skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'll assume you meant speech recognition and not TTS. I'm also assuming you intended for the LLM to act as the intent classifier which isn't totally unreasonable although it may be a bit overkill.

Given the precision you'd need to set the target unit(s)/coordinates/waypoints - I just can't see this being very useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt8XYV-IKxY

A fun use of voice recognition I've seen before (Skyrim had it for shouts) is using your voice to cast spells though.

EDIT: Also forgot to mention, at one point I had a utility that you could map voice commands to keyboard shortcuts which I used in Microsoft Flight Simulator for commands like setting trim, adjusting fuel-air mixture, deploying flaps, etc.
Sure but what’s the alternative? Are you going to decide what people can say? This is all very 1984, if you haven’t read it you might find it interesting
You can always "redact" previous data. You can treat the sensible entries themselves as mutable, without it breaking the system design around immutable data.

I have also seen a scheme where you store the hash, and have a separate lookup table for sensible data, that you can redact more easily without messing with the log.
> isn't enough cobalt available

Plenty of battery chemistries don't use cobalt, e.g. LFP.

> we have lithium only for around 2,8 billion batteries

Again, assuming current chemistries. Materials are not a cliff for EVs. Assuming zero progress on LFP or e.g. sodium chemistries, we have decades of throwing away batteries to go through.

> recovery of lithium from spent batteries remains a niche market

Of course. Lithium is cheap. Why would you bother with expensive recovery when there is still cheap lithium all around?
Digital Reality, Digital Shock: Growing Up at the Dawn of Cyberspace
Those are mostly structure-versus-function arguments, centered on what a brain is as opposed to what it does. Only the static nature of the current ML models seems like a valid point... and it's changing too.

I'd wager that future models (which admittedly may not look much like today's LLMs) will blur the lines between mutable context and immutable weights. When that happens, all bets are truly off.
C would benefit from a new keyword that allows a function to require a pointer argument be a non-stack object when passed from a function that returns. That would cover the most common cases where you accidentally pass in a temporary object that must persist.
You have to be very careful with this, especially as a single person corporation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

Moreover most of the difficulty in prosecuting corporate crimes comes from the fact that responsibility is spread across multiple people, that it's hard to prove anyone did anything wrong. Obviously that won't work with a single person corporation.
Cobalt-free LFP batteries are projected to be in over 50% of the EV's sold in 2025.
While the lack of accountability for corporations is crazy, I’m a firm believer in the Cube observation: there is no master plan.
> The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged.

Those "disruptions" you refer to create periods of "lack of supply" (i.e., less of the goods). That is what the "disruption" is, a temporary reduction in the "supply"

> The demand has not changed in any material way.

True, but, during the period of "temporary reduction in the supply" (i.e., the disruption) Econ 101's supply/demand curve will predict that the price will rise to make the "demand" during the period of limited supply equalize with the new supply level due to the disruption.

What often happens (and you see it most clearly with gasoline prices), is that the price reacts extremely quickly to the supply disruption by increasing fast (seemingly within hours). But then, when the "disruption" clears, and the supply amount returns to normal, the price tends to slowly drift downward (if it drifts downward at all).
I'm confused by the seemingly pervasive position that quality doesn't matter if a text was written by an AI.

It's a long way off still, but let's imagine we get to a place where chatgpt86-xl-megaturbo-super actually composes novels that are as good, and as original, as any of our classical authors produced in their lives.

At that point, the only reason to care about who wrote it, as far as I'm concerned, is so that I know where to look for the sequel, if applicable.

