Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | fileeditview's commentslogin

I did so and roughly twenty years later, my 4th attempt is "finished" in a sense and playing on lichess bots from time to time.

The process is very rewarding and there are great resources (chessprogramming wiki). To get an initial bot play random moves is not that much work but it is a good starting point because you can hook it into a gui and watch.

From there you do the move generator and the search and then optimization possibilities are endless :)


To me, the most interesting part is the architecture of the engine. How you encode a position or a move, how you design the move generator, etc.

Something as simple as encoding the 64-square board in a 64-bit number leads to a rabbit hole that can last years.

After that point, the "AI" part is already solved and you just need to implement it (alpha-beta + all the heuristics).

Most of the recent chess engines simply implement a neural network (by copying Stockfish) and suddenly are at 3000 elo with no effort! Such a waste.


I really like ChessX ( https://chessx.sourceforge.io/ ). Pychess was always unstable and slow for me.

Anyways. Now I can use an even better Stockfish to benchmark my own engine..


Aside from the question of what is right and wrong in this case you have to wonder about the daily fine.

Either the judge decides you have to disclose your sources or not. Setting a daily fine to basically discipline or coerce someone to do what you want by increasing the pressure over time is ridiculous.

Also it allows you to buy out of it as long as you are wealthy enough or have financial support by a "big player".

If I were a US citizen I would be concerned by such jurisdiction.


You have to trust that this really "deidentifies". Time and time again it was shown, that the measures taken were not enough to anonymize.

E.g. the parent wrote that he fears, he could be identified by his writing style, which is totally plausible. How would you "deidentify" this?


Even if they follow to the letter a deidentification process, Google and Meta have so much data about individuals that re-identification shouldn't be very hard for the majority of airline passengers' data they put their hands on.

Of course, takes a lot more effort than not doing proper deindetification in the first place but if they wanted to appear like caring about data privacy they still have enough data points to correlate the sets later on (and/or over time).


The idea that there’s a nefarious plot to do something super evil with this data is a bit crackpot though based on their incentives.

Remember, Google = Ads. Their only focus and only care. Their mission statement, rendered accurately, is “Ads ads ads ads. Effective ads. Ads worth paying a lot for. Ads ads ads. Advertising and ads.”

If they choose to be evil in some additional way, (1) remember, they would only do that if in some way it serves their advertising needs — not to offer innovative new black-hat databroker services to airlines, and (2) this little dataset will not need to be re-identified. They’ll just use the 20 years of email and search data they already have on like half the world’s population.


No need for a nefarious plot, as usual with capitalism it just needs incentives. They will have the data, if at some point it's beneficial to Google to re-identify it then it will be done.

Do I believe they have incentives to do it now? No, as you point it out for their advertisement cash-cow they can already just rely on their own data (GMail, Search, Google Flights) but nothing stops them from the potential later on, the data is now theirs.

Likely its value is just to train LLMs but the funny thing about data is that you can always try to find ways to extract more value out of it. I'd prefer there was no possibility for that without requiring me to trust Google (or any corporation).

In an ideal world my data would be mine to control, not to be traded in deals among 3rd parties, it's valuable and I've spent time generating it so in a sense I've done free work to be extracted by these corpos.


That kind of is a reason.


TBH I think the word is often used without much consideration. So where people should say ethnicity or ancestry e.g., they say race instead, because it is just simpler, not because they carry much meaning with it. This is true in German and English..

Also I think given the context you know how people mean these words. But all I see is wild jumping on some words without much context all the time.


A bit of advice to people that have the urge to try Emacs.

Do not use a distribution. Yes I know.. you have read that before and then you used Doom or Spacemacs anyways. That's me in the past. And it never worked out for me. I always ended up trying to configure things and the whole setup was too complex for me, so I failed.

Over the last 10 years I have been a heavy (n)vim user but I tried Emacs multiple times. Always a distro. It never worked out. Now over the last year I was trying Emacs with a vanilla setup and configured everything from scratch. With the AIs this is super simple because they can help you get out of config trouble.

The experience was way better than before. After my one year experience I have switched back to neovim but I still have become a fan of Emacs and I have adapted my nvim config. Stuff like dired, magit, compile-mode I have found equivalent nvim plugins and use them now.


