skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Most experienced programmers also have a good feel for how much harder it is to write a solid, tested, scalable module yourself than integrate a open source solution, even if it's not perfect.

Funny story, when I was just starting out in this field, my client wanted his chip to communicate with a sensor that was already on his board. This was at the time, a brand new, unreleased product. Because our hardware engineering department didn't like to communicate with the software engineering department the CPU they chose for the project didn't support i2c, but they sensor they chose (out of many thousands of different sensors from different manufacturers) only communicated over i2c.

At the time I was obviously very frustrated with the hardware engineers so I did a simple search for other sensors in the same category. Most of them would communicate over a handful of different protocols, it just so happens that the one they picked only supported i2c.

So, since I was just starting out and my client was breathing down my neck for access to the sensor that he paid for, I figured I didn't have enough time to write my own bit-bang software driver for i2c. Instead, I would just find one on google... So the driver I picked had a really tricky bug in it where it was bit-shifting the address of the device it was supposed to be communicating with. A logic analyzer came in really handy here. So my "solution" was, instead of fixing the bug properly, I just manually bit-shifted the address the opposite direction, and then the driver bit-shifted it back. At first I used the "<<" operator, right before the address went out on the wire. That didn't work, since the compiler optimizations ripped out my bit-shift command. So I manually did the shift and just put the "fixed" address in the define.

I estimate, that had hardware and software engineering communicated better, and worked together better, we could have shaved half the development time off of that project. Such a waste.
Freud's biggest contextual problem was outlined by Alice Miller in most of her works, notably "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware" and "Drama of the Gifted Child".

It was basically that Freud was suffering from his own unresolved childhood traumas and avoiding them forced him to narrate his theories from the perspective that the parent was innocent and the child was guilty, especially when discussing the treatment of seemingly misbehaved children.

Unfortunately, this continued to be the main perspective in psychoanalysis and child development until the late 1970's/early 1980's

She gives an explanation in its simplest form in a 1987 interview with OMNI Publications International:

Traditional analysis, says Miller, duplicates the parent-child relationship with the conventional analyst in the position of power. [...] The child undergoes a long inner struggle “between the fear of losing the person he loves if he remains true to himself, and panic at the prospect of losing himself if he has to deny who he is. A child cannot resolve a conflict of this nature and is forced to conform because he cannot survive by himself. Therapy should not repeat this condition.”

fascinating read if anyone's interested, especially when she describes the first time she discussed this to a conference of psychoanalysts:

http://www.alice-miller.com/en/the-feeling-child/
pure emergence, nihilism.
curated emergence, existentialism.
I am currently dealing with this issue, though on a smaller scale.

The moral of the story is to forward exercise options if you can. Basically what this means is you pay to exercise on your start date. If you quit or get pink slipped before the standard one year cliff, the company does a buyback. Otherwise, the shares vest as per your vesting schedule. You can potentially avoid a lot of the AMT nastiness this way, and start the clock on long-term gains treatment on day one.

That said, companies really should scrap the 90 day exercise window. Uber et al want to avoid employees selling shares on side markets. If they just allow them to hold onto their options for years, most will sit on them rather than feel rushed to sell. I know they want to retain talent, but they should be doing that via rewards versus punitive measures.

In any case, its worth it to spend a couple hundred bucks on a tax expert to figure out in advance how to handle options so you don't get burned by taxes on fictional gains.
Statist thug.

American is a police state. Censor the truth.

You must love to be subservient dog to the State.
There's almost never a timeliness clause in the right of first refusal (ROFS) section. They can simply choose to ignore your request...indefinitely.
The site blocks Tor users; ugh.
I heard that Pinterest has to issue NQOs instead of ISOs to do this. If that's the case, they come with their own potential downsides.
That;s fine, they can hack into our computers. Its not like they would plant something on your computer..

Truly the poison tree and its fruit are both dead.
I have some friends at General Fusion and I've been following them relatively closely from the beginning. I had an opportunity to invest some in the beginning and decided not to - mostly because the problems they're trying to solve seemed so hard.

