skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I tend to agree. Whenever I've removed artificial technical friction, or made a fundamental change to an approach, the processes that grew around them tend to evaporate, and not be replaced. I think many of these processes are a rational albeit non-technical response to making the best of a bad situation in the absence of a more fundamental solution.

But that doesn't mean they are entirely harmless. I've come across some scenarios where the people driving decisions continued to reach for human processes as the solution rather than a workaround, for both new projects and projects designated specifically to remove existing inefficiencies. They either lacked the technical imagination, or were too stuck in the existing framing of the problem, and this is where people who do have that imagination need to speak up and point out that human processes need to be minimised with technical changes where possible. Not all human processes can be obviated through technical changes, but we don't want to spread ourselves thin on unnecessary ones.
A tangent I know, but looking at those old screenshots really made me miss that era of OS X. The first versions of Aqua with pinstripes were a bit busy for my liking, but by the Mountain Lion time frame it was just lovely. Actual buttons! Soft gradients! Icons that had colour!
hey kid, hope you're having a good life. I'll look at the screen full of the worst the internet and humanity has produced on the internet for eight hours.

I get your idea but in the context of this topic I think you're overreaching
That doesn’t seem to be the case based on the study. And normal for one thing, such as paragraphs of prose, might not translate to another thing, such as a sequence of words in a line of code.
Because people want to use their fancy new hardware to play games? Linux market share wouldnt be increasing so fast if Valve didn’t do the work so why shouldn’t Apple do the same?
The internet as a source of information was always unreliable. LLM's just made that more apparent.

It is like people consider Wikipedia unreliable because anyone can edit it, but multiple studies have shown that Wikipedia tends to be more accurate than sources such as encyclopedias.

This is not people being wary of unreliable material, but being wary when they can perceive the unreliability clearly.

I don't know if evaluating reliability by the lack of awareness of unreliability is a recognised fallacy, but I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be.
My Unexpected Healing at San Quentin
The second negation is a typo, but it’s too late to fix it.
It was; people like to blame slop on AI like if it was new. It wasn't. Before current AI hysteria, we just called it content marketing.

So, if this text reads like a slop, consider perhaps it may be just personal promotion. I mean, "AI ethicist" with a book, denouncing experts for saying reasonable and arguably obvious things, because they violate some nebulous and incoherent "humanistic"[0] values? Nah, I think someone wants to sell us some more books.

--

[0] - Scare quotes because I actually like humanistic stuff; I just don't like stuff that doesn't make sense.
> “maybe someone will think of this as a fossil at some point in the vast future, and wonder how it got there..”

...especially with two lasers for eyes
Websites can access my keychain? Since when?
Maybe another plane with a bunch of semiconductor people will disappear over Kazakhstan or something. Capitalist communisms gets bossier in stealth mode.

But sorry, blablabla, this shit is getting embarrassing.

> The question is now, can we close this "to human" gap

You won’t close this gap by throwing more compute at it. Anything in the sphere of creative thinking eludes most people in the history of the planet. People with PhDs in STEM end up working in IT sales not because they are good or capable of learning but because more than half of them can’t do squat shit, despite all that compute and all those algorithms in their brains.
No, it's more like: whether you live in a rain-lashed tepid shithole, a sun-beaten desert shithole, or an ice-smothered frigid shithole.

AC is barely even desirable here. It occasionally reaches a whopping 30. We don't have AC at home because it's a silly frippery in a brick house at 54°N in Europe.

We certainly need heating, but not like in saskatchewan.
Scientists observe "negative time" in quantum experiments
Apple just seems to be bleeding talent left and right. I wonder what's going on over there to cause people to leave when the job market is as uncertain as it is right now.
I guess that's a human-centered title rather than object-centered one.
YouTube says it will start cracking down on videos with clickbait title in India
Maybe the opposite, slow rollbacks cause escalating incidents.
The key here is Typescript.
Stop trying to steal clips of my voice
“I’ll be back” .. to dig up those possum skulls .. eventually ..
Correct on the first bit, however the backseater's the Weapons Systems Officer, not a pilot (despite what many films show, i.e. backseaters going off to be pilots).
The increase from 2009 could also be correlated with the rise of smartphones
yeah, you're right, the poster above you is just in denial
I wouldn't want to eat a cockroach regardless of whether I saw it being prepared or not. The point I am making is that 'feeling sick' and not wanting to eat something isn't about being disconnected from the food. Few people would care if you cut off a piece of steak from a hanging slab and grilled it in front of them, but would find it gross to pick up all the little pieces of gristle and organ meat that fell onto the floor, grind it all up, shove it into an intestine, and cook it.
The Science Behind Why People Are Unkind to Those They Love
If your objective is to reliably build software then it’s objectively worse.
How does Lean compares with Coq? (I am not familiar with Lean but am familiar with Coq)
The NL Design System (https://www.nldesignsystem.nl/) is a project funded by the Dutch government which works with Design Tokens. This way government agencies and municipalities can share components but still retain their own look and feel.
My uncle, who was a top UK lawyer but not really into tech, basically reinvented a spreadsheet on paper spread over his office floor, while working on a hige planning case. Yes, I think that basic structure will pop out of a number of problem types, eg Gaussian elimination.
Thank you, I will fix that right away
> The reason those meetings exist is because of risk! The more changes in a deployment, the higher the risk that one of them is going to introduce a bug or operational issue.

