MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by vidarh | 2025-06-16 12:02:33+00:00
> That counts as running it if you ask me. And I don't see how just loading the code would help you find the callers of a function?

Loading it lets you introspect the code for calls. It's not necessarily always trivial to know what the type of the target object will be unless you're prepared to execute candidate methods, but it's rare for this to be an actual issue in practice. The more typical way of doing this would be to call piece of the code but without the elaborate setup you argue you'd need.

You can also use Ripper or Parser to analyse the code if you insist on not loading the code, but you're then making things harder for yourself for no good reason.

And that's really what it boils down to: If you insist on doing things the way you would for a static language, then yes, you will have a bad time.

That's a you issue, not a tooling issue.

> That sounds highly implausible.

It's nevertheless true. I've translated multiple projects feature for feature from C, C++ and other languages to Ruby over the years. It's only implausible to people inexperienced with Ruby.
by danbreuer | 2025-06-16 12:02:45+00:00
Yep, forgot to mention that.

To take this further, it's also possible to enforce that executables are confined to a few well-understood directories with good permissions by using the noexec option when mounting. Directories with executables are mounted normally (with locked down write permissions) and everything else mounted with noexec.

I use this on Nix OS. There all executables live under the read-only directory /nix/store. So you can mount / with noexec, giving the nice property that all files that are writable are by definition not executable.
by AlecSchueler | 2025-06-16 12:03:41+00:00
Come on, what?

Now we've gotten to "Ok the claim was admittedly not true but it's your fault for pointing it out instead of going along with the groupthink" Is this the post-truth society we hear about?

The sub-thread was very clearly started by the idea that loss of connectivity might not be as bad as assumed, there was space to have some debate about what positives could be taken and how we could actually prepare to live with outages alongside preparing to negate them.

I didn't think much of it honestly, the original point of it not being so bad, but your comment has left me with the feeling that the internet can't fall soon enough.
by thaumasiotes | 2025-06-16 12:04:19+00:00
You should try playing with one of the toys. It's not at all difficult to move 7 of them.

It's not necessary to use a stack. If you have a goal, you can work "top down", with nothing held in memory. All you need to know to begin the move is whether you're moving an odd number of discs (in which case, the first move will be onto the target peg) or an even number (in which case it will be onto the third peg).
by johndoe0815 | 2025-06-16 12:04:28+00:00
I installed a 1TB SSD upgrade (from aliexpress) in my M4 Mini and broke the power button cable while disassembling the machine and it seems I'm not the only one [1]. So be especially careful with this miniature connector when opening the system.

You cannot order a replacement cable separately, but the bottom plate with cable is available from Apple's self service repair store [2] as "Mac mini M4 Antenna Plate 923-11056". I think I paid around 27€ for the part.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/macmini/comments/1itpgpj/i_broke_th... [2] https://selfservicerepair.com/en-US/home
by techtorch | 2025-06-16 12:04:29+00:00
TechTorch is a pioneer among service companies in the way it conducts projects in the area of digital transformation. Through an implementation process supported by an AI-powered platform and a global team of world-class managers and technology experts, TechTorch has enabled dozens of private equity sector companies to accelerate the realization of business benefits.

Job Description

We are seeking a skilled and motivated Data Engineer to join our growing team. The ideal candidate will have a strong background in data engineering, with specific experience in working with Snowflake. You will be responsible for designing, building, and maintaining scalable data pipelines that can handle large volumes of data, ensuring the reliability, security, and performance of our data infrastructure.

Key Responsibilities

Design and Implement Data Pipelines: Develop, test, and maintain scalable data pipelines to support business analytics and reporting needs. Work with Snowflake: Design and optimize data architecture using Snowflake, including data modeling, data warehousing, and performance tuning. Data Integration: Integrate data from various sources, including APIs, databases, and third-party platforms, into our centralized data warehouse. Collaborate Across Teams: Work closely with data scientists, analysts, and other engineers to ensure data availability, quality, and reliability. Maintain Data Infrastructure: Monitor and maintain the performance and health of the data infrastructure, addressing any issues proactively. Documentation: Document data processes, pipeline architecture, and procedures for ongoing maintenance and future enhancements.

