HN user
The wordy article boils down to: the baths were infested by bacteria and worms due to insufficient water cleaning. Interesting, but could be compressed to 2-3 paragraphs without losing any detail.
Thanks for posting though.
I'm curious as to why you chose that particular vehicle. It's an interesting choice for someone on HN. What convinced you that this car was right for you?
The concentration of lithium in seawater is quite low, approximately 0.17 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 0.17 parts per million (ppm).
To determine how much seawater is needed to obtain 1 gram of lithium, you can set up a proportion:
Given: 1 liter of seawater = 0.17 mg of lithium x liters of seawater = 1,000 mg (1 gram) of lithium
Using cross-multiplication:
x = (1,000 mg * 1 liter) / 0.17 mg x ≈ 5,882.35 liters
Thus, you would need to process approximately 5,882.35 liters (or about 5.88 cubic meters) of seawater to obtain 1 gram of lithium.
In practice, extracting lithium from seawater is more challenging due to its low concentration and the presence of other elements. Techniques have been proposed and researched, but as of my last update in 2021, they were not commercially competitive with other sources of lithium like mineral deposits.
Thanks, didn't notice this discussion.
Not sure why this was flagged. Unsubstantiated with citations, and not differentiated enough, sure, but not wrong.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6725561/
This is just the first google result, there are countless others. And it is quite common knowledge.
Does anyone know if there's a method to effectively "subscribe" to news pertaining to topics like this? I'd greatly appreciate being able to keep up with the latest research in certain fields, such as this one.
This post seems to be upvoted for the "uncensored" keyword. But this should be attributed to https://huggingface.co/ehartford and others.
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36977146
Or better: https://erichartford.com/uncensored-models
Ollama forks llama.cpp. The value-add is marginal. Still I see no attribution on https://ollama.ai/.
Please instead of downvoting, see if this is fine from your point of view. No affiliation at all, I just don't like this kind of marketing.
You seem to really disregard the positions of this author. They seem to have invested substantial efforts in that specific area of research.
To validate the idea the author has, it would be required to train a LLM from zero. If the author is right, you would get similar results to the current generation of LLMs, but with (a lot) less space required for the intermediate layers.
The time to achieve that is still measured in kilo- to mega-dollars, why is it wrong to put that idea in the open to substantially criticize or adopt?
This is rather incredible, both in its simplicity and the fact that I never read about it yet. Thanks for posting.
What does this add over llama.cpp? Is it just an "easier" way to setup llama.cpp locally?
If so, I don't really get it, because setting up llama.cpp locally is quite easy and well documented. And this appears to be a fork. Seems a bit fishy to me, when looking at the other "top" comments (with this one having no upvotes, but still #2 right now).
(llama.cpp's original intention is identical to yours: The main goal of llama.cpp is to run the LLaMA model using 4-bit integer quantization on a MacBook¹)
Isn't it exactly the opposite? Checked exceptions are for libraries to declare "exceptions" they can't handle themselves. You, the user of the library, have to deal with them (or declare them checked yourself¹).
I'm not a friend of checked exceptions myself, but I still think it's the opposite.
¹ which leads to the real issue with checked exceptions: they propagate through dependencies, if one nested dependency adds another checked exception, all dependencies have to add the exception or handle it themselves.
Come on, literally noone outside the 3% cares at all about linux desktop.
I care. Wayland doesn't help.
The point of the USD as a trading currency lies in its virtually indestructible value combined with malleability. If two countries trade in USD, no party will have a surprise later on.
If two countries trade, for example, in Yuan, and China decides not to buy foreign Yuan in exchange for the other local currency anymore, the value is lost (or at least harder to realize and probably incurring heavy losses).
I'm no economist, but that's my understanding. From this PoV it makes sense to make deals in a gold-backed currency as a replacement for USD. Not sure how they want to get enough gold from to really back it up. Could be possible, didn't research that, but seems of by one or two orders of magnitude.
