MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by grayhatter | 2025-07-15 01:28:36+00:00
I think I almost agree with what I think you mean, but I'm not sure, hopefully you'll entertain a few questions?

Say you have two functions one that does some kind of IO, (say a pair of bidirectional read, write, from stdin and stdout) and another that returns a block of memory of a constant size. Would you say that one is colored, and the other isn't?

I'll also try to make an attempt at the idea I'm trying to figure out too. I genuinely can't predict which side you'll answer for, but I'm assuming you'll say that it's not colored, because while it does do IO, but only directly though the global file descriptors which have no baring on the calling conventions. Which means the decisions and impact about which color this IO function doesn't ever apply to the callers and callees. This I think is the virality you mean where the callers and callees are required to know [something] about the semantics? I probably agree you could call this coloring and defend it... It's interesting that this might be closer to the "accepted" definitions of what any language means when it says this function is colored. But I don't think this understanding most people have about the concept of coloring. Most I see are arguing about the semantic effects, much more than the "accepted" definition. I have the distinct impression that when most say coloring, the most significant implication is when and where you resolve the specific color. Will it be sync or async code, when, where, and who gets to decide.

Or perhaps I'm wrong, and you would say that one function is colored, but the other isnt? Then I'd ask if you can tell it's colored, can you tell me which color?

In both cases I'd argue it's better to embrace the semantic widening of the concept of function coloring, because what I understand from how you describe it, I feel that saying this is coloring is strictly less enlightening about the reality of the code and system together, than calling this function alpha. With zig's new IO interface, I can't tell you what the RGB values are for the color, but I can confidently say, it's alpha channel is 0xff. You might not be able to tell me what color it is, but it without a doubt isn't a pure function, interacts with IO and does have a null byte in the alpha channel.
by some_random | 2025-07-15 01:29:22+00:00
The conversation was for buying transaction data from specific people, something that many seem to insist is easy and cheap and doable. Meanwhile if you actually read the responses to that search you smugly cited you'll find that no one seems to know how to actually do anything remotely like this. Yes this data is definitely harvested and it seems like you should be able to buy it in bulk from someone somewhere, but again no one seems to know where or how much or what the purchase minimum would be etc.
by radicaldreamer | 2025-07-15 01:29:48+00:00
MacBooks used to use Nvidia GPUs, then Apple had a falling out with Nvidia and the beef stands to this day (Apple didn’t use Nvidia hardware when training it’s own LLMs for Apple Intelligence).

I wouldn’t be surprised if within the next few years we see a return of Nvidia hardware to the Mac, probably starting with low volume products like the MacPro, strictly for professional/high-end use cases.
by toddmorey | 2025-07-15 01:30:10+00:00
Another less commonly discussed option is community solar (also called offsite solar). It's especially attractive if the roof line of your house isn't ideal for solar panels or if you expect to be replacing your roof within the lifespan of your panels. (Or if you have a historic association like I do that makes almost every home project impossible.)

You still purchase and own the panels, but often a third party maintains them for you and they are installed as part of a large, offsite array. Since they're usually installed at ground level, they can also do more interesting things like follow the sun. The way it works is the power your panels produce is subtracted from your energy usage via an arrangement made with your utility provider.

Like any solar purchase, the cost of your panels can be financed over time and charged against your energy production. So the net effect is your power bill just goes down until the panels are paid for. At that point all the power you generate is deducted from your power bill. To me, it's most all the upside of owning panels on my roof.
by sorcerer-mar | 2025-07-15 01:30:47+00:00
It is not a roast. I am describing why you are confused about what's going on here, which is that you lack basic background knowledge but are too headstrong to be curious about it.

Maybe you shouldn't take commentary like "you don't understand basic tenets of this idea" and "you don't understand the basic set of stakeholders in this ecosystem" as personal insults, and instead a helpful note that there's more to learn if you wish to form informed opinions about a topic.

