mrjay42

Seeding :3

Why all those articles on HN are "flagged"? And by WHOM?

I've been watching this 60min piece, and there's nothing wrong with is. It's journalism well done.

Do Trumpist minions have their ways on HN?

So this is about PerlMonks, which I knew nothing about until today.

I searched it, the site is down The Wikipedia article is deleted

This is pure loss of information somehow.

I and a lot of other people in the future will never know what "perlmonks" is/are, how important it was?, etc. etc.

The logic seems to be: if tomorrow Stack Exchange disappears, the Wikipedia article will be deleted? If yes, then that makes zero sense.

I'm really surprised that in https://www.govdirectory.org/countries/ " most (all?) E.U (so yes, I'm talking about political Europe, not geographical Europe) are not there :(

What could be the reason for this?

This article is based on this https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4451-1.html which is NOT a peer reviewed study but a "research report", which doesn't mean it's wrong or false or fake, but it means that you have to read it with extreme precautions.

Nothing in there has been double-checked by reviewers :/

Side note: if you're autistic -> this article isn't for you.

This is one of the oldest trick in the book of very very dumb people who confuse "the truth" with "what they think".

I'm sure we all met that person in the family or in a new job, or at school being so proud of themselves for being "honest", and later on you discover that their honesty is not honesty, it's just "saying whatever crosses their mind unfiltered".

Oh alright, I didn't notice that!

Thanks a lot <3

I started to follow documentation here (https://docs.inkeep.com/self-hosting/docker-local) to run things with Docker.

-> connect to the locally installed instance of SigNoz

-> It asks for an email -> when I type it, it says: "This account does not exist. To create a new account, contact your admin to get an invite link"

-> But I am the admin :'), also tried to create an account there https://signoz.io/

-> but they refuse personal Github or Gmail accounts for now.

Conclusion

So it's literally impossible to run your app for a 'normal person' running their own server :(

Or maybe I missed a step :/

Last time I checked, Intel's MSRs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-specific_register) allow Intel PCM (https://github.com/intel/pcm) to work, are indeed used to profile, or "measure performance" (sorry if my vocabulary is not the most accurate). Last time I checked the code of Intel PCM, it still relies on hardcoded values for each CPU which are as close as possible to reality but are still an estimation.

It doesn't mean that you get wrong measurements, it means there's a level of inaccuracy that has to be accepted.

BTW, I am aware that Intel PCM is not a profiler, and more of a measurement tool, however you CAN you use it to 'profile' your program and see how it behaves in terms of computing and memory utilization (with deep analysis of cache behavior (cache hit, cache miss, etc.))

Maybe it's a matter of time and process?, bear with me:

An encyclopedia is slow. It has to be slow. It's good (beneficial) that it's slow.

And yes, it means that it is self-correcting, slowly

Thing is, if it was fast to self-correct -> it would generate more errors and it would leave the door opened to more errors.

Oh well: "ouch" is all I my eyes have to say ^^

Whoever chose flashy colors for this is a motherfluffer :')

So you mean that with lactose intolerance, I could be more productive? :3

Yep good catch.

To be fair, I discovered this article today, and I read it with passion.

Because, even though I'm 43yo, I'm too young to have worked professionally with other OSes than Windows and Linux. And it's super interesting for me to discover that astronomers had software solutions which were discarded and when they tried to protect what they had, they faced the "priesthood" mindset that is so well described in this article.

I'm not trying to troll, but I feel that this priesthood mindset is exactly the same as the one used when people destroy anyone who dares to criticize git. I think this quote from Douglas Adams and from that article fits perfectly: "their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws".

Yep yep, just saw that, thanks <3

Thanks!! I completely missed that.

Single author

Unknown editor

No journal? Committee? Conference?

Ew.

Asking about the logic here: this is a form of fallacy...kinda?

His "interpretation" or guess, wasn't worse or better than yours.

Therefore, his statement about a misleading title is not invalidated because you guessed in the opposite direction.

Let's say

Hypothesis 1

Article is negative (ChatGPT gave bad medical advice and that led to the E.R.)

Then * His guess -> is correct

* Your guess -> is wrong

Hypothesis 2

Article is positive

Then

* His guess -> is wrong

* Your guess -> is correct

Conclusion:

In any case you had NO way to know beforehand

So, in what ways pointing out that this is "his interpretation" invalidates anything he said?

Of course, it is his guess and based on the title alone, it's at least an equally valid guess as yours.

I say "at least", because it's not unreasonable to think that an LLM might have hallucinated some medical advice and that could lead someone to have an unhealthy practice which led them to the E.R.