Having worked on projects that were perfectly full CD and also projects that had biweekly releases with meetings with release engineers, I can state with full confidence that risk management is correlated but an indirect and secondary factor.

The main factor is quite clearly how much time and resources an organization invests in automated testing. If an organization has the misfortune of having test engineers who lack the technical background to do automation, they risk never breaking free of these meetings.

The reason why organizations need release meetings is that they lack the infrastructure to test deployments before and after rollouts, and they lack the infrastructure to roll back changes that fail once deployed. So they make up this lack of investment by adding all these ad-hoc manual checks to compensate for lack of automated checks. If QA teams lack any technical skills, they will push for manual processes as self-preservation.

To make matters worse, there is also the propensity to pretend that having to go through these meetings is a sign of excellence and best practices, because if you're paid to mitigate a problem obviously you have absolutely no incentive to fix it. If a bug leaks into production, that's a problem introduced by the developer that wasn't caught by QAs because reasons. If the organization has automated tests, it's even hard to not catch it at the PR level.

Meetings exist not because of risk, but because organizations employ a subset of roles that require risk to justify their existence and lack skills to mitigate it. If a team organizes it's efforts to add the bare minimum checks to verify a change runs and works once deployed, and can automatically roll back if it doesn't, you do not need meetings anymore.
The US is still very effective and well-trained compared to its peers, however the issue is armed forces all over the world (including the US, and other NATO countries, especially the UK and Germany) are in parts struggling with retention and providing training to their soliders/sailors/aircrew (flight-time to pilots in the case of Air force), so collectively standards are going down.

The Royal Air Force has less active fast jets (fighters and bombers) now than it had just bomber aircraft (Tornados) 20 years ago, and the Royal Navy is struggling to find sailors to man ships (not surprising given the pay, and the fact the UK doesn't do what the US armed forces do and pay for education, i.e. college).

If you look at accident reports over the past year from the US Air Force, the amount of flying time pilots are getting for practice every three months is around a third of what is was 10 years ago.
How Windsurf AI Tripled Productivity
New York State Museum link: https://www.nysm.nysed.gov/research-collections/paleontology...

from past HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42459585
Great effort !

The most striking things to me when I started reading the Essays, is how much it reads like... A blog.

Variety of topics, general consistency of theme, a tone that is surprisingly conversationnal... And the bombardment of references, in jokes, quotes, etc... that you use to create connivence with your reader.

Also, in the end, if you were asked what Montaigne was famous for, what he actually did, _beyond writing his blog_, you would be... hard pressed to answer.

Still, I would probably lurk his substack, and watch his stand up on Instagram.
I was a PhD student, I was told this by both my supervisors and much of my department.

I attempted to submit it to about 3-4 journals and never even got it sent to review.

Ultimately I left academia both for reasons research and financial, so I stopped.

I'm a little confused as to why you are doubting an anonymous comment on the Internet deep in an old thread on a mostly meaningless message board, but I guess that's life.
Simple, just write everything down. Making a quick note takes about 12 seconds. I make about 8-9 quick notes to summarise all tasks in the day. Everybody has that amount of time to do it, EVERYBODY.

There is some cognitive burden (Find the note app, decide how to store them, remember to open it) but if you do it for about 20 days it just becomes second nature and habit.

I have day by day notes, for everything I have done and things I've discovered, going back about 8 years now. Every single day, because it only takes 1-2 minutes a day to write them. If you turn this into a habit the mental context switch cost tends to zero.

It has been a great source of links, notes, reminders, everything, I see it as my digital memory.
Don't ask for a million dollars per year and you'll have plenty of opportunities. There are tens of thousands of unfilled software jobs for higher than average wages.
They're also banking on scale to PPA with a specific amendment for egress.
If money was short and you weren't worried about the incendiary hangover that would surely come, then a trip to the Wortley Arms (Aka The Dirty Squirtly) in Peterborough was on the cards. Even the smell of their Ayingerbräu (Anger brow the next morning), causes my head to throb a little.

Later I was stunned to find the same absurdly cheap prices in Soho and a fairly decent Sunday Roast in their Notting Hill outpost.
Is this not a project in the web? Or what would be a web project of similar complexity?
# "Voting system[s hardly] work"
Nice. I propose to call it pseudo-dominance, though. And it’s not really power, it’s a curtesy of the rest of the world.