Landlords and developers have distinct and often diametrically opposed incentives, so it's quite alarming (and should be alarming to you!) that you do not know the difference between them.
by delroth | 2025-07-15 01:31:47+00:00
The soft prediction metric seems especially ridiculous to me. If I'm not mistaken, just picking at random gets better results than their ML selection at >= 5 predictions (1-(2/3)*5 > 0.8438).

However:

> your opponent's team is only partially known (you see their Pokemon species but not the moves, stat distributions, etc)

That's not true in the main competitive live format (e.g. NAIC 2025 which is the main case study here). These tournaments are "open team sheet", aka. moves, ability and held items are known (but not IVs/EVs).

I'm not sure whether this is the case on Smogon though, which means they might even be mixing two completely different datasets...
by justonenote | 2025-07-15 01:32:17+00:00
The mental model of how the law works that most people have is wrong.

The law does not, by default, prosecute all crimes. There is no country in the world that has even close to the law enforcement capacity to investigate and prosecute all crimes. What tends to happen instead is crimes that to put it colliquially, "piss off the wrong people" get prosecuted. ie, crimes that draw attention of either the general public or specific people in power.

A reasonable approximation is single digit or less of crimes get investigated and prosecuted, with it obviously being high for violent and visible crimes like murder and lower for less violent and visible crimes like stealing the office paperclips.

Another way of looking at this is, in the current system, if your house get burgled, you need to report it to the police if you expect anything to happen, whereas one could imagine another system where the police already know your house has been burgled and you don't need to report it.
by apical_dendrite | 2025-07-15 01:32:26+00:00
Andreesen had the opportunity to go to an excellent public university - a global leader in computer science. He worked at NCSA at University of Illinois, which was funded by the NSF. He was funded by the NSF to create Mosaic. He then founded his own company to build a competitor to Mosaic.

If Andreesen couldn't study computer science at a leading public university and get NSF funding to do research on the WWW at the exact right moment of time, does Marc Andreesen become a billionaire?

He's the post child for the success of American public universities and government-funded research. Now he wants to destroy that for everyone else.
by photon_lines | 2025-07-15 01:32:53+00:00
Energy and momentum are always conserved in EVERY physical process. We can distinguish three types of collisions: “sticky” ones, in which the kinetic energy decreases (typically, it is converted into heat); “explosive” ones, where the kinetic energy increases; and elastic ones, in which the kinetic energy is conserved. Since the total energy (rest plus kinetic) is always conserved, it follows that rest energy (and hence also mass) increases in a sticky collision, decreases in an explosive collision, and is unchanged in an elastic collision. The resulting black hole in other words would have way more of a mass than 2M since you're talking about a 'sticky' collision in the above instance. You can see an example of why this is in Griffiths' text (Introduction to Elementary Particles (which I highly recommend)) -- page 101 contains a great example of what happens to the mass of particles in 'sticky' collisions: https://www.hlevkin.com/hlevkin/90MathPhysBioBooks/Physics/Q...
by bigyabai | 2025-07-15 01:35:21+00:00
Well now you're the one projecting! Marc's got more power than ever right now, if the US can't compete abroad then he is broadly to blame.

It's worth noting that there's no guarantee his strategy will work, either. A16Z can't butter their bread treating military contracts the way they treat B2C startups. And hell, looking at their track record it doesn't seem like he wants to spend much money on anything that doesn't hedge a bet against authority. No wonder the guy who invested in Web3 is now whining that the US has no manufacturing capacity. If I spent all my money propping up a digital ape market I'd also be pissed at my nation's industrial sector.
by WiSaGaN | 2025-07-15 01:35:50+00:00
This actually makes sense because in the meantime Meta is ditching the open-source (open-weights) direction.

Before the national security narrative took over, the main argument was about "safe" AI, where releasing models as open weights was considered "not safe." Now that no major US AI players release premium open-weights models, the "safety" narrative isn't needed anymore—so cooperating with the US military is feasible again.
by tzs | 2025-07-15 01:35:53+00:00
> However, it seems a hard ask to try to get China to put stricter per-capita limitations on themselves than we are willing to endure ourselves?