They've pivoted a little bit on their approach since then. In the beginning it was all about focussed pressure waves. Now they're starting with plasma. Fusion is really hard (well, at least for power generation, perhaps the "level a city" kind is easier). I think it's harder than self driving cars (for example) or landing rockets on barges (as another example). There are many fundamental problems in different areas that have to be solved and not all these areas are well understood.

I'm pleasantly surprised they are still going strong and that they were able to raise money to continue their progress. Obviously if they are successful the business opportunity of all power generation in the world is a pretty big one...
Sad that there was no mention / evaluation of RISC-V in this post, which attempts to resolve exactly the problems he identifies...
The IA64 (Itanium) series on Old New Thing seems to highlight a very crazy instruction set and architecture:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20040119-00/?p=...

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20150805-00/?p=...
Kinda feels like an advertisement for the operating system mentioned multiple times in the post. But, how do you solve the problem of many uncoordinated driverless cars?

You don't. What you do is avoid the problem by defining protocols and regulations. Then by updating the infrastructure to allow the vehicles to operate in sync but also out of the way. Self driving cars, at least the first generation or two, will require their own environment. Due to the multitude of variables to handle. Insurance, public awareness and education, safety, etc.

In the same way that dumb old cars required (and still do!) new regulations, protocols, and infrastructure amongst other things.

In terms of technology, how do you coordinate all of this cars? Well, that's one of the things I'm trying to find out. There are many, many papers out there that have been attacking the problem for decades and the small subset that I have managed to read agree on one thing: The infrastructure needs to be updated for self driving cars to operate. Not only roads, but pretty much all city planning aspects. Now, you think San Francisco is making a fuss about not building new housing. Imagine how it will respond to redoing everything. Now imagine that at a state level.

It's not a problem solved purely by technology, but through consistent trial and error of multiple moving parts.
Appointment of Sole Administrators Nasarawa Lawmakers Fight and Share Blood
You're right. We've neglected that whole section for too long and it's a bit out of date. I don't have enough knowledge about the current state of InfluxDB though (besides clustering becoming a closed-source feature and well-indexed tags now being a thing, as well as them branching out into more things like dashboarding and metrics collection). Input welcome!
Nice, I did not know those! Your book really helped my to implement quantum state & process tomography during my PhD btw (much more than most journal articles on the subject), thanks again for writing it. I think together with David Mermin's "Quantum Computer Science" (which is much shorter though) it's still one of the best books on the subject.
"As far as I know, the original name of this terrorism entity is in Arabic. So why must you you focus, highlights and link it to Islam?."

From Wikipedia:

"The group has referred to itself as the Islamic State (الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah) or IS ever since it proclaimed a worldwide caliphate in June 2014"[1]

So they call themselves the "Islamic State" in Arabic, and thus they're the ones who are focusing on Islam. Others are just accurately translating their name.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_...
I still don't understand that logic. What does choosing to fire someone have to do with whether or not you pay them a ridiculous severance? Are you suggesting that it is impossible to fire a CEO without giving them an absurd amount of money?
I don't think RISC-V really addresses the encoding inefficiency problem, except for the "C" extension, sorta. Though I don't think that for OoO superscalar architectures, icache pressure is as much of a problem as it is on a fancy vliw.

But yeah, would be nice to get a take on RISC-V in context of this rant.
Yes! D-503 reminds me a lot THX 1138...
Yes. The company can narrowly define what employees can do with their options.
Great response. Got a question for you then: are we actually hitting the end of Moore's law here or are we just before a new technology transition for CPUs, such as away from silicon.
Two points to consider here. First, it's not fair to criticize the whole field of academic CS research. Not everyone's work can be accurately represented by a github repo. Second, even when it can, expecting the "Run author's [whatever] against an up-to-date dataset." step to work is asking a quite a lot. Typically there are a infrastructural assumptions baked in (file paths, legacy code dependencies, etc) and manual steps to get to plotted results. In an ideal world with enough resources, every lab would have technical staff to help with this process, but most researchers unfortunately don't have bandwidth to spend on this problem.
Do you know if there's a man section for keywords?
Finding Bar Kokhba Coins in Kentucky (or Not)
Is it really just a 5x reduction in power cost that would allow "cheap" desalination? Would it require a 50x reduction in cost? I wonder if cheap desalination and cheap desalination are on the same order of magnitude. Do you know the current cost of desalination? Is there any sort of accurate estimate of how cheap power would be? (I guess not since everything is a prototype and nothing has been able to produce excess power from fuel).
No, I mean I've actually emailed to subscribe and they replied with

