pieces or collections

Solutions already exist for a small and well-serviced market; owners of such pieces and collections already know who to fan out to and actively do, that’s why Sotheby’s etc exist.

> something that connects them with people of the same social status

See PoNeWo and PoNePo mentioned previously.

Assume that, if it’s buyable by the wealthy they already have an app for that — or, rather, their personal assistant, concierge, secretary, congressional page, rent[boy|girl] has an app for that — what you need to think about is opportunities for experiences they cannot (currently) buy.

Which brings us full circle to progressively more dangerous games.
> I'm an independent developer right now, building systems for businesses and there is literally no better way to deliver line-of-business internal applications than via a monolith.

This is the same sort of myopic, naive, clueless take that led people armed with this blend of specious reasoning to dive head-first onto microservices architectures without looking at what they were doing and thinking about the problems they are solving.

The main problems that microservices solve are a) organizational, b) resilience, c) scalability.

If you work on single-person "teams" maintaining something that is barely used and does not even have SLAs and can be shut down for hours then there's nothing preventing you from keeping all your eggs into a single basket.

If you work on a professional environment where distinct features are owned by separate teams then you are way better off running separate services, and perhaps peel out shared responsibilities to a separate support service. This is a fact.

But let's take it a step further. You want to provide a service but some of the features are already provided by a separate service either provided by a third-party or whose project you can simply download and run as part of your deployment. Does this count as a microservices architecture to you or is it a monolith?

Consider also that your client teams have a very specific set of requirements and they rolled out services to provide them. Is this a microservices architecture or a monolith?

Consider also that you start with a monolith and soon notice some endpoints trigger workflows that are so computationally demanding they cause brownouts, and to mitigate that these are peeled out of the monolith to dedicated services to help manage load. Is this a monolith or microservices?

Consider that you run a monolith and suddenly you have new set of requirements that forces you to do a major rewrite. You start off with a clone of the original monolith and gradually change functionality, and to avoid regressions you deploy both instances and have all traffic going through an API gateway to handle dialups. Is this microservices or monolith?

The main problem with these vacuous complains about monoliths is that they start from a place of clueless buzzwords, not understanding what they are talking about and what problems are being addressed and solved. This blend of specious reasoning invariably leads jumps from absolutisms to other absolutisms. And they are always wrong.

I mean, if problems are framed in terms of fashion tips, how can the possibly be right?
In addition to the wifi, I recall the preloader at the start of the boot chain is also a binary blob, which handles some of the chip init and memory calibration for the DDR4.
> But I love the Internet, I've been here since the very beginning.

You've been using the Internet since the 1970s?
I feel like targetting discomfort specificly would lead to bad results. Feels like a pretty typical cause vs correlation thing.

Sometimes getting out of your comfort zone is a good thing.

Sometimes that feeling of discomfort is protecting you.

Doing that hobby you were always to nervous too try? probably a good source of discomfort to feel.

Taking sky diving lessons from the sketchy guy who is not really certified? That is probably the bad type of discomfort and you should listen to it.
As Markov claims Nature did not follow their own policy. Since Google’s results are only on their designs, no one can replicate them. Nature is single blind, so they probably didn’t want to turn down Jeff Dean so that they wouldn’t lose future business from Google.
>it’s all prioritisation of developer experience over user experience.

And I have been saying this for well over a decade. Hopefully it catches on.

I have always asked for example of sites done in React where I couldn't tell it is done in React or other JS Front End. The "at worst, hundreds of milliseconds" is precisely why Web Apps never felt as good as native apps. And if we collectively cant make web apps good, why not go back to Interactive Web Pages that is mostly Jank Free. I say mostly because it is still not Native Apps level.

Recently submitted, [1] why does liking a tweet re-render the entire screen? done using [2] React-scan.

[1] https://x.com/aidenybai/status/1862529226727121366

[2] https://github.com/aidenybai/react-scan
the belief that AI's are * hallucinating -all while they become exponentially more powerful- is a polite fiction we will use as an excuse to accept the complete domination of reality by these things

i am confused by this sentence. are AIs not hallucinating? is that a fictional claim? am i misunderstanding or is there a "not" missing at the *?
Clearly he's using ChatGPT.