Thanks for the correction ^^

Just an observation, not a mean critique about the project or even the conclusions.

There's 180 participants.

There's 26 people marked at "very liberal", which is 14% of the sample.

There's 39 people marked at "very conservative", which is 21% of the sample.

-----

Then we have 31 people marked as liberal, which is 17% of the sample.

And we have 63 people marked as conservative, which is 35% of the sample.

That already I would say is kind of an issue: more than a third of the sample are conservative people and 17% are their liberal 'counter part' or 'equivalent' (sorry for my wording, I'm not native speaker).

---

If we do a little additions we therefore have:

39+63 = 102, which means that 56% of the sample is conservative

31+26= 57, which means that 31% of the sample is liberal

The rest of the sample are centrists or "neutrals" (whatever this means)

---

I am NOT saying that the study is invalid I am not saying that it's poorly done

However, I think it's fair to say that the sample is skewed towards people with conservative views, by a HUGE amount, not just "a little bit".

---

Aside from this: amazing UI design, I'm jealous and admirative of the results ^^

Could it be a case of "unwanted fallacy"? (bear with me)

I mean: At almost any point in time, when fascists are NOT in power, it's because they were, one way or another, stopped.

The logic would be: fascism is a systematic/automatic force that wants to seize power, usually by basing its ideology on anti-intellectualism, glorified past, enemies of the nation that must be eliminated/deported, imperialist motives (conquest, war, etc.).

This systematic force always exists. It always exists because there are always people who wants to dominate, oppress, express violence against this or that group of people.

Therefore, the few times fascists reached power in any country around the world it's because of a combination of factors and that's what we KNOW about.

For instance, this movement https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulangisme never reached power. BUT it for sure planted the seeds of future hatred, extreme nationalism, etc. and they were VERY determined to take the power, and they didn't. But we don't 'count' it as "fascism that was stopped" because there was no clear, obvious, big event that we can pinpoint as fascists being stopped.

I know this is besides the point but this is probably one of the ugliest website I've seen in a long while. Why would someone choose a dirty-yellow background :sob:

Fallacies : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

I just did 0.4s :3

I'm unreasonably proud of myself for this XD

Worked in Norway for six years in a research lab (50% private | 50% public).

First thing I noticed when I arrived: they are using Google for emails, sharing documents, drives, meetings, research projects, etc. The loss of sovereignty that this represents AND the major risk for leaks/theft is MAD.

It was a research lab entirely focused on tech/CS/computational science So it's not like they don't know stuff about technology.

Years prior to this, I'm in Finland in a tiny lab in Turku/Åbo (the city has two names, one in Finnish the other in Swedish.

I remember there was a dude doing his master's trying to integrate a bunch of devices (phone, desktop, laptop, cloud, etc.) so that basically your AI assistant can automatically handle stuff. This implied A LOT of constant (or almost constant) data collection.

During one of the meeting, I think I'm the one who asked: "But wait, isn't this a massive issue in terms of privacy?" The big boss of the lab, replied: "Oh I know you're from France, and you guyz care a lot about this. But here we simply do not"

Conclusion:

I haven't looked at sociological studies trying to build an historical overview of the Nordic people and their relation to electronic privacy. But my experience goes so much against the idea I had about Nordic "culture" (this word means nothing here: Finnish and Norwegian are VERY different societies, but bear with me).

I really believed that in those countries I'd find some high priority, super secured, home made, safe solutions for handling messaging, data, research -> it is REALLY NOT THE CASE, I haven't seen ANY OF THAT; they're all using USA made cloud-(AI)-tech.

Oh well, thanks for mentioning Floorp, I'm gonna try it right now.

I use Firefox, but I'm curious about whether I'll 'feel' a difference with Floorp, in terms of performance.

You might want to check out the works of that buzzkill that Gödel is ^^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

" The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.

The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency. "

:3

Ok, I'm replying to my own comment to keep ranting

I was scrolling through the paper...and at page 24 (total) or 22 (footer) -> there's another graph.

I CHALLENGE anyone with a human brain to understand that graph

My initial comment WASN'T in that mood, but now I am gonna say it: this hasn't been peer reviewed. There's NO WAY an article with such graphs passes peer reviewing.

Just came here to say: I've started to read the paper (thanks to the downloadable PDF, the web version is not accessible apparently for me)

Starting at page 8 (total) or page 6 (as written in the footer), there's horrible graphs, even if you zoom in, they're all blurry and partially unreadable

I'm legit surprised we let research articles be published with poorly designed graphs using poor definition/resolution :')

#justRanting