Currently however I understand an aversion to AI slop, because it's, well, sloppy. It's generic and unremittingly bland. But those are all quality issues. Slop isn't bad because it was written by AI, slop is bad because AI isn't very good at writing(yet?)
That’s not quite true. It’s just the first step. Your business then has to observe and perform all the required customs and ceremonies (board meetings, etc.) in order to be respected by the law. Otherwise a court can “pierce the corporate veil” and find individuals liable for their actions.
DeepSeekMath
Looks great for doing donuts somewhere, but it never looked practical for useful travel in a straight line. Would other materials like tire rubber reduce the negative effects of the balls getting dirty? Add some sort of squeeze to it so the surface is self-cleaning maybe?
> where hydrogen is visble, e.g. larger vehicles

Could you outline which vehicles these are? I've never seen a case where hydrogen makes sense for any reason other than trying to make hydrogen make sense.
One fakes itself, while the other requires someone to actively fake it by generating user activity. When I was active all it required was a regular login.

For many years now only the active user count has been relevant in the fedi, so I assume the creator of pixelfed knows this already.

I'm saying all this to say that news about user milestones mean nothing compared to the warmth and engagement regular users feel when interacting in the fedi.
Date check: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2014/07/04/...

So that was 1973, in between the first test flight and entry into service of the A300. I might argue that one reason Americans get a lot of stick from the rest of the world is exactly this kind of "America number one" stuff.
Like what? Moreover, what does this hold for public policy? Should we bring back debtor's prisons? That would be the obvious solution to long firm fraud.
I was recently looking into my family history, and doing some research on my great grandfather's rural grocery store in 1930's Kansas. I found an old newspaper ad from the time where the four local stores were excited to offer a weekly sales program where each one would put a product on sale every week, and the other three would agree not to compete on that product. "Huh, that's an interesting gimmick... wait, wait, WHAT? How was that legal?"
That's the type of thing AI is great for! I find AI is pretty decent at generating data related code with Pandas, and I since I only rarely use Pandas it saves me a ton of time relearning everything.

Where ai starts breaking down is how to effectively incorporate a new feature in a complicated existing codebase. That is where us engineers can continue to hold an advantage.
The reason ignorance of the law is no excuse is because anybody could claim it whether they knew or not, and nobody would necessarily know if it's true. I suspect that it would be viewed differently if the law is truly complex.
They certainly have a more valid point of view than, "Meh, these things are just next-token predictors that regurgitate their training data. Nothing to see here."
Apprendre le Français?
Maybe? It should at least be debatable, not taboo, to consider. One's investment into a criminal enterprise could arguably be contributing to or encouraging that crime. Having this nearly-impenetrable corporate veil that shields decision-makers, footsoldiers, and funders (both institutional and retail investors) from consequences of their actions seems like the extreme end of a spectrum that should be explored. But when you even bring up that it's a spectrum, people clutch their pearls and trot out the "think of those poor retiree passive investors" line that shuts down thought and prevents even considering change.
It's because synthetic methane makes no sense economically. Similarly Hydrogen doesn't make any sense economically either, but because it's much more hypothetical the concerns can be hand waved away. Not so with synthetic methane.
> didn't want credit card payment for some reason.

i'm guessing 3.5%+ is the some reason
We need to redefine what it means to commit this sort of crime. The modern corporation is an expert in dodging responsibility. Upper management will make it very clear that everyone is expected to follow the law at all times. Then they’ll set up incentives, requirements, and quotas that more or less require breaking the law to meet. When the inevitable occurs, they’ll wring their hand and say, we don’t condone that behavior.

The management chain needs to be held more responsible for actions at the bottom. That doesn’t mean we put them in jail for every misdeed by some front-line worker, but they shouldn’t be allowed to turn a blind eye to systematic lawbreaking.
Because the ripple effects are much larger. Lay off a few thousand people in most cities and you’re sinking all sorts of businesses that had nothing to do with the crime.
Oh, cool. This came up in a conversation a work somewhat recently, which is where I first heard the term. The basic idea is slick but straightforward:

Say you have a multidimensional array, A[i][j] for concreteness. A loop over the array will typically look like nested loops, e.g. assuming we start with a properly initialized array, something like

for(i=0; i<I; i++) {
for(j=i; j<2*i; j++) {
A[i+1][j+2]+=A[i][j];
}
}

Since A[i+1][j+1] has a data dependency on both i and j indicies, the loop has to be executed sequentially over both i and j. However, drawing out the data flow shows how a change of perspective can make the inner loop completely vectorizable. First, let's draw the traversed indices on a grid like

. . . . . o o o o o
. . . . o o o o o .
. . . . o o o o . .
. . . o o o o . . .
. . . o o o . . . .
. . o o o . . . . .
. . o o . . . . . .
. o o . . . . . . .
. o . . . . . . . .
o . . . . . . . . .

