skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don’t think there is any chemical dependency difference. I could quit stimulants if I want to (and I have, unintentionally during the shortage when I was forced to go without). But why would I want to? I’m addicted to not being a total failure in life.

But I am very curious about how people like you describe the effect of these drugs, as it is so foreign to me. What do you even mean by “heavenly”?

Some people can retreat to a mind palace in their head. I have a mind bouncy castle. It’s like confetti in a wind tunnel. Stimulants calm the storm and give me control over my inner thoughts, and mastering oneself is the first step to having any agency in the world. That’s all they are to me.

But a “high”? Never experienced that, other than the psychological high that comes with being high agency.
It’s not obvious that all suppliers have these low margins. It’s also possible that some very clever people could do better than just approximations. This feels like a comment dropped from an outside view, id bet someone who has tackled this problem could identify opportunities where it works really well.
I don't know for “you”, but the French « vous » (or e.g. вы, вие, etc.) are only formal in the singular form, otherwise they're just bog standard 2pp.
Negative. All jobs should be paying liveable wages. One off type of jobs for 'this and that' sure, but showing up every day and expectation for deliverables or being on time? Absolutely, pay a liveable wage. Too many Ferrari, BMW, new speed boat from the PPP loans greed to show that employees mean nothing. All jobs deserve liveable wages. We should be advocating for a more peaceful society.
> It also frustrates me to no end that people are so deeply incurious. This seems to only happen in tech,

I mean software engineering and computer science from the start is built on abstraction, it makes sense that it attracts people who find taking the abstraction as reality and ignoring the underlying "real" layers to be attractive.

(Also it's not "real" until you get down to... voltages? Electrons? I don't know... the whole thing about our whole endeavor being built of abstraction is there are so many layers. Nobody thinks everyone has to routinely go ALL THE WAY down, but I get your point that being more curious than many tend to be about a couple layers down is helpful, with how far down a couple layers is depending on the nature of your work. I'm not saying it's not helpful, I'm suggesting possibly why -- because we select for people who swim happily in abstractions, who love em even. And the success of all of CS and software engineering is based on the ability for it to often work. nobody really has to be curious about voltages when writing a python script to read and write from storage)
They also refers to the abstract "one."
I believe they use Taichi.
Backlink Bento is a curated list of 250+ backlink opportunities designed for SaaS startups.

The idea:

Help early-stage companies boost SEO without overspending.
Skip the chaos of Fiverr gigs or the steep $300/month for HARO services.

The value:

$249/year for 250+ backlink opportunities (niche sponsorships, directories, and scholarships).

I’m also aiming to help charities and open-source projects gain more visibility and contributions through my startup. In some cases, your donation might even be tax-deductible which the cherry on top.

Sure, you could replicate the list—but it might drive you crazy combing through Semrush or Ahrefs for weeks like I did.

What is missing? Roast me.
> Alignment faking occurs in literature: Consider the character of Iago in Shakespeare’s Othello, who acts as if he’s the eponymous character’s loyal friend while subverting and undermining him.

There's something about this kind of writing that I can't help but find grating.

No, Iago was not "alignment faking", he was deceiving Othello, in pursuit of ulterior motives.

If you want to say that "alignment faking" is analogous just say that.
Gen Z's risk aversion has created "situationships" that no one wants
> Is the AI system "defending its value system" or is it just acting in accordance with its previous RL training?

What is the meaningful difference? "Training" is the process, a "value system" embedded in the weights of the model is the end result of that process.
This is an example of the fundamental underlying problem with anything LLM-based, though; the output is completely un-trustable. This _particular_ example, while likely shocking for, say, Luigi's granny, is not broadly dangerous, but it's very easy to imagine mistakes of similar form causing widespread panic.

I think the other example:

> On 21 November, three articles from the New York Times were grouped together in one notification - with one part reading "Netanyahu arrested", referring to the Israeli prime minister.

is actually a little more alarming. What if it read, say, "Trump arrested"? It is not hard to imagine that causing, ah, trouble; see Jan 6th 2021.

This feature seems obviously ill-conceived and should be switched off, at least by default, until they can guarantee it works properly (hint: as it's LLM-driven the answer is 'never').
We're probably one of the first to make a real tech bet on Loro. We inched our way into it, and plus or minus some edge cases, it is going very well so far.

Even on the edge cases, most of it just relates to what primitives are exposed in the API, and we've found the library's author to be highly engaged in creating solutions.

We've found it to be an incredibly well designed library.
Not rats, vultures! Vulture Capitalists is a catchy name!
It's not anymore!