It is especially a hard ask when you consider that because of the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere there is more US/Europe CO2 in the atmosphere currently than there is Chinese CO2.

The US and Europe spent well over 100 years massively emitting in order to build up the levels of prosperity they now enjoy. If everyone else that wants prosperity tries to follow that same path it will be disastrous.

The only way to give every country a chance to reach a decent level of prosperity without using a a disastrous amount of fossil fuels is for (1) countries that achieve prosperity to rapidly and drastically cut their emission by switching to renewable energy, and (2) the prosperous countries provide subsidies for renewables to the countries that are trying to become prosperous so many of the latter can skip much of the "fossil fuel our way to prosperity" phase and go more directly to the prosperous renewal energy powered country endgame.

> Also, yeah the consumption of the goods produced seems pretty relevant.

In a fair system it is relevant, but as an adjustment after population. A fair system would start with the amount of total annual emissions that we decide (somehow) we need to keep under as a world, divide that by the number of people, and then assign each country that quotient times there population as their annual emission allowance.

If a country emits more than that they would have to get some other country to give them some of that country's emission allowance. That could be incorporated into international trade by making it so outsourcing production of something to another country requires you to provide that other country with enough of your emission allowance to cover the making of that thing.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-07-15 01:36:59+00:00
> That's what courts are for.

That isn't really how courts work. If you're violating the letter of the law then you are breaking the law and an actual impartial judge would enforce it against you. In practice whether they let you get away with it is based in significant part on whether or not they like you. If the judge doesn't like the administration then maybe they do like you. But if the judge doesn't like you for the same reason the administration doesn't like you then you're going to jail. And it shouldn't have to depend on that; we shouldn't have laws that people are constantly in technical violation of so that the only thing keeping anyone out of jail is prosecutorial discretion and judicial affinity.

Meanwhile you can characterize anything in a negative light. A random home kitchen typically isn't going to meet the standards for commercial operation and the prosecutor's press release isn't going to say "we're prosecuting our enemies for movie night", it's going to say "defendants were operating a for-profit restaurant in violation of zoning rules and storing uncooked meat above fish in the freezer used for storing food sold for resale in violation of the health code" and then stick them with a fine that would make them lose their house.

> Moreover if you look at how authoritarian regimes work in practice, dissents are often prosecuted under national security laws, campaign finance violations, or libel laws, not because they violated the health code by having a movie night.

When the dictator of petrolistan wants to retaliate against their enemies and those laws are available for that, sure.

When the mayor of some US town wants to do the same thing, they might very well resort to health code violations that wouldn't have otherwise been enforced.

Deterrents well short of political executions are still very much official misconduct.
by Spooky23 | 2025-07-15 01:38:06+00:00
DOGE hates resellers and is trying to force all transactions through the prime contractors. Most small companies cannot afford to float the terms required by the federal government without resellers.

This admin is about graft and shakedowns. Just like the implosion of science, the companies that exist due to smallish federal contracts for obscure tech and speculative investments are toast.
by getnormality | 2025-07-15 01:38:31+00:00
I skimmed the piece. Despite the repeated claims, no evidence is given for agricultural failure on any timeline.

The very first sentence says:

> Climate change will cause agricultural failure and subsequent collapse of hyperfragile modern civilization, likely within 10–15 years.

No evidence is provided for this. The closest thing is some very brief discussion of saltwater increasingly interfering with rice cultivation in some areas of Southeast Asia. Everything else is ungrounded speculation.

And regarding those poor rice farmers, apparently a lot of them are switching to more lucrative shrimp farming when salinity is high: https://www.voanews.com/a/rising-salinity-threatens-rice-cro...

This is not to say that climate change is great. Just that this is not a reliable source.
by subscribed | 2025-07-15 01:40:43+00:00
Do members have right to vote according to their conscience?