Seconded. If you want to learn doing things the Emacs way, I recommend the Mastering Emacs book by Mickey Petersen who roams among these threads. It is excellent.

https://www.masteringemacs.org/

This provides an excellent base and exploration of the builtin packages, then you can customize your experience on top and make it your own.


I bought a copy of Mickey's book, and it's great, but "read about the inner workings of an editor before you use it" is horrible UX.

Better to just start using it, and ask your friendly local LLM when you need help. Back in the early 2000s, I think I used emacs for 3 or 4 years knowing only how to open/save/close files, switch buffers, undo, and quit.


> but "read about the inner workings of an editor before you use it" is horrible UX.

You can start using it without reading, but the UX does not follow common patterns like found in Notepad or VSCode. It is its own thing and reading the tutorial, Mickey's book, or the official manual is way faster than fumbling around. Even my bluetooth speakers came with a manual.


>the UX does not follow common patterns like found in Notepad or VSCode. It is its own thing

I know. Emacs is my daily driver.

>reading the tutorial, Mickey's book, or the official manual is way faster than fumbling around.

Hard disagree. It may be more efficient in terms of total time spent, but you can learn 5 commands and start using emacs immediately.

Compared to spending multiple hours reading a book or, worse, the manual, I know which one I'd choose.


> Compared to spending multiple hours reading a book or, worse, the manual, I know which one I'd choose.

Why multiple hours? You can always skim it.


Agreed. Work through the Emacs tutorial to find out how vanilla editing works. Then look at buffer management, window management (Emacs 'windows' are actually more like frames in other apps) and simple tooling like search. Then start to tweak some settings in your config, find the bare minimum of packages you need to scratch your worst itches (for me: Vertico, Corfu, Avy and Dumb Jump). Finally, figure out tree-sitter modes, project/projectile mode and a couple of other foundations.

It will be a struggle. It was around 2 months before I felt remotely comfortable in Emacs. And nearly a year before I really felt at home. It's a long road, but gradually you mold the editor to yourself so tightly that you'll never be able to go back. The remarkable thing is that the progression never stops. The tool just keeps getting sharper and sharper.


Yep. I also forgot one important point. If you come from vim, like myself, you should probably use evil-mode right from the start and then just get used to a few important Emacs shortcuts over time and use them additionally to your evil keymaps.

No one will ever convince me that there is something better than vim mode for editing text (or comparable modal editors).


I was a huge skeptic of evil-mode/modal editing for about a decade and a half. Then I bit the bullet when I switched to Spacemacs in ~2017 and I am a full convert. The "change-in-<delimiters>" functionality alone is worth the price of admission/climbing the learning curve; the rest is a huge bonus!


>(Emacs 'windows' are actually more like frames in other apps)

I dont use your "other apps" enough to know exactly what you mean, but it gives me the urge to point out, "Emacs 'frames' are actually more like windows in other apps" :)


There is a middle ground -- https://codeberg.org/ashton314/emacs-bedrock or minimal starter kits like it.

Especially if you don't want to use an agent to help you get started. If you're using an agent, starting from vanilla is much more feasible.


There are some good tutorials on youtube to start from zero. E.g. "Emacs from scratch" by System Crafters.

I only started using an AI to help fix issues or understand configuration problems when my config was already >1000 lines.

But yea there are several ways to approach this :)


Yikes, that's over 12 hours of videos in that series. Stuff like that scares me away from trying it out.


I understand that. It's very slow pace. I did it bit by bit over several days. But I was also often skipping ahead.


Good recommendation, you (the reader) may also like https://github.com/jamescherti/minimal-emacs.d


Interesting. I started on spacemacs and never left. My spacemacs is super pimped for the things I want. It feels like if I rolled my own I would end up with something like spacemacs, but not as good.

So I guess you and others here have had the experience of building something that was your own that felt better than the distro?


For me it was mostly that these distros overwhelmed me and I could not get into their code. I had to "start small" if you want. Also I encountered troubles regularly because some things did not feed my needs.

I am not saying they are bad, just not for me.

