skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In addition to what dragonwriter said about the Chinese government being subject to and having the protection of US laws under specific situations:

> This is not violating the first amendment rights of TikTok. This is just asking Bytedance/CCP to divest from TikTok.

As an aside; did you know that foreign companies can own or otherwise have a controlling interest in US defense contractors that do Top Secret / SCI work for the DoD and other US military customers? It's true!

Anyway. China is currently subject to a very limited trade embargo. It is otherwise a country that has "permanent normal trade relations" with the US.

Please cite previous Federal precedent that permits FedGov to force countries that we have PNTR with to relinquish their controlling interest in US companies that provide data transfer services [0], or provide publishing services, or operate a newspaper, television or radio station. Make sure to link to actual, official communications, rather than some blogger writing about how the world SHOULD be.

> If CCP wants American first amendment protections for itself, it should also be subject to all other US laws then.

You're conflating the Chinese government and TikTok.

[0] Huawei provides hardware for companies providing data transfer services; the distinction is important.
Making the process itself harder can be counterproductive.

Every system will be gamed. The ones gaming the system often stand to gain more than those the system is intended for. A visa program for skilled/talented individuals is supposed to select people who could find good opportunities elsewhere. Getting a job in the US is not a big deal for them. On the other hand, an average person who somehow manages to qualify could improve their life greatly by coming to the US. Especially if they are from a developing country.

If you add bureaucratic requirements to the visa process, make it last longer, and make it less predictable, you are effectively telling the skilled and talented people to go elsewhere. Then you get more people trying to game the system and hoping for a lucky win.
Silicon valley figured out decades ago that the trick to keep R&D dollars flowing is to balance on the verge of getting amazing results (AI/AGI; defeat cryptography) and not proving these efforts fruitless. The end result needs only be plausible and fantastic at the same time.
Isn’t this how it is supposed to work in America? People own guns to fight tyranny. The gunman carried out his own judgment, but that’s the whole point. And there is reasonable belief that the CEO is responsible for a lot of suffering and expected life lost.
> Medieval scholars inherited the idea from ancient times that there were seven primary colours: white, yellow, red, green, blue, purple, and black.

These correspond to the classic tinctures of heraldry: the "metals" or and argent (silver and gold, conventionally depicted as white and yellow), and the "colours" gules (red), vert (green), azure (blue), purpure (purple), and sable (black).

However, iirc, purpure as a colour in its own right was a later addition, and was originally just considered a variant of gules (mediaeval heraldry lacking Pantone numbers or rgb/cmyk specs -- as long as the chosen paint or fabric was recognisably green or yellow or whatever, it counted).

> Finally, yellow or gold knights were rare and blue knights nonexistent.

The nearest thing to a canonical version of the Arthurian romances in English is probably Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, which may be too late (c. 1470) to count as strictly mediaeval, but which does include a single example of a blue knight:

> So leave we Sir Gareth there with Sir Gringamore and his sisters, and turn we unto King Arthur, that at the next feast of Pentecost held his feast; and there came the Green Knight with fifty knights, and yielded them all unto King Arthur. And so there came the Red Knight his brother, and yielded him to King Arthur, and three score knights with him. Also there came the Blue Knight, brother to them, with an hundred knights, and yielded them unto King Arthur; and the Green Knight’s name was Pertolepe, and the Red Knight’s name was Perimones, and the Blue Knight’s name was Sir Persant of Inde[0].

-- Le Morte d'Arthur, book VII, chapter xxiii.

This same part of the Morte also features (briefly) a brown knight, a colour not discussed in the article.

[0] inde: dark blue; etymologically related to "indigo", both words being ultimately derived from the Latin indicum.
I think Valkey now took over redis maintenance and I don't expect bigger users will reach out for Redis anymore. It seems like a better maintained project at this point. In my opinion, the licensing changed things permanently.
e^(iτ) = 1; true beauty.
> If you look at the lifecycle analysis of ICE cars, burning the fuel is the major contributor

(Genuine question, not whataboutism...) what about the environmental aspects of manufacturing and distributing a vehicle other than CO2 emissions?

> old and set in their ways

I fear I may be approaching this stage myself! :)
> and even systems from 2016 would usually pass your "go there without touching the wheel or pedals" test

This is complete bullshit. The systems in 2016 were restricted to pre-mapped areas with lots of training. (i.e. the waymo/cruise approach today) So if you weren’t in a tiny slice of San Francisco or a few other training areas, this didn’t work.
Had the great pleasure of a behind the scenes tour of the Kubrick Archive at the University of the Arts London.

One item struck me as most singular and evocative of Kubrick's wild attention to detail.

The archivist brought out a box containing a full ream of A4 paper on which was repeatedly typed "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" from the famous scene. Every page had a slightly different layout, mistakes and all, for 500 pages. Every single one typed by hand. We stood in awe at this grotesque achievement used to fill only a few seconds of film.

