skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ever seen white lotus season 2? Stanford grad falls for a prostitute. Italians cannot resist.
In spite of my hugely biased pro-privacy stance, I'm skeptical that real privacy is a feature or selling point that can contribute to the financial interests of corporations enough to consider, broadly speaking.

To the corporations, data is the new oil, and to the vast majority of consumers, there's this very defeatist attitude around privacy, something like "I already don't have any privacy, what's one more recording device going to do?".

I think we should not expect privacy to meaningfully improve until the gap between end-user perceptions of the value of their privacy and corporate perceptions of the value of their customers' (or users') data shrinks, and I sadly don't see much hope here at all. In fact, I think a substantial plurality, if not an outright majority, even have the technical aptitude to critically evaluate the accuracy of corporate claims of privacy, like those misleading claims of privacy offered by Apple.

Humans are highly adaptable creatures, and sadly, I think most have settled quite comfortably into the panopticon that modern society has mandated for so many of us, embedded deep down in the terms of service that everyone agrees to but never reads.
An orchestration of small, specialized models might the next breakthrough
He put into words something that I've always had a hunch about: that small specialized models, will have their own niche, especially when it comes to crafting delightful UX experiences... those tiny models might be able to push us over that extra 5% that separates a "meh" product than a "WOW" product.
Same thing with GPU's vs CPU's--an orchestration of thousands of simple cores is better suited to some use-cases than large general models. Even though the performance might even be identical for a given task, there's something to be said about cost and latency, especially when orchestrating 1000's of them.
Just imagine what 1000's of tiny models could achieve vs one giant model?
The idea of "performance" is debatable.

For example, "phones" use eMMC or UFS which are not the choice of those who want "performance" from their personal computer. They prefer SSDs.

Chromebooks also use eMMC. To illustrate, search for the term "eMMC" on Amazon and the results are mostly Chromebooks. Also routers and development boards are still using eMMC.
Apparently his other social media doesn't link to this YT account. Also there's an active "live premiere" which I don't think you can automate.

random comment on said live premiere:

> the account is fake. the video wouldve been made public instantly. there would be no premire time. you can change your youtube handle. this account isnt linked to his x account
I'm not the GP and in fact I don't agree with the GP, but I really don't think anyone should have to explain why they are defending someone who they think is innocent, regardless of how much money that person does or does not have.
GNU Shepherd 1.0 Service Manager Released as "Solid Tool" Alternative to Systemd
I'll add the exchange back here to continue this thread

-----

>>scoofy: I mean, it's important to remember that the axioms of first-order logic are arbitrary. We could easily argue that the truth value of an empty group is undecidable, and that would better correlate to natural language logic.

The fact that we compact these edge cases into arbitrary truth values is just for ease of computing.

This is also relevant to the arbitrary choice of the 'inclusive or' as a default over an 'exclusive or', which most people use in natural language.

---

>foxglacier: This addresses my previous reply to you, thanks. I wonder though if there's a problem in that common natural language is inherently limited to common concepts. Scientists famously use confusing language in their papers but they're writing for people who use the same language so it's OK. For example, they use "consistent with zero" to mean "might be zero" even though a common-language reader can interpret it as "not zero". I suppose logicians use "or" to mean inclusive or in their papers too.

-----

"Absurd" here I wouldn't say is a term of art. I just mean things that not only don't mean anything, but can't mean anything. Here, existence is always extremely relevant. This goes back to Kant's idea that existence can't/shouldn't be a predicate. The idea of talking about the actual color of a nonexistent hat is absurd in that a nonexistent hat can not have a color, period, because having a color presumes existence.

So, when I talk about the logic of natural language, we have to get really philosophical. I presume that there as at least significant equivalence from formal logic to natural language, if not ultimately being fully equivalent. Formal logic is effectively a model trying to capture logical reasoning, and there are some notable differences for simplicity's sake (the Frege-Russell ambiguity thesis is a common example: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-4780-1_... ), however, most-if-not-all of these formal logic ambiguity concerns are trivial for natural language to deal with as any ambiguity can be clarified by an interlocutor.