Qualifications

Experience with Snowflake: Minimum of 3 years of hands-on experience with Snowflake, including data warehousing, schema design, and query optimization. Programming Skills: Proficiency in programming languages such as Python, SQL. Data Pipeline Tools: Experience with ETL/ELT tools such as Apache Airflow, or similar. Cloud Platforms: Experience working with cloud platforms like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud, particularly in data storage and processing. Database Management: Strong knowledge of relational and non-relational databases. Problem-Solving: Excellent problem-solving skills and ability to troubleshoot data issues quickly and efficiently. Communication: Strong communication skills, with the ability to collaborate effectively with cross-functional teams.

What We Offer:

Work in an international team Work with the largest capital groups in the world Development and rapid promotion opportunities Autonomy in action Participation in building a new global company Team-building activities
by cosmos0072 | 2025-06-16 12:05:21+00:00
Author here :)

I've been using Twin as my everyday terminal emulator and terminal multiplexer since ~2000, slowly adding features as my free time - and other interests - allowed.

As someone pointed out, the look-and-feel reminds Borland Turbo Vision. The reason is simple: I started writing in in the early '90s on DOS with a Borland C compiler, and I used the Borland Turbo Vision look-and-feel as a visual guideline (never actually looked at the code, though).

The porting to linux happened in 1999 (it was basically dormant before that), and Unicode support was progressively added around 2015-2016 (initially UCS-2 i.e. only the lowest 64k codepoints, then full UTF-32 internally, with terminal emulator accepting UTF-8). There are still some missing features, most notably: no grapheme clusters, no fullwidth (asian etc.) support, no right-to-left support.

Right now I'm adding truecolor support (see https://github.com/cosmos72/twin/tree/truecolor) - it's basically finished, I'm ironing out some remaining bugs, and thinking whether wire compatibility with older versions is worth adding.

And yes, documentation has been stalled for a very long time.

Retrospectively, I should have switched C -> C++ much earlier: lots of ugly preprocessor macros accumulated over time, and while I rewrote the C widget hierarchy as C++ classes, several warts remain.
by tsimionescu | 2025-06-16 12:10:13+00:00
But the point is that, regardless of how you choose to describe or even measure the system, it will need exactly as much heat to raise its temperature by 1 degree (or it will need as much kinetic energy to increase the average velocity of the constituents by the same amount, in the microstate framework). So there is some objective nature to entropy, it's not merely a function of subjective knowledge of a system. Or, to put it another way, two observers with different amounts of information on the microstate of a system will still measure it as having the same entropy.
by sorcerer-mar | 2025-06-16 12:12:45+00:00
Ah apologies, you edited to expand on an extremely cryptic comment.

> but I'm still unconvinced "free speech" is a meaningful term

It is demonstrably a meaningful term given that it has prevented the imprisonment of countless people who have been unfriendly towards the state or other powers that be at various times in our history. You can look for "landmark 1st Amendment cases" for an extremely partial list. In reality the bulk of the power is in the deterrent effect against the state pursuing action against private entities for expressing themselves, and the obverse effect that private parties aren't afraid of the state when expressing themselves.

> or that it's necessary for industrialization with private investment.

Not sure what you're getting at here, but it doesn't matter whether it's "necessary" for anything. It's in the Constitution. If you want to debate changing the Constitution you can go ahead and do that, but I won't spend my time engaging with it.

> When has this ever really benefited us?

Every day! It is literally benefiting you right now. You're aware that these very comments, in a regime with weaker protections, would put you at risk? And that even if the odds are remote, you would experience a chilling effect on sharing your thoughts with me here?