And then the archivist brought out the identical boxes for Italian, French, Spanish, German, all typed by hand with a different, locally chilling phrase for each.

My shock at this has almost outlasted my admiration.
the WITCH playbook is to parade a competent team in front of the executive signing the deal then replace them with untrained people seduced into their sweatshops with promises of riches (but ending up in sweatshop).

Local teams hired or acquired are also part of the dog&pony show, H-1B and similar visa deals are used to keep some of the "middle" and up workers on a leash.
Bearing in mind I only live with one person, and I'm lucky enough to live in a place with ample internet options, but this just isn't a problem for me.

I've got gigabit fiber now, but in my last place I had 76mbps (but in practice it was more like 60 or so). We were able to watch two streams, with my wife's instagram and my reddit scrolling comfortably. The only reason we upgraded was when we moved 1) fiber was cheaper, and 2) I changed jobs and all of a sudden needed to download far more build files (hundreds of gigabytes a week)

If we had 4 people streaming different things we might have struggled.
Maybe you only get to see the sufferers when their condition is already advanced? My Dad is in the early stages of Alzheimer's, and knows it, and is really down about it. He regularly goes off by himself to cry. It's pretty heartbreaking
What is wrong with a non-commercial open source license for those that want to use your software for personal use and a paided up commercial license (something like Business Source License[1]) for the big tech corporations of the world?

How much open source software is being incorporated into closed source software and then being resold back to the original open source developers - to get an idea, check the licenses on a Apple phone (Settings -> General -> Legal & Regulatory -> Legal Notices)[2]. It's the who's who of open source licenses! I wonder how much Apple has contributed to those projects? Perhaps each FOSS developer mentioned there should receive - at least - a free iPhone ...

The argument of "social contract" or "moral rights" or whatever else a FOSS developer faces when changing their license to something that prevents BigTech making money off their work is unfair and unnecessary. Its their work, their choice. Just as politicians aren't held to the promises they made yesterday, so too are FOSS developers human and can change their direction/mind and license.

In addition to this, many have vested interests in these companies continuing their use of "free" (in the sense of money) software since they are themselves shareholders or employees. License fees effect the bottom line of those corporations. Imagine AWS paying a license fee for their Linux boxes ...

A corporation also has a "social contract" to fulfil, yet its the FOSS developer that needs to fulfil theirs first. Or perhaps a corporation only faces "legal contract" and for the sake of profit, a "social contract" isn't applicable to a corporation. In which case, neither should a "social contract" be applicable to a FOSS developer - when dealing with corporations.

[1] https://mariadb.com/bsl11/

[2] can also be viewed online --> https://gist.github.com/gorenje/a775f44bb9307852911f7f353466...
Youre just ignoring everything that was said and repeating whatever it is youd like to believe.
If by “functioning” you mean that a dispute is only considered resolved if it goes the way of the established status quo, I suppose you're right, but that's a weird definition of “functioning”.
Ethical Challenges Related to the NeurIPS 2024 Best Paper Award
The same thought process as installing GNU/Linux on a random PC bought down the mall, or getting home with macOS/Windows already pre-installed.
Why? The original opensource lineage is valkey, it just changed the name. Redis is where the oss history forks and turns proprietary.
Got it. I guess we're very different then, I don't feel like I'm getting any closer to "understanding myself and the universe" nor is it a goal for me. Perhaps it was when I was younger.
I've read that a hundred years ago there was a variety of precious stones used for engagement rings. I guess diamonds had the best marketing.
You could stick the codec on the DVD itself? They are relatively small programs.
And yet, I've worked with H1-Bs who get their green card who are much, much younger than 132 years. Something doesn't add up here.

Are you perhaps relying on a number that has been inflated by relatively-recent staffing shortages?
They dropped 2 nuclear bombs on, mostly on innocent civilians, seems like pretty good revenge to me.
Some VHS were dubbed.
Did the optimal algorithm for dijkstas shortest path mentioned in the article get used for something immediately consequential and very time sensitive?. My intuition would think routing internet traffic could be a good us case, but I may be wrong.
What I dislike about the license change is that by trying to extract an extra dollar from Amazon&Google, the entire community gets hurt in the process.

Can I "dnf/apt install redis" on my Fedora or Debian install? I cannot, it's no longer packaged because it's no longer open source.

Can I go buy a shared hosting plan and get Redis? Or a small PaaS that sits on top of AWS? I cannot, because we have decided that every hoster is now as exploitative as Amazon, regardless of their margin.

For decades we lived in a world where someone could sell you an Apache server and a MySQL instance without having to pay money to Apache or MySQL. We can change that social contract, but like all tariffs, this one will be paid by the end users, not by the companies providing the service.