Not news anymore: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36627272 (2 days ago, 68 comments)
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36624172 (3 days ago, 145 comments)
As far as I understand that, since there is no explicit clause prohibiting an extension after 6 months. I think it is safe to assume that it can be extended by another 6 months provided the suspicion persists (i.e. a judge can be convinced).
I'm not french myself, so take it with a grain of salt.
No, it's not a bot ring. I assume you think that because I posted links to stackexchange quite a few times the last few months. Instead, I just skim over stackexchange.com as part of my feed and when there's something what I assume HN interests, I post it here.
I don't care much about Karma. I posted this specific topic since I find it kind of hilarious that police should now lawfully be able to do something they are almost surely not able to do. And I enjoy discussions to such topics here on HN, because most of the time the viewpoints mentioned here are at least of the same quality of the answers on stackexchange.
That's ChatGPT-4's response to that question: https://chat.openai.com/share/72d490a9-2b2a-4120-9bb0-3a59d4...
I briefly checked if the mentioned dependencies exist (they do). Too late over here to actually try the code.
I appreciate Microsoft for the stock returns.
(I know HN parses deeper than plain text!)
I'm soooo tired of bullshit like this. Fear of your job, fake news, yadda yadda, I get it. It is just boring. Almost as if written by an AI.
The whole post-truth, fake-news agenda is foreign to me even without AI, I don't know anyone save a few "flat-earth" like freaks who would fall for the classical disinformation trope.
No, nothing substantial follows. This was just a rant :)
PS: I feel the talk about disinformation, fake-news etc. is doing more of the stated purpose of fake-news and disinformation as disinformation and fake-news itself. I'll try to substantiate that claim in the near future, I promise.
Quite extensively discussed lately: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Please add (2913) to the title:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Xerox%20scanners%20randomly%20...
Edit: oops, 2013 - typed on my smartphone without reading back :)
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36272520 (Posted 2 days ago)
Edit: by clicking a few "past" links of submissions from this account, it seems there is a pattern of republishing previously successful submissions.
Edit 2: Seems i clicked on the 3 wrong "past" links by chance. I stand corrected and I'd like to apologize. There are just 3 double submissions of the past days.
From my perspective it hasn't.
It's mostly if topics land on the front page which are controversial, then the comments will generally reflect that. Also, I have the impression that another subset of HNers tends to discuss on such topics, while others - who I associate with the more typical HN style - generally refrain from joining such a discussion, amplifying the effect.
In short, my take is to avoid controversial topic discussion forums and stick to the rest.
This is the simplest riddle I found - after trying a whole bunch - which GPT-4 cannot solve at all. The distraction with the feeder is not strictly required but leads to funny detours sometimes.
The human brain does not have Terminal (sic)
It has, and lots of people are accustomed to it :)
Don't know why this gets downvoted. It is simply true. In most cases, ChatGPT4 gets it right. You have to check anyway.
google isn't even able to keep google authenticator working¹. Since the last update it has its icon "improved", but it doesn't reliably refresh tokens anymore. Since we have a policy of at most 3 wrong tokens in a row, a few people of my team almost got locked out.
Feel free to downvote as I'm too tired to post links to recent votes in the play store :)
Sorry for the snark in this post, but I have been less than impressed by google's engineering capability for more than 10 years now. My tolerance to quirks like the one I just posted is, kind of, low.
¹ An authenticator app is a very low bar to mess up
OP is probably referring to their first submission here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36184246
Maybe asterisk was meant? Anyway, I suppose is was declared dead as its headline sounds quite click-baity and OP is a quite fresh HN account.
Google seems to be focused on reinforcing their brand by killing stuff, even if it just costs pennies to maintain, and despite they'd even have the money to wait all other competitors out, without blinking.
And they repeat this over and over, the only exception - to my knowledge - being google cloud. Does anyone know why they do this? And why do intelligent engineers stay under that leadership? Is money the only motivator?