Where things get really weird, however, is as you go up to the axioms of logic, and try to justify them. The idea that foundations of logic itself is determined either inductively or instinctually is just bizarre. And mapping an inductive/instinctual logic to a formal system runs into a lot of philosophical problems that aren't really practical to worry about. It just gets weird and solipsistic, as it does when you get too caught up in philosophy.
This looks like a great language for a game about programming.
Why is this comment so similar to this tweet: https://x.com/peruvian_bull/status/1866213955687022656

Are you a bot?
With every new Android release I'm afraid that Google decides to limit all these freedoms we have on Android
I remembered your recent, similar comment in a Crockford says something mildly controversial thread and looked to see how many times you'd commented on the same incident. (of course I expect I missed a few of them)

There, I've explained myself, and I think the explanation is relatively straightforward. Now you. Why do you obsess bitterly over something Crockford said to you fifteen years ago during a Q&A? Perhaps more importantly, have you discussed Crockford with a therapist?
One theory of dark matter is that it's strange quark antimatter. An asymmetry in the behavior of quarks and antiquarks in the very early universe would have led to antiquarks being preferentially squirreled away in tiny ultradense nuggets of quark matter. While explaining dark matter, this would also explain the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry. Or, rather, it would explain it by saying matter and antimatter are present in equal amounts, but the antimatter is in a different form.

If this theory were true, tiny nuggets of this antimatter would be passing through the solar system all the time. Perhaps a future society could detect them and somehow trap some for use as an energy source.
RE "...ever learned that some of those customers are unhappy...." There are even books about health care insurance industry practice of denying customers claims. Even research papers .... So is not just "...some unhappy customers ..." that is definite
This turns out not to be the case.

Let's play this game exactly once.

You choose two unequal real numbers. I don't know what they are, and I don't know the distribution from which you choose them. You write them down and put them in separate envelopes.

I'm allowed to choose one envelope and open it to see the number inside, and my job is then to say which envelope holds the larger number.

I claim I have a strategy now which lets me win strictly more than 50% of the time. My strategy is this.

I choose a real number R at random from a distribution that has dense support. In other words, for any two reals, L and U with L<U, P(L<R<U) > 0. This is easy to do ... one method is to list the rationals, positive and negative, then roll a die, discarding numbers until you get a 6.

Now I flip a coin and thereby choose an envelope at random. I proceed by assuming my chosen number is between your two numbers. There is a non-zero chance this is true ... call it e. So e>0.

If I'm wrong then my choice is 50% ... probability is 1-e.

If I'm right then my choice is 100%. ... probability is e.

Combined, my chance of being right is 0.5(1-e) + e = 0.5+e/2, which is strictly greater than 50%.

You can make it as small as you like, and if we play the game repeatedly then you can make it approach 50%. But as it stands, with a one-off game, I can win with a probability that depends on your chosen numbers, but which is strictly bigger than 50%.
Deadman’s switch crypto token launch?
I disagree. Analogous would be how we have very limited regulations on guns, but you can’t just have a tank, fighter jet, or ICBM.

Some tools are a lot more powerful than others and we have to take special care with them.
It has that "worst, except for all the others" quality. It's getting much easier to use with bzlmod, at least for the C++ stuff and especially if you have no weird requirements. I also strongly prefer its toolchain model over others, having recently needed to convert a large C++ project from host GNU tools to hermetic LLVM tools. From time to time I ponder converting projects to cmake but I no longer perceive any advantages.
If you want better healthcare you don't need to invent anything new or "disrupt systems of oppression". Just pick another country where it's working and do what they do.

Largely, they have a lot more doctors, hospitals and MRI machines per capita than we do, and they pay their doctors less and require less education from them.

This is particularly safer in America because the #1 thing voters hate is anyone doing anything new. If you ever try doing anything new you'll immediately get voted out. That's what happened after the ACA passed.
If they react reflexively, it communicates all sorts of things. It's not a traditional conversation, and there may not be bidirectional communication, but information is still being communicated.
> implies that he can't hide

I agree with this.

> and they know his name.

That is not implied anywhere at all.
Where’d you get that IQ? His GitHub isn’t active either.
I think you are wrong ... see my answer here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371563
you can block is with Ublock Origin

https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1ct5mpt/heres...
> The most practical strategy, for now, is to plant olive varieties that are naturally resistant to Xylella fastidiosa to prevent future outbreaks and minimize potential losses.

It seems rather to be yet another argument for polycropping and taking care of genetic variety and adapting to local conditions, instead of trying even harder to hammer nature into a grid.
Just like all the obvious signs[1] the moon landings were faked.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120829004513/http://stuffucanu...
> Infomaniak

Do they do dedicated? I could only see cloud and colo on their site.
From the font and awkwarding positioning I'm guessing the date was overlayed on the video with a script or something (i.e. "two days after whenever this deadman's switch gets triggered")
No they can't. You are trying to force the issue. You need a concrete project and you iterate on it with features. You add gui and a database. You refactor and optimize. These courses are cookie cutter in a vacuum problem sets that give you high level ideas but not the experience of dealing with messy constraints. Also don't be open to any framework. Choose one get good, finish a project start a new one get better. Buy books on the subject. You are not going to listen your way into six figures you have to do the work.
Indeed, epics and classics like Gilgamesh, The Count of Monte Cristo, or even Dune are what I'd buy as physical books. The rest are audiobooks, and tech books are digital, so that I can have them side by side on the monitor with my code editor.