Notice that we get a polygon in this 2D case. Drawing with more indices and a higher-dimensional pen will give you polyhedron, whence the name! Now connect marked indices that have a data dependency; zooming into the bottom-left corner, it looks something like the below in our example:

. . / o / o
/ / /
. o / o .
/ /
. / o . .
/
o . . .

The key insight here is that we have a bunch of parallel lines, meaning we should be able to start our calculation at all the bottom left points and flow up-and-right (at slope 2!) along each line in parallel. Doing this in code means we want all those lines to be parallel with grid lines as much as possible, reducing the problem to a simple linear transformation of the polygon!

In particular, the indices correspond to the grid points and the polygon our data. We want data to be flowing perpendicular to an index in order to parallelize said axis, so crunching out the details of a solution for our example gives

for(i=0; i<I; i++) {
for(j=i; j<2*(i-I); i++, j+=2) {
A[i+1][j]+=A[i][j];
}
}

Notice that array in the inner loop no longer data between j indices any more! That lets us run the entire thing in parallel.

That's the basic idea anyway.
The best example I have seen for true AGI benchmarking is ARC-AGI:

https://arcprize.org/

As the ARC-AGI is more trained to we put more of our own expertise and knowledge into the algorithms. When a computer can get human level results on a new ARC-AGI like benchmark (transfer from other intelligence tasks), then we are very close.
That or sharply raise the severity of lesser offenses if the perpetrator benefits financially from negligence with potential penalties including (a) corporate death penalty (revocation of charter) (b) nationalization.
> how quickly Milei was able to make these changes.

Milei's speech at Davos 2025: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/davos-2025-special-a...
There is one master plan tho: might is right. It gets pushed back, but it seeps through every contention wall we have put up so far.
SIM800 is 2G so already deprecated
They’re colluding to fix prices. That is a cartel. It is facilitated by a middleman app. Still unethical, and should be illegal.
Wot. SLD Resolution is a "very dumb" theorem prover?

SLD Resolution is sound and refutation-complete and it is the basis not only of Prolog but also the most successful bunch of SAT solving algorithms in the last, dunno, several decades.

"Very dumb theorem prover"!
The era of trump will accelerate this further. Not that Obama Biden were saviors, Trump and co are putting fuel on the fire
Isn't this just trading consistency for availability? From what I understand the single log is single node. What happens when throughput is not enough at scale? "We will distribute the log." you say. Well, then we are back to square one.
Did you read the article? The claim is that the app acts as a smokescreen to hide collusion. Or rather, it’s a new way to collude, and thus works as an obfuscation tactic. The app itself is immaterial: it’s using the technology as a way to dodge the law. In this case, w have laws against price fixing. Using an app for price fixing is a way for the price fixer to say, hey, it’s not me, it’s this other company that tells me pricing.

Ofc it’s the same outcome: price fixing.
I agree with the change in policy but I'm sorry to see my fellow right wingers engaging in woke verbal tactics, such as the use of "hoax" and "false narrative". Just say that the previous administration had engaged in bad policy that did not reinforce the aspirations of the bulk of the American people, and in particular the parents of school-aged children.
Hexa.NET.ImGui
There already is a cap. Founders have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and can't pay themselves unreasonably. Lots of gray area, but there is a limit.
https://www.pave.com/benchmarking
This feels like a similar way to control salaries.
Yes my mistake. We’re talking about a feature for a game, so useful, you know, what is useful? I want to walk around my room like a General and shout orders.
Plus I feel like at least compilers are at least deterministic? AI is not repeatable or provable at all
This recent paper is relevant: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769
Are you saying that we/some govt org should seize his assets because he had a bad opinion?