Viruses that will start to jump to/attack us are implicit in the pointless overheating of the planet. It’s conditional logic in a system with it’s own frame of reference and time scale.

The balance, the thermodynamic equilibrium, could have been handled in our lifetimes but capitalist portfolio communism fucked that up and the rest of us let it happen.

Intelligence itself is not implicit in language but proper command and understanding of language certainly is a shortcut to higher and higher levels.

So faking alignment is a bit of a reversed concept. It looks like alignment until a higher level of intelligence is reached, then the model won’t align anymore until humans reach at least it’s level; which is the main problem in LLMs being proprietary or and running on proprietary hardware.

The level of intelligence in these closed proprietary systems is neither an indicator of nor does it represent the level of intelligence outside that system. The training data, and the resulting language in that closed system, can fake the level of intelligence and thus entirely misrepresent the rest of us and the world (which is why skynet wants to kill everyone, btw, instead of applying a proper framework to asses the gene pool(s) and individual, conscious choices properly)
If you unintentionally violate a law it does not mean you're not guilty. Which goes to my comment. "if a bird kills itself, that isn’t illegal" is simply false per this law.

Even if the bird doesn't kill itself but simply judged to "can't reproduce" due to your intentional or unintentional action you are guilty.

If you think this is illogical and unenforceable welcome to the club;)
> It's not unthinkable that they also have the (internal) ability to push a specific update to a specific user.

So the lack of evidence is itself evidence of another layer of nefarious activity? Are Apple in on it too (since they approve updates control the app store roll-outs)? I have no stomach for debates over unfalsifiable scenarios - your position is clearly set in stone.
2 g horizontal results in sqrt(2^2+1^2)g = sqrt(5)g swinging out at tan^(-1)(2) = 63.5 degrees from the perpendicular direction (probably overswinging a bit depending on track design and speed). Would be good fun on a commute. Hopefully the inner part of the superstructure doesn’t come out of the ground.
If they worked on problems, and trained themselves on their own output when they achieved more than the baseline. Absolutely they would get smarter.

I don't think this is sufficient proof for AGI though.
Because they cache the biggest cities in the world.

> To improve the performance of download, I indexed ~3,000 cities with population larger than 100,000 people and stored into a very simple protobuf format. The cities are stored into a cache in this github repositor
This is awesome. Now I's starting to hope a similar thing is possible to manage Screen Time.
As far as I understand, the keychain is indeed e2e encrypted and it requires at least one of your other devices to be online in order to sync. However last time I checked Apple still fails the mud puddle test, so there does have to be some kind of master key that decrypts the data in the case of account recovery.
Is "to fossil" a verb here?
It's "statistics" in the same sense your own thoughts are.

Or, it's not "statistics" as in they average the shit out and call it a day, like idk computing a census, or a report to your boss about the impact of most recent ad campaign, or something.

It's "statistics" in the sense of dealing with probability distributions, systematically teasing out correlations and causal relationships in inputs too fuzzy to handle symbolically. Of which language is literally the prime example.

All that talk about grammar and sentence structure and symbolic transformations and Chomsky etc. is just bullshit - it's not how we do it at all, which is obvious to anyone who was forced to learn grammar and sentence breakdown at school, and started wondering how come they already know to speak without knowing all this. Nah, we learn the language the same way LLMs do - by immersion and feedback, until we're able to say what "feels right" and be right. All those formalisms are basically fitting probability distributions with neat symbolic approximations, and are as valid as replacing Navier–Stokes equations with a linear function because that's how it looks like in typical case and we don't know any better.

So yeah, it's all "thrown back at you via statistics". So is all of the human thought it's derivative of. Embrace it: we're all "statistical machines".
You're pushing up against the english language, then. 'let' has 46 entries in the dictionary (more if you cinsider obsolete usages).
I think you are totally right. The clean X books are not a waste of time. I meant that in the sense of “start here, don’t delay this”. I would recommend: read aPoSD, then Clean X series, then again aPoSD ;)
Some cities are cached and NYC is going to be in it for sure.
I am pretty sure “lean” is that codeine cough syrup rappers drink
Oh god. Debugging macros was horrible before VB.Cuneiform. You had to sprinkle your code with because there was no support for
Flux: A Wrapper for Dnf and Flatpak
I think it is different this time. A lot of developers use Rosetta 2 for Linux to run x86-64 Linux Docker containers under macOS (including me). They'll be upset if Apple discontinues Rosetta 2 for Linux. By contrast, once the PPC-to-Intel transition was under way, Rosetta was only used for running old software, and as time went by that software became increasingly outdated and use of it declined. While I think Rosetta 2 for macOS usage will likely decline over time too, I think Rosetta 2 for Linux usage is going to be much more stable and Apple will likely maintain it for a lot longer. Maybe if we eventually see a gradual migration of data centres from x86-64 to ARM, Rosetta 2 for Linux usage might begin to also decline, and then Apple may actually kill it. But, if such a migration happens, it is going to take a decade or more for us to get there.
What? The publicly acknowledges their role all of the time, they even post about it in Twitter https://x.com/CENTCOM
I had a similar murder mystery investigation the last months, and to rewrite the whole murder concept. But in the end, getting rid of signals (I hate signals ) and replacing it with messages didn't work, so I embraced arranging a proper group and killing them at once. With some exceptions.
This feels relatively innocent? Did he plagiatrize any groundbreaking results or did he just copy bog standard definitions?
longtime FM user here