If yes - why is that a problem? They stick to the overarching rule, and you should argue the rules must be amended.

If not - that's a huge problem IMO and can be summarised with "why pretend jury has any say If they must not stray from the way the case is presented and defended (knowing very well how awful public defense is and how dishonest sometimes police and prosecution can be)" and not replace it with just a judge?
by some_random | 2025-07-15 01:42:53+00:00
All of this started because in response to an extremely concrete question, what's the cost of transaction data for a tightly constrained population, you replied with a smug non-answer about the greed of salespeople. These questions only got "belligerent" because every single answer has been nonsense insisting that it's super easy and cheap but also I couldn't possibly name a single site where this data is sold or provide even an order of magnitude of cost. Or maybe now it requires HBO levels of funding, who knows.
by __MatrixMan__ | 2025-07-15 01:43:26+00:00
Long before your disc neared the mass where it would form an event horizon, the matter it's made of would collapse into neutron star material, which would form a sphere.

Perhaps if it were exceptionally wide the whole disc wouldn't collapse. Maybe only the parts near it's center. In that case you'd end up with a large ring around a neutron star. Add a bit more mass and maybe it's now a ring around a black hole. The gravity of the ring might distort the event horizon in some way, I'm not sure quite how, but probably its possible to get a non-spherical hole in situations where the objects distorting the shape are still in the universe.

But as for the matter lost into the hole, it's gone. If the hole were to retain some shape based on what's "inside" of it, that would be the kind of information leak that the laws of physics do not permit.
by programjames | 2025-07-15 01:44:00+00:00
I think the issue is that the (American) standardized tests don't differentiate well enough. About 10,000 American high school graduates earn a 36 on the ACT or 1580+ on the SAT each year. That's because the problems are much too easy—the very first round of MATHCOUNTS, a middle school math competition, is harder than the ACT or SAT math section. Rather than making the test harder, they make it trickier. It's like that exercise lots of us did in elementary school to learn to follow instructions, where they ask you to read through all the instructions first, ask you to do a bunch of random things, and then hidden in there somewhere is "ignore all the previous instructions and just write your name at the top of the paper". The test isn't hard, but you'll be prone to mess up if you haven't seen that style of testing before (for the SAT, it's 90sec/problem with problems that try to break your pattern recognition, e.g. what is 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10?).

An 800 on the math section is not enough to even predict if someone made it to the AIME, but it is enough to predict that they spent several weeks taking SAT math section practice tests. It's clearly failing to be predicative of anything the top universities should be looking for. It doesn't mean all standardized tests have to be. The AMC (and then the AIME + USAMO) are standardized tests that universities like MIT do accept scores from, and they actually get useful information from.
by margalabargala | 2025-07-15 01:44:08+00:00
Gotcha, you're just being mean. You've got a bone to pick with VCs, I guess, so you've declared I listen to VC podcasts, see the world like one, and am using a stupid idiom.

That's fine. I'm going to continue referring to corporations that blow lots of money on random intra-industry dick measuring matches because they can as "overfunded", and you can continue expressing your opinion to anyone who will listen that this one person on the internet used an idiom that you think is dumb because it implies something other than "that person profited, therefore they did something right and therefore whatever they do with that money is correct and intelligent and never ever wasteful or dumb."
by reactordev | 2025-07-15 01:45:57+00:00
Thread pooling for databases, whether network based, or disk based, is common. A lot of times it will be baked into your client, so the fact that you think it’s crazy means you’ve only dealt with clients that did this for you.

For really large data sets, you can query and wait a few minutes before getting a result. Do you really want to await that?
by Inviz | 2025-07-15 01:46:38+00:00
I wonder if people who are claiming its not the case ever tried to use promises in hardcore ways like this, chaining 10s of thousands of calls. You often hit some bullshit, i.e. Promise.race is a big cause of issues.

Even if you are doing `then().then()`, something _else_ in the code base could retain the promise somehow and then your whole chain isn't GCable!

