I got the covid shot and every booster. I have no qualms about mRNA messing me up, and I think it was a tremendous life saver. As stated, there was also a ton of misinformation floating around, and people believed that misinformation.
The thing is most of those people made rational objections. The problem is their reasoning was based on false information. They didn't see it as being anti social as they thought the drug was a boondoggle, untested, and that covid wasn't serious. I disagree with all of it, but it is important to understand why they objected, and not just saying they are selfish or antisocial.
I didn't realize that, thanks! After looking at Wikipedia for a bit it seems there are two phases under the PCT, an international phase that is sort of like the main part of a patent application, and then the national phase that actually creates the patents in each region/nation based on the first phase.
So as I understand it you don't have to do the full process everywhere, but you have to actively register everywhere where you want protections. But there is not automatism to the second step...
I believe you mean 35B-A3B, there was no such thing as A4B. I use 27B and other models for software development, and quite a few research or similar agents. I cannot imagine a world where the old 35B-A3B model is smarter / more capable than 3.8 27B - the difference is night and day for coding at least. Where 35B-A3B was fast and felt like a Haiku model, 27B feels like a strong Sonnet when given the right tools. I don't use turbo quant so can't comment on that, but with the A3B model you're using you probably won't get much from using MTP with small MoE models like that.
Same happened at the start of the cloud era; everyone created a YT competitor, Twitter clones, MySpace clones, a cloud platform to host on (though it was just a wrapper around AWS like wrappers we see around OpenAI [looking at you Heroku])
Big tech emails leaked during a trial over a decade ago; C-level types agreeing they need to not truly compete but see each other as one big company.
Screen based filter bubble living has kept the digital generation ignorant; it's all built on the same physical principles. No point pretending, at their level, they're doing anything truly different
Life has a surprising amount of detail, and if you're only curious enough to interact with the answer as 'technobabble', this does not speak well of your genuine curiosity on the subject. However, in general...
Form is shaped by function. The liver/pancreas are designed to handle the production of detoxifying/neutralizing agents that may in and of themselves kill nearby tissue, resulting in the propensity for notable regenerative capabilities. Kidneys/intestines are high surface area to provide more room for the physical processes driving selective permeability to occur, as well as habitable spaces for beneficial microbial symbiotes that aid in digestion. Skeletal/smooth cardiac muscles are optimized for energy burning to facilitate movement. Tendons/cartilaginous membranes are optimized for lubricating joints/connective tissue purposes. Tissues like the thalamus and tonsils, are there for immunity modulation and detection. Neural tissue however is all about signal propagation, and creating shifting networks of continuity that encode information and patterns, the tissue itself is just the medium, and that medium requires some process to clean out or reset the gradients in the synaptic gap. Otherwise, electrical charges cannot be consistently conveyed as flows of ions, actuated by releases of neurotransmitters into the bridge of the synaptic gap. The other constraint unique to neural tissue as well is it isn't motile, or capable of physical movement. All it can do is carry charge by a process of chemically modulated action potential building, yet also needs to have a means to carry out adjusting it's environment which coincidentally, tends to be filled with ions. Ions + coordinated patterns of charge propagation creates effective pumping infrastructure capable of creating overall fluid movement without the help of direct cardiovascular pressure, which can also facilitate the movement of non-charged molecules given sufficient ionic movement to disturb the neutral medium. However, this coordinated firing pattern to create overall ion flow isn't "information encoding to the cognitive process at hand" per se. It's just a bunch of cells getting fluid to move to get waste products to another location to get handled. None of those "knows" anything more than it's immediate environs, but based on things like quorum signalling in biofilms, it isn't outside the realm of possibility, that neural tissue has a completely chemically mediated process by which it knows "gradient blah can be shifted if everyone around me fires", and that given sufficient time and scope, you get an emergent quorum signalling based metabolic progress that selectively induces "coordinated garbage" from the information processing point of view, but very much not biologically/physically garbage point of view, in that that firing pattern clears the chalkboard so to speak for further processing.
So to answer your question: why do nerves seemingly need to stop what we want them to do (full time cogitation as directed by an emergent consciousness that their physical processes collectively facilitates)? The answer comes down to homeostatic maintenance, and work the tissue has to do because that's how it evolved. You use the same bunch of neurons, they fill the immediate space with metabolic waste products which makes further firing or usage more difficult until the waste products can be cleared. How do you clear them? Stop doing what you're doing & ion pumpas a group. Coordinated ion pumping isn't driving the pattern recognition/consciousness engine in ways that make any sense, it's just cycling fluid to refresh the operating environment to restore the substrate for unburdened cognition again.