> I'm glad you enjoyed "Pro Git" but that sounds like the kind of thing that I would use as a doctor to place a patient into a medically induced coma.

I laughed at this for the last 5 minutes straight.
>we are never going to be affected by this fact (since it's in a part of the universe from which information may never reach us).

For curiosity's sake: Wouldn't something like quantum mechanics defy that argument?
My guess is that initially he intended to avoid being caught, but at some point changed his mind and embraced it.
What proof do you have that he's "richer"?
Disease is not a problem if we stop practicing monocultures. The added labor costs associated with polyculture still end up being less than the added energy costs of indoor farming
I ran into the language very differently than many posts here. The Tidbyt [0], a retro-style smart display designed to provide at-a-glance information on the weather, sports scores, transit schedules, etc., uses it to enable people to create their own custom displays.

For those purposes, it is simple. The simplicity reminds me of Lua. It is a perfect choice for the device.

[0] https://tidbyt.dev/docs/build/build-for-tidbyt
Ask HN: Alternative front ends for AppStore Connect?
Do any exist? The closest I can think of is Expo's EAS but I'm currently working with Swift.

To be fair I only have 1 issue with ASC, the fact that I have to type my password every time I log in. It is very irritating, especially for a company of this size.
Proving performance is improving at a rapid pace though, like 10X/year. And converting to circuits is automatic now; there are compilers that can do it for arbitrary Rust code.
I know a bunch of marketing people that have fully incorporated these tools into their workflow. So that's one group.

Also seen GenAI replace more and more stock media in many facets of business/professional services.
Advent of Insight
Was in Canada two years ago to snowboard. They were taking everybody's pictures as they were going through customs. I remember going to the counter with my Mom and the guy asked us what we would be doing and I before I even answered he waved me through. My Mom looked at me and said, "We obviously didn't fit the profile they're looking for."

You're right about just trying to get through the process. I was the only one in our family who was like, "No idea why they were taking pictures of everybody when they just whisked us through customs." My Dad snapped that it was because of 9/11 and we weren't lawbreakers so just deal with it.

The comment was interesting since my Dad worked for Lockheed Martin for 30 years and used to travel constantly. He mentioned the idea of a "high trust society" is now gone forever and facial recognition and other technologies are now necessary to give that trust back to the general public so they can feel safe with air travel.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but this seems like a long-winded way to say "most positions are a draw, and theoretically losing material doesn't matter if you can still force a draw eventually"
I feel like nix has been thoroughly discussed in this post already, so you're not the only guy.

> You don't need to mess around with shell hacks

Shell integration is optional, you can use `mise en` just like `nix-shell` or `nix develop`. You could also just invoke commands/scripts through mise tasks or mise exec.

> based on a string in one of several dozen dotfiles

The "Idiomatic" files like .nvmrc, .python-version, etc are supported but most people just use a mise.toml, which (a bit like flake files) contains all the config for the environment.

> but when tools are published through NPM or RubyGems or Crates or just on github that you have to run `go install` to get, then it's a bit of faff

And this is what mise excels at: `mise use npm:cowsay` or `mise use ubi:junegunn/fzf`

I think Nix/Guix are great, but also terrible. For me today, it's not worth the pain.
>who I feel

You're basing things on your feelings, not personally knowing the person. I know you've alluded to that, but seriously, just stop.

> I worry when I see a person presented as an authoritative leader in the Quantum Computing domain demonstrate in their external presentation.

I'm not sure why how someone dresses makes you worry, especially since you aren't even involved in QC. Stop worrying about things you can't control, especially someone else's appearance. Has Burning Man taught you nothing? If you think it taught you to be biased towards someone based on their appearance, then I think you completely missed the point.

>as already happened with Google Glass

You may not know this, but he was tapped to lead the Google Glass project, and quickly got out of it. He felt that the silicon at the time was not capable of producing the results people wanted in the form-factor they were expecting. He was right. Of course tech has improved since then and better VR/AR glasses in a convenient form factor are just now starting to be a thing, but Google Glass is long since shuttered.

He didn't just come out of nowhere, he's been involved in actual AI (not LLMs) for decades. His company was bought by Google and is the basis for their computer vision systems, which is how he ended up at Google.

As for you supposing he's into "healing crystals" or any other wooo nonsense simply based on how he dresses, I have never known him to talk about such things at all, in all our conversations throughout the decades.

> This person's aesthetic reminds me of this.

You are barking up the wrong tree, and you should maybe tone down your judginess of others. I have news for you - you can't tell a book by its cover, but you sure are trying to. You just come off as being jealous that someone can have fun and also be a pioneer in QC. No doubt any person at the top of their field has plenty of haters, based on nothing more than "he doesn't dress like I expect him to".
Question: How much do crappy wireframes actually matter?