Multiple options around, I personally love this

https://lit.dev/

You can develop that element and then just drop that onto your static page via /assets/ and you're golden. Easy to develop, simple to deploy and tiny file size.
> language changes over time

But this language has not been changing over time. This was a dictate from HR departments, made up from whole cloth. If anything has changed over time, it's that "gals" has been an anachronism for a long while, outside of a few isolated corners of the Southern and Western US where it can still manage to sound cute in some contexts. We don't really need a special diminutive for groups of women.

That being said, it's not formal language, it's chummy. If you're a 16 year old host at a restaurant speaking to a group of women older than you, you probably shouldn't be chummy.
Licenced medical doctors under the current system will already prescribe you oxy (actually they moved into low socio-economic areas to sling dope, theres your upper class medical profession) so not sure what your attack is here
My point is the equivocation is not logically valid. If you want to operate on the definition that AI is strictly the "new" stuff we don't understand yet, you must be sure that you do not slip in the old stuff under the new definition and start doing logic on it.

I'm actually not making fun of that definition, either. YouTube has been trying to get me to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZDiGooFs54 , "The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]", but I'm pretty sure I can guess the content of the entire video from the thumbnail. I would consider it a reasonable 2040s definition of "AI" as "any algorithm humans can not deeply understand"; it may not be what people think of now, but that definition would certainly capture a very, very important distinction between algorith types. It'll leave some stuff at the fringes, but eh, all definitions have that if you look hard enough.
When you say poorly regulated, you don't mean a lack of regulation right? Just that the heaping mass of regulations that do exist give us the trash system we have?

Cause I wonder if some people might take "poorly regulated" to mean "just not regulated enough", which I think is probably not the issue.
>Why is garbage collection called memory safety? Garbage collection in whatever form is only memory safe if it doesn't free memory that will still be used.

Yes. A garbage collector is only safe if it works correctly. What an irrelevant observation. Nothing can guarantee that something works correctly if it doesn't work correctly.
This. The market should be working for us human beings, not the other way around.
But... It's not the user that is seeing this, it's the developer. You catch at the top of your event loop and you log the stack trace to some place that can be reached by the dev team, be it Jira, some crash reporting tool, etc.
This is basically all code I've worked on. You have a parsing/validation layer that passes data to your logic layer. I could imagine it working less well for something like a game where your state lives longer than 2 ms and an external database is too slow, but for application servers that manipulate database entries or whatever it's completely normal.

In most real-world application programming languages (i.e. not C and C++), you don't really have the ability to access arbitrary memory, so if you know you never gave task B a reference to task A or its resources, then you know task B couldn't possibly interfere with task A. It's not dissimilar to two processes being unable to interfere with each other when they have different logical address spaces. If B does something odd, you just abort it and continue with A. In something like an application server, it is completely normal for requests to have minimal shared state internal to the application (e.g. a connection pool might be the only shared object, and has a relatively small boundary that doesn't allow its clients to directly manipulate its own internals).
A hogel volume can be reduced into a 1bpp 2d plane representing the interference problem. Literally, a hologram. Probably the computational effort to do this in realtime is within reach of current GPUs.
On the outside of their eyelids it would do nothing for self-awareness, so I'm assuming written on the inside... which they won't be able to see unless they look at something super bright, like the sun, with their eyes closed.

... I guess this season some of us have more time to overthink things.

Still, YAGNI needs careful consideration. What looks like YAGNI right now might be reasonable flexibility that will be needed as the project matures. YAGNI makes perfect sense when delivering a proof of concept, but it's not that straightforward when designing for long-term use.
Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Tasks
And someone has in fact managed to get MMU-less Linux running on the newer Pico 2:

https://github.com/Mr-Bossman/pi-pico2-linux

That's with an 8MB external PSRAM though, fitting modern Linux in the internal SRAM is probably a step too far.
Honestly, if you're providing it (I believe by default in territories where it's enabled?) to everyone, then 'beta' is purely a marketing term and should carry no weight at all.
Nope. If a program is meant to run on the entire CPU, and if it's meant to use all the memory, then that's how it will run. This isn't a question of modernity or availability of tools or programmers' salary.

Or, to put it differently, using more or less memory / CPU isn't really an indication of anything about a program. Sometimes you mean to use all that's available, other times you mean to use as little as you can. There's no way to tell which one should be done w/o knowing your goals.

For example, the entire free memory on Linux is a free real estate for filesystem caching. So that memory is not wasted, if the system can help it. So, having your entire memory used (to support filesystem cache) wouldn't be really a performance problem (quite the contrary, it would look like the system is doing a good job at caching whatever reads your applications are making).
The classic software dilemma when I see something like this.

It is simple, nice and clean.

I immediatley want things knowing deep down that those things, if delivered, would probably take away the esscence of what's good about it.