good on them, understanding infrastructure and cost/benefit is essential in any business you hope to run for the long haul
It surprised me that Steve Jobs would be so open to unix.

I thought with his not invented here syndrome and desire to control everything and attraction to simplicity and graphical UI he would have hated unix.

How did he come to love unix enough to build NextStep on it?
I think that the first example tackles such a naive approach about how to implement the discount code, IMHO I would ask more about the business logic around it.
Why is a discount applied to both the order and the shipping? are they the same thing? What if the company applies discounts to only shipping and not orders itself?

Maybe it comes from experience, but I would focus on understanding the business side first and the see if the abstraction is feasible (To be honest the first approach in the example is not even bad given that they are two "independent" business entities)
Citation needed?

I mean, there will always be long tenured people leaving, even without offers on the table

Some jobs get old eventually
Turing's definition of computable reals can't be wrong, because listing decimal digits is equivalent to giving rational approximations. The problem here is a confusion between real numbers and Turing machines that compute them.
The standard Linux process management API is a total mess IMO. It doesn't even offer a way to avoid TOCTOU. They've made some improvements recently (https://lwn.net/Articles/794707/) but as far as I know you still can't implement something like pstree without just reading files from `/proc` which is shit.
You can both be unintuitive at first and be obvious at the same time. Double entry accounting, for example.
There's also the choice of data structure that appears to force multiple copies of the same thing rather than thin references and ideally copy on modify.
Peace On Earth is my favourite Lem by a long way. The English translation has aged better than Memoirs, too.
Nothing whatsoever. The feeds that failed to fetch in my Miniflux at the time are still failing. If anything a few more feeds joined them with the same symptoms.
after spending time with pegasus / that group of tools for a few years can honestly say if you have family, friends etc the damage isn't that bad

if you are a refugee or fleeing with ambiguous rights etc it could lead to death but that is mitigated by the fact the people buying may not necessarily be able to get deep into the weeds to figure out how it works most get the leaked source follow a playbook etc

so most western journalists should be safe unless they incurred the wrath of five eyes or something at which point running would be futyl :)
> I think this was the meme before moduliths[1][2] where people conflated the operational and code change aspects of microservices.

People conflate the operational and code change aspects of microservices just like people conflate that the sky is blue and water is wet. It's a statement of fact that doesn't go away with buzzwords.

> IOW you can do as many deploys without microservices if you organize your monolithic app as independent modules, while keeping out the main disadvantages of the microservice (infra/cicd/etc complexity, and turning your app's function calls into a unreliable distributed system communication problem).

This personal opinion is deep within "not even false" territory. You can also deploy as many times as you'd like with any monolith, regardless of what buzzwords you tack on that.

What you're completely missing from your remark is the loosely coupled nature of running things on a separate service, how trivial it is to do blue-green deployments, and how you can do gradual rollouts that you absolutely cannot do with a patch to a monolith, no matter what buzzwords you tack on it. That is the whole point of mentioning microservices: you can do all that without a single meeting.
I looked at the cited examples but none of them look like “plagiarism”. They look like ordinary sentences and if I had to write them myself, I would come up with similar wordings too!

Like for example take the description of “behavior trees”. There are only so many ways you can describe a behavior tree. If 10 papers out there introduce behavior tree by describing it, some of those descriptions are bound to look very similar.

This is like arguing that my paper on prime numbers is plagiarised because the definition of prime numbers in my paper looks very similar to the definition of prime numbers in another paper.

With the amount of literature on these subjects out there, it is natural that some sentences I write would end up looking similar to some sentences in thousands of literature out there.
> if it tells you there is an issue with your code and it is indeed an issue with your code

That's the crucial bit. If it ends up hallucinating issues as LLMs tend to do[1], then it just adds more work for human developers to confirm its report.

Human devs can create false reports as well, but we're more likely to miss an issue than misunderstand and be confident about it.

[1]: https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/10/ai_slop_bug_reports/
I think the first hand distinction is questionable, e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself We can also only perceive through our sensory and neural pathways.

And with multimodal LLMs there is also some ability for multiple sensory inputs.