This all sounded pretty abstract to me too until I spent some time in a truly authoritarian country. I went on a date and casually asked the lady "so what's it like living under [ head of state ]?" What was a warm and friendly evening immediately turned as she glanced over her shoulder and completely clammed up, hurrying us onto a different topic. That reaction sent chills down my spine, and if you're an American and have zero concept of what any of this stuff means in the real world, it would've sent chills down yours too.
by rnestler | 2025-06-16 12:13:15+00:00
I tested it quickly on a 30kLOC project. zmypy seems to be faster than mypy indeed:

Without mypy cache:

$ rm -rf .mypy_cache $ time mypy Success: no issues found in 157 source files mypy 20.40s user 2.33s system 108% cpu 20.886 total

With mypy cache without any changes:

$ mypy --version mypy 1.16.0 (compiled: yes) $ time mypy Success: no issues found in 157 source files mypy 0.56s user 1.84s system 628% cpu 0.381 total

mypy with a small change in a shared module

$ time mypy Success: no issues found in 157 source files mypy tests/ 2.32s user 2.06s system 168% cpu 2.601 total

zmypy:

$ time zmypy Found 68 errors in 16 files (checked 157 source files) zmypy 0.68s user 0.05s system 99% cpu 0.731 total

Without caching and parallelization (as the 99% CPU usage indicates) it comes in the range of mypy using the cache and multiple cores (628% CPU usage) without any changes in the code.

zmypy seems to find more errors but they mostly boil down to the following errors

* Call to untyped function "__setitem__" in typed context

* ... has incompatible type "MagicMock"; expected ...

Maybe __setitem__ and MagicMock are treated specially in mypy? Also there seem to be differences in handling Protocol and enum comparison.
by bandoti | 2025-06-16 12:13:16+00:00
I’m sure someone has done this, but it would be interesting to study the overall tech landscape and compare which technology has sort of retained its value, depreciated, or increased in value—and how long those phases take. Even as far back as things like cast-iron printing presses and such. I mean also value in terms of usage not necessarily monetary.

The cycles we go through where a new tech supplants an old one, people thinking it’s the way of the future, and the old processes maybe forgotten for a while. Some might come back, others completely obsolescent. Still others the old tech might be superior to new—but more expensive (like old hard-wood window panes) and not sustainable.
by thesz | 2025-06-16 12:13:46+00:00
They use triples as triplets can represent any n-tuple facts.

E.g., if you have a fact id=(a,b,c,d), you can record triples (id, 1, a), (id, 2, b), (id, 3, c) and (id, 4, d) and reconstruct original fact.

Look at it as columnar storage in databases.

Then, if your query only needs a third value from a 4-tuple facts, you can get only those, ignoring first, second and fourth values. This is what columnar storage engines do.

In fact, I read that one of most efficient datalog engines use relational query execution under the hood.

Take a look here: https://github.com/philzook58/awesome-egraphs

The paper you'll most probably find interesting is "Better Together: Unifying Datalog and Equality Saturation," but there are many others interesting things there.
by ninjaoxygen | 2025-06-16 12:14:39+00:00
True, it has never been in an HTML standard, however it was definitely a documented part of early HTML.

The blink element was in Netscape Navigator's HTML dialect in 1993/94, when early HTML was still just hitting IETF RFCs / DRAFTs, you can find blink in the Netscape HTML developer documentation from just after that era, DevEdge. It was never in NCSA Mosaic, the other big GUI browser of the era.

Later on in the process of being standardized, when it was more W3C than IETF albeit still mainly the same people, Netscape agreed to drop blink from the proposals if Microsoft dropped marquee, so in that sense yes, it was never in a standardized version of HTML, but many tags in active use at the time were never in a standards doc.

See here https://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/book4/ch02.html for some history from w3c, who went on to become the formal custodians of HTML after the IETF days.

Edit: here's the earliest Netscape Developer Docs I can see on archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/19961115043739/http://developer....
by 542354234235 | 2025-06-16 12:14:47+00:00
>The question of consciousness is based on what is going on in the inside, how the reasoning happening and not the output.