From a performance pov I've imported ridiculous meshes not intended for games into unreal. It worked.

I can see this being ok for anything other than triple A games right?
You're right about phones also being provided.
With that in mind, I'd say: if your company and other places of business you tend to visit all go for this concept, I think it could work. But as long as the boss expects you to work on a laptop, this'll remain a niche application.

Honestly, I'd love to be surprised and see everyone switching to docking setups everywhere. But I just think the positives over current working modes are too small to gain the needed traction. And that's before considering downsides other than investment costs/overcoming network effects.
You’re on the right path my friend, hang on to the feeling that drove you to write this. Not everyone has it, and you may even find yourself having woken up with it missing one day. So use it while you have it
I think there's a simpler explanation here.

pip solved a lot of baseline problems. It doesn't solve all of them. There were a bunch of failed attempts to be "better pip". They have not worked, really, but people stick around to some tools despite this.

I do think uv is different, on account of working and being very reactive to ecosystem pains.

(direnv is not Python-specific! It's just a tool to set env vars in a directory. But because Python venv's can work through setting two env vars....)
There may be a few IC's who make that amount but they do not wield nearly the same amount of power as the CEO of one of the largest healthcare companies in the country.
Of course normally other people contribute to a movie after the writer. My comment mentioned three of the important roles. This whole thread is about tech that automates away those roles. That's the whole point.
Censorship of tools...

Then let's parents choose when teenagers can start driving.

Also let's legalize ALL drugs.

Weapons should all be available to public.

Etc. Etc.

----

It's very naive to think that we shouldn't regulate "tools"; or that we shouldn't regulate software.

I do agree that on many cases the bad actors who misuse tools should be the ones punished, but we should always check the risk of putting something out there that can be used for evil.
the "american" style was literally imvented by a german company
Syrian PM: Ready to hand over power
It’s wrong to state this as a binary. This isn’t mutually exclusive and all of the parties profiting from the status quo had a common interest in preventing reforms - those don’t overlap perfectly so the groups fissured on different lines but they lobbied independently and as part of joint groups like this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_America%27s_He...

There are significant generational issues, too. For example, older doctors who owned highly profitable private practices took a very different position from younger doctors who are employees of huge companies, and the pharmaceutical lobby wasn’t opposed to the ACA as long as it didn’t involve cutting their profit margin to what Medicare or the VA pay.
> The current best guess is that there is some matter that we can't see for some reason. Nobody is sure what it is.

My pet conjecture (it's not detailed enough to be a hypothesis) is that this is related to the baryon asymmetry problem.

The antimatter symmetry problem is more than just baryons, despite the name, as we also have more electrons than positrons, not just more protons/neutrons than anti-protons/anti-neutrons.

There's a few possibilities:

1) the initial value just wasn't zero (an idea I heard from Sabine Hossenfelder)

2) the baryon number is violated in a process that requires conservation of charge

This would suggest antiprotons or antineutrons do something which involves the positron at the same time, so perhaps the anti-neutron is weirdly stable or something — neutron decay is a weak force process, and that can slightly violate the charge conjugation parity symmetry, so this isn't a completely arbitrary conjecture.

If we've got lots of (for example) surprise-stable anti-neutrons all over the place… it's probably not a perfect solution to the missing mass, but it's the right kind of magnitude to be something interesting to look at more closely.

3) the baryon number (proton/neutron/etc.) and/or lepton number (electron/positron/muon/etc.) is violated in a process that does not require conservation of charge.

If you have some combination of processes which don't each conserve charge, you're likely to get some net charge to the universe (unless the antiproton process just happens to occur at the same rate as the positron process); in quantum mechanics I understand such a thing is genuinely meaningless, while in GR this would contribute to the stress energy tensor in a way that looks kinda like dark energy.

But like I said, conjecture. I'm not skilled enough to turn this into a measurable hypothesis.
> nd some marketing tricks work a lot better on children because of their social settings and general impulsiveness

Kids don't have the defenses against manipulation, especially when it's refined by billions in research dollars and decades of work by scientists and psychologists dedicated to exploiting their young minds.

Research has shown that kids (even into their teens) can't tell the difference between ads and content. They don't even know an ad when they see one, and the line between ad and content is often intentionally blurred. I've even seen adults struggle to identify ads when they're right in their face.
Even if he is, it doesn't have anything to do with my point.
I think this is a great way to explain the idea of a knowledge graph. There's probably a whole field of ux research opening up to interact with knowledge graphs and using llms to create them, parse them and display them to users
Sort of messed up that I’m paying for ChatGPT pro and still can’t access it.