Fwiw I agree with you in disliking the “eternal power“ dynamic that seems to come with being rich. I’d prefer to solve this by requiring more disclosure in lobbying efforts, restricting the kinds of donations you can make, etc. Money shouldn’t lead to political power IMO.
I agree for the most part. If I thought the cut money was going to go to something "good" (maybe education?). I suspect it is just to make room in the budgets to write checks for people / companies that do not need the money.
I wonder what energy-saving optimisations the human body has which lead to worse outcomes in our energy-rich environment.

I don't just mean fat storage algorithms leading to metabolic syndrome and T2D, but for example whether we could afford to have better immune and musculoskeletal systems, more cancer-fighting cells, better regeneration etc if we were tuned to an energy budget of 3000kcal instead of 2000kcal.
TBH I would think that frozen potatoes might have more competitors. It sounds like the kind of market that could have lots of players assuming that all it really comes down to is a warehouse by train or dock: It doesn't seem obvious that a 10 acre warehouse of frozen potatoes would have an obviously drastic cost advantage over another company with an 8 acre or 12 acre one.
> we would remove the requirement of a crime being intentional for corporations

You still have the problem of punishing diffuse guilt. The correct answer is fines. Massive fines, potentially to the point of bankruptcy. We don't like to do that, however, because corporations have many stakeholders who may not deserve punishment, e.g. employees.
Laws become complex primarily to account for loopholes, or in some cases to add loopholes. It's still a bad idea to use an AI to write the laws and it always will be.
What do we understand under "banks"? If keeping with the simply notion of "stores funds and provides debit cards", the most common usage in EU, especially east, banks were deeply disrupted. Revolut and Wise took a large segment of the youth, who now also got hooked on more services like savings accounts and stocks. They have startup-like culture while being registered as standard banks. Obviously their services, quality and support are lightyears ahead of any traditional financial institution.
Blaming all your problems on old people isn't any more attractive than blaming them on Jews/women/queers/etc.

You're reading this on a device made in an underpaid Asian sweatshop, wearing clothes that are the same. Old people with pension funds are no more or less complicit in the brutality of the system than you are. Try blaming the people who are causing this situation on purpose, not the millions who are just trying to navigate it as best they can.
Regarding your first question, it’s a bit of a trick question because no one is purposefully demonetizing their videos even though the ad revenue is relatively low, but Adrian Black from Adrian’s Digital Basement came to mind as someone that is supported almost exclusively by Patreon. He never does sponsors on his channel, only makes money from Patreon and a bit from ad revenue from YouTube, and specifically thanks to his Patreon income was able to quit his tech job and go full time in YouTube.

LGR is another one that comes to mind that I think barely ever does sponsors and makes most of his income from Patreon. I’m sure there are many others as well.
You seriously don’t want to read content that was hand-written in another language and translated by LLM? That seems extremely parochial.
The big problem with amex/visa/mastercard is that it's a three sided market.

So make it a 2 sided market, unify the processor into one of the sides. In other words, either a merchant co-operative or a consumer co-operative. In this case, a merchant co-operative seems a natural fit. The merchants jointly own the co-op, and get a refund of their fees proportional to the profit of the co-op.

And you get the consumers on board the standard way: by bribing them. So something like a 2% rebate. So the merchant fees stay at a similar rate, but the merchants win in other ways because they own the processor.

Nobody's going to become a billionaire starting a co-op, but an executive in a successful financial co-op would pull in a multi-seven figure salary, which should be sufficient motivation to interest the startup folks.