And I think they make it somehow harder to discover the true power of emacs: bending it to your will & basically forging your own custom environment, not only for editing but so much more (git, mails, pdfs,...).


Emacs guy since '97, strongly agree. If you build your own config, the Ikea effect takes hold and you feel like you've made something that's "yours", even if it's mostly cutting and pasting (or using AI) to cobble things together.

I think bedrock is reasonable, and so is Prelude (https://github.com/bbatsov/prelude). I used to have a sprawling init.el, but these days is pretty compact (236 lines), mostly using straight to install packages and then configuration for gptel, agent-shell, and various hydras (https://github.com/abo-abo/hydra) to quickly execute various functions.


I have been using an unstraigtened version of Doom Emacs, and had a lot of issues with the behavior on wake. It turned out the underlying rendering technology was faulty and changing to pgtk fixed it. Sometimes going back to basics forces discovery that is transferrable, like distro-hopping tor DAW switching.


GNU Emacs from gnu.org is usable without an init.el or any other customization.

Every line in init.el is something that you have to maintain and move with you.

And when you're using someone else's computer, their init.el won't be what you expect.


> Nuclear waste is solved by burying it in bedrock in a location with no groundwater.

It's literally sweeping something under the carpet..

At some point in time there will be a quake strong enough to crack your bedrock or some other natural disaster strong enough to change the status quo. Then you have the disaster.

Probably it's not in your lifetime or in your area so you don't have to care about it. It baffles me again and again how people can just dismiss these things.

I am not even categorically against nuclear power, but ignoring the actual risks is just BAD.


> It's literally sweeping something under the carpet..

No, it's sweeping something under solid rock.

> At some point in time there will be a quake strong enough to crack your bedrock or some other natural disaster strong enough to change the status quo. Then you have the disaster.

Lots of places have no seismic activity. Earthquakes don't happen everywhere.

And even if they do, the waste is still buried under 500 meters of rock. Under what scenario does this waste somehow make its way out?


> It baffles me again and again how people can just dismiss these things.

Because risk is relative, and not as you seem to think, absolute and binary.

The risks are being dismissed because they're so tiny, that they're irrelevant. You may as well start planning your life around the assumption you'll win the lottery.

That's why nuclear waste storage is such a common fear mongering tactic, it exploits the human liability of not understanding long-term statistics very well.

Even solar power is more dangerous due to people falling off roofs and such. Same with wind power. And don't get me started on dams. When those fail, people die.

And that's renewables. We're stil mostly burning fossil fuels and dumping the waste products into the atmosphere we all breathe.

Yes, we are literally, as we speak, doing that.

And you're talking about the massive problem of storing some barrels of solid waste.

You're off base in your perception of risk by several orders of magnitude.


First of all I never said these things you claim. I literally said "ignoring these risks is BAD", not that they are absolutely too great or whatever. That must be evaluated per case.

However there are numerous nuclear disasters in recent history that show, that we were not so good at estimating the risk.

Yes other things can also be dangerous or deadly. But when a dam breaks people die. What doesn't happen is that the region is unusable for eternity afterwards. So nuclear disasters are a very special case.


> However there are numerous nuclear disasters in recent history that show, that we were not so good at estimating the risk.

The only "recent" one I can think of is Fukushima Daiichi, a little more than fifteen years ago. That one definitely had a couple-dozen injuries at and around the time of the disaster and maybe one death four years later. Compare that to the tens of thousands killed and many thousands injured because of the tsunami and earthquake that damaged the fission plant.

What other ones do you consider to be recent? Do make sure to mention the year in which they happened as well as reasonable guesses at the death and injury numbers for each incident.

(I'll refrain from more than a brief mention of the century+-long ongoing disaster that is fossil-fuel-fired [0] power generation.)


Don't you read while your agents are doing all the work for you? /s


Or make your agents do the reading for you!


You are better than me. Back when you could mine BTC with the CPU, i had about 2 coins. I found it useless and silly and deleted my wallet at some point :)


Same here. There are a ton of unspendable coins for that reason.

For the record, they're still useless and silly, that just doesn't stop people from exchanging a nonsense amount of money for them.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: