> Double descent with overparameterization is exhibited in "classical settings" too and mentioned in older books.

I’m curious for references or citations to this. When I was going over double descent I tried to find citations like this (just in a couple places like ML/stats textbooks).

There are a handful of papers in the 90s that show this, but it wasn't recognized for what it is. Double descent is REALLY crazy to me, coming from a classical background.

Over-parameterization for regularization is really old. The pseudoinverse min-norm solution for under-determined linear systems even has that flavor.

Sure, but that's identification approaches in econometrics and matrix analysis contexts. Using that for neural networks is new-ish in the zeitgeist, which did not exist in the 1990s as it does today.

Here's one that lists some older references: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04328

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This evidence seems weak at best.

I want to be charitable, but hard to imagine this is anything other than an incredible stretching to make a topic to generate lots of clicks/views.

the following comment is besides your point. I apologize in advance for this.

In my opinion, that first statement is very bad. What classifies an either claim or evidence as extraordinary?

The claim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." itself is extraordinary and would be in dire need of something backing it up. Not extraordinary perhaps, but still.

When do you think we will get an update to C11 or more recent version of C to MISRA? Do you all have any influence on "Safety Critical C" standards?

The MISRA committee is a separate organization from the C standards committee, but there is overlap between the two groups and an official liaison process for the committees to collaborate. So there's a bit of bidirectional influence between the two groups.

I am not on the MISRA committee, but I believe they talk a bit about their public roadmap in this video: https://vimeo.com/190304951

I'm curious if this is a (temporary, unsecure) way to use google if you're in a place that google is currently blocked.

Small chance, but in case anyone on HN is in a place google is blocked, would be an interesting test to run.

If you're in a country which bans Google, I'd suspect a high chance having nsa.gov wouldn't be too favourable on your DNS lookup records!

Genuinely curious: are there places that block google but don't block the NSA?

> Because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions, it ends up skewing an entire discussion.

I haven't thought about this before on HN, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm curious if you or others have written about this intuition and your experience with it -- I'd like to understand it more.

I've written about it in comments over the years. You might find some interesting cases in there: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... It's one of the more reliable phenomena we observe on HN.

At the top of the article are two open source repo links:

Environment Generation: https://github.com/openai/multi-agent-emergence-environments

Worldgen: https://github.com/openai/mujoco-worldgen

Is this what you were looking for?

What other pigments show up in lymph nodes? Hair dyes?

Cool! I did this a while ago for some CPU-bound stuff, and ran into a bunch of performance bottlenecks.

Some things that helped me scale ptrace-interception up:

- SECCOMP_BPF filter (getting these right matters a lot)

- moving all of your intercept work to a single side (enter or exit)

- ensure affinity between the traced and tracing processes

- nuke vdso

- remove vdso from the aux vector (otherwise good libc's will find it again)

At the end of the day unfortunately the better solution would have been to write kernel support for what I wanted to do, but it's a fun exercise in learning about system calls.

Is this paper published yet? The `Article` link doesn't go anywhere, and Google Scholar doesn't know where to find a copy.

Also recommend this as a follow-on. I think it's an important point, and also well presented. The anecdotes make it memorable but it's concise where it matters.

After I read this last year it changed the way I interacted and observed things around me for a while. Poking/prodding more, and asking more "what/how" questions.