And Y-Combinator would have to loan money to such a startup, they couldn't buy in. But it's in their interest to do so, given how much of the Y-Combinator portfolio is dependent on credit cards.
>“Even cleaner than electric”

The catalysts for hydrogen->electricity are the same rare earths that people complain are harmful in EVs. Electricity->hydrogen->electricity is also far more lossy than the over 80% efficiency of the lithium cycle. Hydrogen has a round trip efficiency of 40%.

You may hear ‘it turns into water’ but that’s just obfuscating the origin of it (which may be electricity or more likely cracking fossil fuels).

All up I don’t see how you could claim it’s better than current electric cars from an environmental point of view.
The corporate veil should provide enough protection from random and unforeseeable failures to encourage entrepreneurship, but not enough that it shields wrongdoers from consequences. Currently it shields nearly everyone from everything in nearly all cases from run-of-the-mill business failure all the way up to straight-up fraud.
Sure I get you - I think it'd be a fun gimmick. But the reality is you'd be a general where all of your subordinates are half-deaf and constantly misinterpreting your orders.

Good premise for an Abbott and Costello skit though.
I'm not completely convinced of this, even in the presence of AGI that is peak-human intelligence in all ways (lets say on-par with the top 1% researchers from top AGI labs, with agency and online learning are fully solved). One reason for this is what the sibling comment argues:

> Exponentially smarter AI meets exponentially more difficult wins.

Another is that it doesn't seem like intelligence is the main/only bottleneck to producing better AIs right now. OpenAI seems to think building a $100-500B data center is necessary to stay ahead*, and it seems like most progress thus far has been from scaling compute (not to trivialize architectures and systems optimizations that make that possible). But if GPT-N decides that GPT-N+1 needs another OOM increase in compute, it seems like progress will mostly be limited by how fast increasingly enormous data centers and power plants can be built.

That said, if smart-human-level AGI is reached, I don't think it needs to be exponentially improving to change almost everything. I think AGI is possibly (probably?) in the near-future, also believing that it won't improve exponentially doesn't ease my anxiety about potential bad outcomes.

*Though admittedly DeepSeek _may_ have proven this wrong. Some people seem to think their stated training budget is misleading and/or that they trained on OpenAI outputs (though I'm not sure how this would work for the o models given that they don't provide their thinking trace). I'd be nervous if it was my money going towards Stargate right now.
Isn't that already the case? For instance Wells Fargo was fined $185M for fraudulently opening accounts customers didn't want[1]. Wells fargo (ie. management) weren't scheming to fraudulently open accounts. They only set aggressive sales goals, and that caused some employees to go rogue and commit fraud themselves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scan...
Trackbacks! (No, don't do trackbacks again.)
> However, in this situation it may make more sense to disable biometric authentication.

In Face ID, there's a setting that requires direct eye contact in order to open your phone. Highly recommend enabling this when feeling insecure about someone forcing you to open your phone (if it's not already on by default) because it means somebody forcing you to open your phone with Face ID can be easily defeated by simply closing your eyes. I tried this a number of times during the BLM protests, and I/nobody else could get my phone to unlock unless my eyes were open and looking right at it. So with Face ID, I think it's actually way more secure to have biometric authentication turned on, using this setting. The thumbprint stuff might be a good idea to avoid though.

(WARNING: This will make your phone pretty much impossible to unlock with your face if you're inebriated on anything. Ask me how I know. xD You should probably disable it after the protest.)
> It should at least be debatable, not taboo, to consider

It's not taboo, it's stupid and unworkable. You're proposing sending half of America to jail if any Fortune 500 commits a crime. That's a get-out-of-jail-free card, not meaningful deterrence.

Massive. Fines. Everyone keeps trying to be creative about penalising corporations without levying massive fines. Just levy the fines. You don't need to lay anyone off, you're just wiping the shareholders (and management) of their wealth and transferring ownership to creditors.

The "corporate death penalty" was the greatest invention of the corporate lobbyist. It successfully derails conversations about massive fines, which are workable and scary, into ones about charter revocations and whatnot, which is not.
sherman act in usa