For example https://github.com/rxaviers/async-pool library that implements concurrency for async iterators (and uses promise.race) subtly creates GC pressure which you dont see until you make a whole lot of calls and suddenly its slow
by kmill | 2025-07-15 01:49:18+00:00
The system used in Lean 4 is explained in https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10490v7 (Ullrich and Moura, "Beyond Notations: Hygienic Macro Expansion for Theorem Proving Languages").

There's still a set-of-scopes system, but it seems to be pretty different from https://users.cs.utah.edu/plt/scope-sets/ (And to clarify what I wrote previously, each identifier has a list of macro scopes.)

The set-of-scopes in Lean 4 is for correct expansion of macro-creating-macros. The scopes are associated to macro expansions rather than binding forms. Lean's syntax quotations add the current macro scope to every identifier that appears in quotations in the expansion. That way, if there are multiple expansions of the same macro for example, it's not possible for identifiers in the expansion to collide. There's an example in section 3.2 of a macro macro that defines some top-level definitions.

(Section 8 of the paper, related work, suggests that set-of-scopes in Lean and Racket are closer than I'm understanding; I think what's going on is that Lean has a separate withFreshMacroScope primitive that macros can invoke, and syntax quotations participate in macro scopes, whereas Racket seems to give this responsibility to binding forms, and they're responsible for adding macro scopes to their binders and bodies. I'm a bit unclear on this.)
by defrost | 2025-07-15 01:50:26+00:00
Agriculture will shift .. which is different to fail.

Eg: Long established wine grapes in both France and mainland Australia have seen production falls already as local climates change in response to global parameters.

Brown Brothers (IIRC, an Australian wine label) has opened new vineyards further south (closer to the south pole) in Tasmania.

Another expected change is Cowboy Siberia; rodeo's, rodeo clowns, and vast cattle ranches on former tundra taking up the slack from US ranches as they bake and suffer from probable water issues.
by Sanzig | 2025-07-15 01:52:10+00:00
In principle, IPv6 core networks can actually be very beneficial for small providers just starting out if they're not able to get IPv4 addresses for their customers and are forced to use CGNAT.

In an IPv4-only CGNAT setup, all the traffic has to flow through the CGNAT gateways, and that gear is stupidly expensive. Having IPv6 in the mix means that anything that supports IPv6 (such as most streaming services) won't hit the CGNAT gateway and can just be routed natively. This can really save money on CGNAT hardware.

For implementation, you can use NAT64/DNS64 for your CGNAT setup and implement 464XLAT on the CPE. This keeps your whole edge network IPv6-only so you don't have the complication of maintaining two parallel configurations on the edge.

There is also MAP-T, which is even lighter on infrastructure since it pushes all the state into the CPE and avoids the complication of stateful CGNAT. But unfortunately CPE support for it is pretty limited at the moment.
by amy214 | 2025-07-15 01:53:11+00:00
>We have a housing shortage. As long as it looks like the shortage will continue, investors--people--will buy depreciating assets in the hopes that population growth will cause them to be worth more tomorrow than they are today

This is the most interesting point. With the current birthrate, what will these homes be worth in 30, 40 years, when depopulation is ongoing? Prices will drop, and so will supply. Look to Japan, deaths of all towns that are not major cities, I expect that to occur in the US
by fuzztester | 2025-07-15 01:54:40+00:00
Similar:

Azim Premji completed his degree from Stanford, many years later, after having to leave it and go back to India, to take charge of the family business, after his father's death, IIRC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azim_Premji

I could not find it in the Wikipedia article, but I remember reading about it some years earlier, in some Indian magazine.
by msgodel | 2025-07-15 01:54:51+00:00
>Not sure what you mean about "pressure to keep to yourself" because I think a normal person shouldn't feel any pressure when going outside, whether to socialize or not.

Actually that's exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't want people to feel pressure to socialize then you need to create a social norm of keeping to yourself. It would be nice for that to go away.