Disclaimer: I work for a PaaS.
This is spot on. Fully agree with this point:

> Chat-oriented programming is hard, but many folks believe that autonomous agents are right around the corner, and that they will handle all that heavy lifting for you. You’ll just need to write short prompts and spot-check the results, with much less toil involved. [...] I think those people are smoking some serious crack. But many are well-funded, so they’re going to get a chance to give it the old college try, burning investor money like jet fuel along the way.

I think the time-horizon presented by the author is about right. Like they mention, sure, we could see a magical breakthrough soon, but it's not likely. I'd argue that we won't see 100% autonomy on the code side in our lifetime (and I use an LLM every day) based on current evidence. The models are good, but they're several iterations away from evening being close to autopilot.

In the event that we do get 100% autonomy, a whole lot more hell is going to break loose than what's happening with CHOP (as the author refers to it).

I think the biggest nightmare that lies ahead is the point in the metaphorical chart where new/junior programmers "learn" by getting some result that passes the sniff test and assume it's correct (i.e., they don't learn the gritty details you get from experience, just surface level knowledge).

Eventually, we'll hit a point where the majority of programmers learn this way, which means technological progress will come to a halt first, and second, when serious bugs inevitably creep up, there will be a relatively small pool—if not non-existent—of people who can fix it (and will charge handsomely to do so).

Sadly, I think the only real solution is to just play it by ear. But the advice in the article is sound: if you're not learning/using this stuff now, you're falling behind. If you're a junior trying to level up, don't rely on your job or co-workers to teach you. Start building stuff (in whatever area you're trying to work in) in your spare time and consider it an investment in your future.
Tesla will likely kill lots of people, but the regulatory environment will be so loose no one will care.
That's ok you have AI now
These things are not mutually exclusive...
A demo video of our Transmonkey for everyone to check out
I get all that, but I want a new scout. Bad.
The author touches something that are probably better described as burnout triggers.

Accumulate enough expectation metrics and targets and then completely miss them. The mismatch of expectations and reality will give anyone a pause.

The solution isn't chasing more metrics and new far off targets with silver bullets on how to reach them. But that's what "thought leaders" and management think loves doing.

The lower the "loss" between your prediction for your future state and the actual state, the more content you'll be and the easier things will likely progress. Spending more time on maxing out predictions will just make the loss larger.
Not yet, but something that I really would like to offer.
Might be a nitpick, but is everyone OK with just taking the photos with a mobile phone nowadays, even for such product photography? They look terrible when viewed on a computer screen.
Ask HN: Can cryptocurrencies be reliably taxed if everyone adopts them?
If we didn't use fiat currency then how could governments function?
US for now, but without any guarantee.
> CHOP isn't just the future, it's the present. And if you're not using it, you're starting to fall behind the ones who are.

Be that as it may, the reason I got into software development as a kid was because I wanted to understand how computers worked and tinker with them. I did not get into it because of increased efficiency, or for telling others how to do stuff that I could learn how to do myself. If that makes me unmarketable, then I guess I will move to something that is not so prone to automation. Because I don't want to be a glorified manager (of bots or of people). :)
Your example is interesting but I don't see how a bank can be held liable if the bankruptcy wasn't communicated to it properly, is there any proof it's a real thing?

The example in the article is different if I read it right: bankruptcy was already known to all parties, account frozen, but the debtor asked court if some operations can be resumed except for chargebacks.
AVs already exceed the quite low bar for humans. The real crux is liability when they screw up.
It's an excellent point. In such a scenario, if you're bound to a rigid workflow system, you will probably have a hard time recreating all the intermediary steps required to get the system back into a consistent state with the external world.

Idempotency is key and the choice of the idempotency key as well ;)
I’ve yet to find a problem that two servers and a load balancer can’t resolve — see the above scales I’ve worked at. All simple setups.
You’re shifting the goal posts, but do you not believe these services can eventually be delivered profitably?
Oh, but they are. We get fewer of those six month periods than we like to think we will.
My biggest gripe with DVDs is how loud they are. There's nothing worse than being in the middle of a quiet scene in a movie and hearing the drive spin up.
> Bitcoin entrepreneur Ben Sigman pointed out that ECDSA, vulnerable to Shor’s algorithm, would require several million physical qubits to break it. SHA-256 is even more demanding, needing hundreds of millions of qubits via Grover’s algorithm to pose a significant threat.

SHA-256 needing a hundreds times more qubits is wrong. The linked tweet from Ben shows it needing about the same number of qubits as ECDSA.
> If legality is determined based on what's beneficial to the rich and powerful, then this is equivalent to saying "most importantly, does it benefit the rich and powerful?" which is, of course, the point of the person you're arguing with. So this is not the gotcha you think it is.

I don't think it's true that legality is determined based only on what's beneficial to the rich and powerful.