Still...i would like alt ways to persist and share ...would be nice to manage 1:1s across multiple teams I run :-p
Do they run a proprietary Apple software, and have NFC and UWB inside them?
The Wikipedia article is surprisingly on-point and insightful for a contemporary culture-war concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx
It's a great, easy to learn library. I used it for Firestr
If it was a dev kit, they could have simply kept it under wraps and provided beta access to gauge developer interest, instead of the usual overwrought keynote.

Who builds half a million units of a dev kit?

Some stuff you can just tell is going to flop. This is one of them. Apple still doesn't get that people dont want to put on highly conspicuous headsets to watch a movie or play a game, they're fine using a phone or tablet for that.
Zuckerberg still
pretends like he didnt spend 2 years and untold billions trying to will Horizon Worlds into relevance. Similarly, nobody talks about immersive video on AVP as some kind of gamechanger, not even the usual Apple consumer strategy whisperers like Daring Fireball.
I would say that this is true for protocols, tls have been significantly improved by dropping support for many different algorithms.

But its not obvious that the same is true for a library.

The RustCrypto project breaks each algorithm into its own crate, while botan implrments everything.

Its not obvious to me that one approach is clearly superior to the other.
Hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Do you really think these statements were meant to be taken literally?

"It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."

Or this?

"the use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense,"

I think that saying that Dijkstra was capable of making hyperbolic statements is rather kind in this case ;-)
I assure you Im serious. I would like to know your actual thoughts why you think this way
I really wonder what a future would look like without companies like Visa/Mastercard/Discover/AMEX.
Study: Better Large Language Models Process Text More Like Human Brains Do
Most people don't care about their job, they just want to put in minimum viable effort, get paid and go home to their family. Typically they do this because putting more effort didn't bring them anything (not even some recognition of efforts) or even backfired. It's applicable to all jobs, not only in tech.
I am another Midwesterner who has largely switched from "you guys" to "y'all" (nit: ya'll is not considered correct spelling) after some lengthy and heated Slack discussions between Midwesterners and West Coast at $previousJob.

P.S. Michael Cera does a nice cover of that song.
Consider the case of AI designating targets for Israeli strikes in Gaza [1] which get only a cursory review by humans. One could argue that it's still the case of AI saying what humans want it to say ("give us something to bomb"), but the specific target that it picks still matters a great deal.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
Update: between my comment above and now, Amazon has marked the other two items shipped, and un-slipped the expected delivery date back to the 20th.

Interestingly, the "shipped" status is matched to a tracking update that says "package left the shipper facility" with no time or location information. All further updates have a location and a timestamp. (Everything is shipped by Amazon.)
Nah that's shadow, the lady who trained her is known in the rat world as one of the best trainers. Mine will come when they're called, go to their cage when I tell them to, pee and poo where they are supposed to, respond to their names and some basic spin stuff, but I never bothered to get that intense with them (not enough time!)

imo rats are by far the best pet, the only annoying part I would say is, as soon as you both start to fall deeply in love with each other: they die.
Absolutely, you make an important point. The reason this hate movement is gaining so much momentum is that they are the only group validating peoples concerns, but then pointing the finger and telling them who to blame, and claiming to have a solution. Effectively countering it will require a non hate based movement that still validates those concerns.
You're right; you can do this in C++, although the patterns I've seen usually involve pointers.

There is no equivalent in Python, Javascript, Typescript, Java, or Kotlin.
That reminds me of the time I went on a first date and she asked, "so what do you do exactly?" and I said I work on "garbage collection". You should have seen her face!
It's mainstream enough to have a Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
I'd hardly call Red Lobster formal. "Red Lobster Hospitality, LLC is an American casual dining restaurant chain," according to Wikipedia.
Solidworks for Makers is currently $25/yr I think (discount code).

I'm a pretty happy FreeCAD guy, actually -- my issues are not FreeCAD but learning design -- but I will be trying it too.
> I don't have it in me to have an extended discussion to address how indiscriminately killing civilians was never accepted practice in modern warfare.

I did not claim it is/was accepted practice. I was asking if "doing it with AI is just the same so what's the big deal" was your position on the general issue (of AI making decisions in war), which I thought was a possible interpretation of your previous comment.

> No, I replied to a comment that was talking about a specific example.

OK. That means the two of us were/are just talking past each other and won't be having an interesting discussion.
If you don't know precisely why you want a library like this (and sometimes you do), you want libsodium instead.
Well the first step is retailers and manufacturers needing to de-normalize this practice of playing continual games with pricing. These days if I see a "good sale" (aka non-sucker price) on something I'm in the market for, I will hit buy and then make the actual purchase decision over the next few weeks. Or if I'm unsure how many of something I will need, I will buy extra and then figure out how many I need later. Because I'm sure as shit not going to buy one or two for an honest price and then feel like a sucker later when I end up needing more but they've got me over the barrel. My main consideration is whether I've already got pending returns using the same method, or if I'm making a new task for myself.