But we don’t really understand how the reasoning is happening in humans. Tests show that our subconscious, completely outside out conscious understanding, makes decisions before we perceive that we consciously decide something [1]. Our consciousness is the output, but we don’t really know what is running in the subconscious. If something looked at it from an outside perspective, would they say that it was just unconscious programing, giving the appearance of conscious reasoning?

I’m not saying LLMs are conscious. But since we don’t really know what gives us the feeling of consciousness, and we didn’t build and don’t understand the underlying “programing”, it is hard to actually judge a non-organic mind that claims the feeling of consciousness. If you found out today that you were actually a computer program, would you say you weren’t conscious? Would you be able to convince “real” people that you were conscious?

[1] https://qz.com/1569158/neuroscientists-read-unconscious-brai...
by holowoodman | 2025-06-16 12:14:48+00:00
Those particles are virtual in that they don't really exist, so you are right that proving them isn't actually possible, because they are simply not there, just virtually, in our mathematical imagination. In quantum mechanics[1], this isn't really a "doesn't exist" kind of thing, rather it means that the wave function is there, leading to the (slim) possibility of existence through some kind of wave function collapse.

What is proven is that e.g. vacuum energy / zero point energy exists (not actually in the StarGate sense of extractable energy, just that the lowest energy state of any physical system isn't zero), and that the Casimir effect exists. Vacuum energy directly leads to virtual particles through pair production (which is a proven mechanism, at high energies, for low energies we do suspect that there isn't a cutoff there), and also influences e.g. high-energy cosmic rays leading to an observed high-energy cutoff (although there are other possible explanations for that cutoff and lack of very-high-energy cosmic rays). The Casimir effect is most easily explained by virtual particles and vaccum energy.

In Hawking radiation, the idea is actually that virtual particles through interaction with the gravity of the black hole become real particles. The event horizon actually makes those wave functions collapse such that real particles start to exist. Hawking radiation hasn't been observed yet, however.

[1] non-Kopenhagen QM has the same consequences, it's just even harder to explain actually.
by stu2010 | 2025-06-16 12:14:56+00:00
This is cool, I'd say that the most common tool in this space is bgzip[1]. Have you thought about training a dictionary on the first few chunks of each file and embedding the dictionary in a skippable frame at the start? Likely makes less difference if your chunk size is 2MB, but at smaller chunk sizes that could have significant benefit.

[1] https://www.htslib.org/doc/bgzip.html
by foldr | 2025-06-16 12:15:25+00:00
I think people are making too much of some very grainy videos. There are some indications that the RAT deployed, but I think these have to be weighed against the inherent improbability of a completely simultaneous dual engine failure. There's no indication of yaw at all in the available videos, which suggests that both engines would have had to fail immediately at almost exactly the same time. That's an imaginable scenario, but one that you have to hope is extraordinarily unlikely. People will point to BA 38, but I don't think the engines in that case shut down so completely that electrical power was lost. Also, the loss of thrust in each engine was separated by 7 seconds, which is a long time in the context of Air India 171:

>Shortly after the co-pilot had assumed control, the autothrottles commanded an increase in thrust from both engines. The engines initially responded but, at a height of about 720 ft, 57 seconds before touchdown, the thrust of the right engine reduced. Some seven seconds later, the thrust reduced on the left engine to a similar level. (Accident report, p. 5)
by ethbr1 | 2025-06-16 12:15:46+00:00
The thing armchair auto-focused urbanists don't understand is the infeasible cost of changing urban placement: because it accretes over decades/centuries.

It's trivially easy for a city to paint itself into a corner from which it's (financially) impossible to escape, with 'best intentions' at every step.

Next thing they know, major employment hubs are too far apart, with major buildings that cannot be relocated, without continguous right of ways, and... they're fucked.
by roboboffin | 2025-06-16 12:15:59+00:00
The difference for me, is that things are changing too fast to keep up. For example, if a large part of your job is taken away seemingly overnight, by a new model, your whole job could change in a heartbeat.