In any case, if you think asking if something is legal before deciding whether it's ok to do it is some kind of gotcha, then you're throwing out the whole concept of law and order - of society. I'm not sure where you go from there.

> This does not feel like a good faith argument. [...] You're saying that the status quo is intrinsically good and everything must be done within the legal system as it's set up. That gives no redress to the people for whom the legal system has been specifically designed to fuck over. Your argument completely falls apart if the legal system is not 100% foolproof, and I simply don't believe anyone could argue in good faith that it is foolproof.

Wow, you're making a lot of assumptions there. I don't think the legal system is 100% foolproof, not at all, nor do I think it's intrinsically good. No sane person would argue that.

But there are a lot of ways to deal with that fact, a whole spectrum ranging from "doing nothing" through "trying to change the legal system" through to "just agree to ignore the legal system". You're arguing that if the system isn't perfect, we should skip right to ignoring it.

I'm arguing that we improve the system. Keep working on it, keep arguing and persuading and sometimes getting our way and sometimes not.

When did we get so jaded and decide things can't improve? Western civilization has gotten vastly better for most people, things that are considered moral absolutes today were not even considered in polite company less than 50 years ago (not to mention some things less than ten).

> But I also recognize that if the legal system is not producing justice, people will find ways to bring about their own version of justice. This is a predictable consequence of a system that has been specifically designed to never hold anyone in power accountable for anything. The way to stop vigilante justice is to improve the legal system so that people do not feel that it is necessary.

I strongly disagree with the idea that the legal system never holds anyone in power accountable, there are myriad counterexamples to that. And not as many actual examples of "the system" letting people be unaccountable.

And there's a gigantic difference between understanding that sometimes people want vigilante justice, and excusing it or cheering it on. Of course it's understandable. There are even more clear cases - family members of murder victims would totally understandably want to kill the people who murdered their loved ones. I would very much empathize if someone were to do that; I'd still condemn it as wrong. Wouldn't you?
This is horrible and the result is predictably awful. I love it
>Cruise was not enabled for test drives. The excuse was pretty weak, like the dealership would have to pay for the service or something. GM might have the technology but they are completely bungling the strategy

Before the iPhone came out, some pretty decent/popular smartphones existed. I had clients in the industry. They sold a lot of n95s and such.

But... data plans sucked. Apple did an exclusive deal and forced them to include 2gb of data. They could not sell phones with data-less plans. Customers could not buy iphones on data-less plans.

At some point you have to nudge the paradigm.
Once it's cured maybe, that doesn't mean it's at all safe until then.
How to understand that logical error rate can reduce exponentially when the system becomes larger? Does it mean each physical qubit will generate more logical qubit when the total number of physical qubits increases?
are you taking BHB along with being on a ketogenic diet or do you else eat carbs?
Maybe a working quantum algorithm for weather prediction would outperform currently used classical simulations, but I wouldn't expect it to be bang on every time. Inputs are imperfect. So at best you could benchmark it, and gain some confidence over time. It could very well be good enough for weather prediction though.

Also I doubt that a quantum algorithm is possible that provably solves the Navier-Stokes equations with known boundary and initial conditions. At least you need some discretization, and maybe you can get a quantum algorithm that provably converges to the real solution (which alone would be a breakthrough, I believe). Then you need some experimental lab setup with well controlled boundary and initial conditions that you can measure against.

In any case the validation would be at a very different standard compared to verifying prime factorization. At most you can gain confidence in the correctness of the simulation, but never absolute certainty.
Confidence in the timeline is one read. Lack of confidence and finding partners to shoulder the financial burden at the cost of lower upside is another.
Is the author suggesting that current AI tools are capable of:

> “write an auth library” or “modernize these unit tests” ?

If so, I'm genuinely interested to know what tools people are using that can do this.

Our experience is that AI will perform well if given a specific and well-bounded sub-task ("parse the JWT token and return a collection of claims" or "re-write this test using framework x" to extend the author's examples), but would still need a competent developer (junior or otherwise) to fit the pieces together and act as quality control.
People in the real world are not interested in autonomous driving?

I doubt that. They just care less for the technical details.
Would definitely pay more to avoid FSD pilots, because the texters sense their surroundings more often than the drivers lulled by false advertisement and (at-best) beta grade software.

The snarky posters can stay, doesn't hurt my life or property.
that’s one of the dumbest things i’ve ever read in HN
I think he's right, and I hate it.

I'm also depressed by his endgame, which he glosses over - LLMs prevent the gradual buildup of expertise through hard, repeated, work.

All our handwriting (and hell, even our grammar) is basically trash, because who can be arsed putting in the time to write beautifully with a pen when you can just fling out an email?

LLMs will cause an analogous decline in code and coders - every codebase a cesspit of messy mediocrity in outputs, authors, and professional culture.

Fuck the future, man.