It feels like this is part of a larger dynamic where companies are basically arbitraging consumers' feeling bad about waste and environmental destruction to increase their own bottom line. Like Target is abjectly terrible at packing items in boxes, such that things often get crushed in shipping. So then you're left with the dynamic of either complaining and accepting that return/resend creates a bunch more waste, or just shrugging off the damage they've caused (willfully, at this point). Now that I've seen the pattern, I just call that bluff too.
This is so sad. I got an incredible CS education at Northeastern. I’m very successful in my career, and for someone who didn’t know how to program before college, I found that the CS curriculum pioneered by Felleisen prepared me far better than graduates of other colleges. The curriculum was tough and I spent many nights banging my head against homework assignments. But, everything eventually “clicked” and I graduated feeling confident, empowered, and humbled.

Not a single CS major in my graduating class got a 4.0, and I refer to this with honor and respect. The curriculum taught us how to think, how to problem-solve, and how to design programs. It felt like the curriculum was created to foster _understanding_, not to crank out high GPAs.

I’m so disappointed that the Northeastern admin is trying to force such an excellent CS program into something more “accessible” a-la a boot camp. That’s not a knock against boot camps, which should be a low-cost way for people to get their foot in the door for this amazing profession! But, for a 4-5 year university costing $60k per year, I would expect to be challenged, learn theory, become versed in things I’ll never use on the job, and come out a well-rounded SE.

Felleisen may be a bit cantankerous, but he sure as hell knows how to approach CS education, and I can’t thank him enough for the opportunity I had to learn via his approach.
The biggest barrier to the operation of the free market in medicine is the medical licence, especially as being a legal and economic barrier to prescribing drugs, ordering tests or referrals to the actual specialist who can help you
Yes, is that a no-go? Maybe I’m just being too old-school :)

It does make forks a lot easier, though!

Another advantage is that it makes it clear what you’re saving, reducing the likelihood of errors being persisted.
What exactly makes a drone "mysterious" or "omonious[ly]"?
This isn't schoolchildren all being bystanders or victims to a peer bully. There is a much larger asymmetry in time, money, and credibilty here.
V -prod is now 12 times faster on a 14 core CPU due to parallelization
It's much worse than assembly. On all but the shittiest machines, you can store code pointers in RAM and registers, and in a subroutine call, the return address is stored somewhere you can read and change it (whether on a stack, in a register, or before the first instruction of the called subroutine). This allows you to implement object-oriented programming, switch/case, backtracking, and multithreading in assembly. You can't do that in BASIC.

Also, since the early 01960s, all but the most primitive assemblers have macros and named labels. One result is that they have an unlimited number of named functions with line number independence, as marcosdumay said. Many of them have a sufficiently powerful macro system to implement nested control structures like while loops and multiline if. Since the 01970s they've also had local labels. BASIC doesn't have any of that.
I'm answering in good faith, assuming the question is in good faith.

Latin@ (or latine or latinao) are all attempts to add non gendered versions of gendered words in Spanish.

Some percentage of the population, probably in the tenths of a percentage point, identify as non binary. Those people prefer to use non gendered indicators where possible.

That's ... kinda possible in English, where you can use they/them or replace father with parent, for instance.

In Romance languages this is much more difficult because adjectives are supposed to agree with the gender of the person -- for instance roja is red, feminine, and rojo is red, masculine.

So, there is a genuine movement by people who are non binary to try out different things. Combining the an and o, for instance, to get rojao, or roj@. Or using a third vowel to indicate gender neutrality, e.g. roje.

It's extremely important, imo, to differentiate this from Latinx. Latinx is an American English construct, latin@ is a Spanish language construct. Latinx is an almost exclusively American (and therefore largely exogenous concept to Spanish speakers), whereas latine is a Chilean/Argentinian construction that is endogenous.

Hope this comment is helpful, I'd ask that people vote on it based on whether they felt I made a good faith effort to factually answer this person's question, even if they dislike the idea of gender neutral Romance languages.
Because anyone with experience rowing a canoe is going to wonder how you take one across the ocean without drowning. And the answer is, you use a boat that can handle the ocean.

I initially noted that the Polynesians who settled Hawaii didn't have outriggers, and that was wrong - they did have single outriggers. They maintained heavy use of catamarans.

The technological progression goes:

raft -> catamaran ("This raft would be more stable with a canoe at either end") -> single outrigger ("I don't need the passenger space of the raft or the second canoe, but I still need the stability, so the second canoe will just be a log") -> double outrigger ("I like being lightweight with no passenger space, but I wish I could turn in both directions")