Eukaryotic organisms are hard, maddeningly complex, and contain an astonishing amount of detail for something that for whatever reason, usually just seems to work. Could write volumes on these things for how deep the rabbit holes go.
Although I don't want HN threads to devolve into AI-or-not whodunnits, I had the same general feeling. What is the best way to walk the line between not mentioning the elephant in the room, and spending too much time debating whether AI was used, whether that is OK, and what the impact was on the written product?
I just want it to be more commonly understood that enslavement is perfectly legal and enshrined in the 13th amendment. We have a million, mostly black, perfectly legal slaves in the UI right now.
I think part of this is to enable the interface on the web and other devices where you might not have a terminal. But yeah, agreed, it's wayyyy too many tools.
The database/sql package gained native support[1] for the uuid.UUID type so it will Just Work even without the methods. This probably should have been mentioned in the release notes and database/sql package docs.
>Terence Tao's quote about AI's math proofs is relatable outside of pure math: "the writing very often dwells at length on trivialities while passing briefly through — or even actively obscuring — the most interesting and novel portions of the argument."
I noticed a long time ago, that the more people focus on trivialities like typos when arguing against someone online, the more compelling the original argument is. Basically, bikeshedding.
The most compelling evidence of the compelling nature of the original argument is when the most-upvoted reply is a joke or a meme. That's when you really know that those responding have nothing else to say. It's a white flag being run up, or the dog turning over and exposing its belly.
> We would prefer the Play Integrity API being banned by regulators but this is good enough for now.
Unfortunately, the EU is currently developing their age-verification-app, and it mandates hardware attestation[1], and it seems that their reference implement those requirements using Play Integrity[2].
Mostly what I have seen is people saying "hey at some point these models might get dangerous." And the type of HN commenter who mistakes blind cynicism for wisdom laughs that off as marketing. And now when (some) worries appear to come true, somehow having previously expressed those worries is not being proved right, but in fact discrediting, because it was "crying wolf."
Bought an LFP battery+inverter set recently to replace an old dying lead acid based system. We need this kind of AC-DC roundtrip systems in India because of the unreliability of grid power (random power cuts, seconds/minutes to hours long).
Chinese cells (EVE etc) and BMSes (Daly etc) are easily available and all kinds of workshops build batteries at small to medium scale for all kinds of uses: electric auto rickshaws, power backup, sink for off-grid solar. Prices are $100-200/kWh for the battery depending on V, Ah and brand.
They were going for readability. You can make some impossible to read code with C++ because the programmer was too clever, and the designers of golang wanted to avoid that.
A theory I've proposed that I would love to get scientific evidence for... I would guess that WFH is effectively bimodal. WFH advocates would largely fall into a high performance bucket, and detractors either believe that average employees are low performers and need monitoring or are low performers. This is not social vs anti-social, its wanting to be productive with your time - whether thats the time you spend working, or with family etc.
- WFH for high performers: fewer distractions because you can control your environment, less time wasted on commute, less time on non-work communication, etc. More flexibility, better control of your time and space.
- WFH for poor performers: No oversight so you choose to work less. You control your environment so you can add distractions - Meetings, TV, social media chores, family, leaving to go do stuff.
- Office for high performers: Constant series of distractions you can't control - social conversations, meetings, etc... keeping you from doing work.
- Office for low performers: Constant series of distractions you can't control letting you avoid work without repercussion. Meetings, Social time with coworkers, etc
I would love any scientific evidence for or against this theory. If anyone has any studies or natural experiments I would love to know about them
We (Cloudflare OS) run an app's client-side code in a null-origin iframe sandbox that is denied access to everything that we can possibly deny access to. Its only communication line to the outside world is via a Cap'n Web RPC session over postMessage() to the parent frame, which in turn forwards the session on to the app's own server, which runs in a Dynamic Worker sandbox on its end. So the app client can only talk to the app server and nothing else.
Or at least, ideally. Unfortunately, content-security-policy today has a few exotic holes. WebRTC, for instance, cannot be blocked; the standard simply doesn't cover it.
So it's not suitable as a sandbox against malicious code trying to leak data by any means possible. Instead it's protection against the AI doing something stupid, perhaps prompted by a user who doesn't know better.
(We would love to get those CSP holes plugged, though...)
The thing is most of those people made rational objections. The problem is their reasoning was based on false information. They didn't see it as being anti social as they thought the drug was a boondoggle, untested, and that covid wasn't serious. I disagree with all of it, but it is important to understand why they objected, and not just saying they are selfish or antisocial.