What preparation are you supposed to do for this ? Previously, change was relatively slow and it was reasonable to keep up in your own time. I believe that is no longer possible.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-06-16 12:16:21+00:00
I didn't realize that the original quote (from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44282822) was lifted nearly verbatim from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

More from that same page:

> Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (such as from the massacres by Genghis Khan, the Black Death and the epidemics emerging in the Americas upon European contact).
by 6510 | 2025-06-16 12:17:14+00:00
I thought about that puzzle quite a bit. The edge cases can get quite lame.

The only answer I've found is that one should define the rules strictly enough for people to make sense of them in advance. They should either be easy to find in context or be few enough to learn.

The obligations seem:

1) Document the issue at hand accurately and keep it up to date.

2) Write out the laws in a strict way that leaves as little room for interpretation as possible and keep it up to date.

3) Make sure those affected know what the laws are wasting as little of their time, money and effort as possible.

We seem surprisingly incompetent at 3. We should also be able to make the variables dynamic so that the thing updates it self.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-06-16 12:18:53+00:00
Not necessarily. Information is always spread between what we'd normally consider "storage medium" and "reader"; the degree to which that is is a controllable parameter.

Consider e.g.:

- Digital expansion of PI to sufficient decimal places contains both parts of the work and full work in full. The trick is you have to know where to find it - and it's that knowledge that's actually equivalent to the work itself.

- Any kind of compression that uses a dictionary that's separate from the compressed artifact, shifts some of the information into a dictionary file, or if it's a common dictionary, into compressor/decompressor itself.

In the case from the study, the experimenter actually has to supply most of the information required to pull Harry Potter out of the model - they need to make specific prompts with quotes from the book, and then observe which logits correspond to the actual continuation of those quotes. The experimenter is doing information-loaded selection multiple times: at prompting, and at identifying logits. This by itself doesn't really prove the model memorized the book, only just that it saw fragments from it - in cases those fragments are book-specific (e.g. using proper names from the HP world) instead of generic English sentences.
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-06-16 12:18:56+00:00
Perhaps k8s could roll its own Slack replacement. Sound crazy? Consider git: born of specific needs of Linux kernel plus a struggle to use commercially available tools.

If you squint there are similarities to the situation that led Linus Torvalds down the build-it-yourself path. What a tool like Slack “is” is pretty well defined, and they’re not being evil but are just unable to support a very unique community in k8s.

Owning its own tools helps the community own its own destiny.
by roboboffin | 2025-06-16 12:19:35+00:00
I’m not saying people will be laid off, although this is what the article is about. So, I think people will still be prompting, but if you can prompt an agent and it can happily code away, what are you supposed to be doing ? Watching it do its work ? The only option is that you will have to generate ideas of new work constantly to drive value. This is something that generally happens over time now, but as implementation becomes quicker; idea generation will have to accelerate.
by lambdaone | 2025-06-16 12:19:42+00:00
I've just realised I've talked my way into the idea of creating per-city club-operated backbone networks based on something like 100 Mbit point-to-point Ethernet-over-microwave links. With tall buildings as hubs, you might actually be able to build a decent mesh, with WiFi, LoRa or both acting as access networks. You'd definitely want to throttle per-client bandwidth to prevent people from abusing your very limited long-range mesh bandwidth. None of this would be cheap; decent microwave links cost thousands, and you'd need backup solar and battery power for every part of the network.

I'd also consider thinking about using the "big ears, small mouth" technique to push up bandwidth; if a fixed link using a technology such as LoRa could transmit at a legal EIRP level, but coupled this with a really high gain parabolic dish (I'm thinking re-purposed satellite dishes) and low-noise amplifier at each end on the receive side, you could get substantially higher end-to-end Eb/No, and thus much higher bandwidth and range than would otherwise be legally possible. At first glance, the necessary hardware to do this looks quite doable, either by active RF switching between antennae, or the use of a hybrid/circulator to do the necessary duplexing. I'd be interested to see if anyone has already built, or even manufactures, something like this, and what the practical and regulatory barriers are to implementation.