> Please stay tuned
I am having trouble identifying "the LKML thread."
Sony's new patent makes it possible to share images – from your eyeball
There should always be a balance between brevity and being too verbose.

all single letters = bad, java style thisIsALoopCounter = bad.

and in the c world i is almost universally understood to be used as a loop counter and index. If I came across 'count' in a c code I (briefly) might think it was related to a count of items in an array or similar.
You don't exercise RSUs. RSUs are taxable as they vest. At my company, a portion of your vesting RSUs are sold every time to pay the tax on them, unless you provide some cash to pay the tax.
A few comments:

Yes, MIPS assembly is terrible, though I hear that the newer ISA revisions are better (the one I worked with most heavily was the 5k, and systems programming on it was very unpleasant).

Power and MIPS also both now have thumb-2 alike instruction encodings, POWER VLE and MIPS16e, respectively. It turns out that code size matters.

Lastly, RISC no longer means what it used to. It basically is used today to just mean a load-store architecture, as you now have variable-length instructions, multi-cycle arithmetic instructions, out-of-order superscalar chips labled "RISC"

When IBM came out with the POWER ISA, I seem to recall that one of the authors of the abacus book claimed it wasn't simple enough to be RISC, which is a quaint thought these days.
The state of machine learning research these days seems pretty good. Essentially all research is published on ArXiv and there is a lot of code released too (though there could certainly be more).

I think openness has been a big contributor to the recent explosion in popularity and success of machine learning. When talking to academics about this, machine learning would be a great field to hold up as an example.
https://xkcd.com/167/
Is there any information on how good it works in the real world by people who have used it?
Some high end processes only allow you to pattern a bunch of parallel, narrow lines (hence 1D). These are subsequently "cut" in a useful way, and you can connect to them using a different layer above or below.
And the EU may not even gain all that much from car sales, either, if the EU car companies don't get serious about EVs. TTIP may just make it easier for Tesla to sell more cars into the EU.
The problem isn't just in startups with stock options; another big place it arises is closely held businesses. You receive the family business as an inheritance and suddenly you need to pay - in cash - 40% of the value of the business. Such a large cash hit can and does destroy many companies.

Not true at all. For the last year for which data is available, 2013, only 20 inheritances of a small business were subject to the estate tax. [See http://www.cbpp.org/research/ten-facts-you-should-know-about...]

Additionally, estate taxes are paid by the deceased's estate. In the US, inheritors do not pay federal tax on their inheritance, and only 8 states tax inheritors.
List of meetups and groups for Hacker News readers (US, UK, India, China, Japan)
QP: Event driven active object framework for embedded systems
I'd recommend to use intrinsics for SIMD vectorization, which is portable to platforms that don't support the GCC syntax (e.g. Windows with MSVC). You can use Intel's Intrinsics Guide (https://software.intel.com/sites/landingpage/IntrinsicsGuide...) to find the intrinsics that corresponds to the instructions you are using.
>> stop perpetuating the use of the non-word "performant." I cringe every time I hear it... Using it just makes you sound dumb, and clearly the author is not dumb.

You cringe at the use of a word that is now common in our vernacular? The fact that it's not listed in most dictionaries does not mean the word is not valid. Dictionaries aren't written by all-knowing gods who dictate our languages to us. They are sourced by people, and we frequently opt to add new words to the English language. The more we see people continuing to make use of the word "performant" to mean what we all mean when we use it, the more likely it becomes that we will simply officially adopt it into our dictionaries.

If you understand the meaning behind a "non-word", then the word is already a part of the language. Language is fluid, and the appearance of new words is normal. You can grip onto your dictionary like a bible, while looking down your nose at others who are flexible when change comes knocking. It doesn't make us look dumb; it just makes you appear pretentious.

Aside: "performant" is borrowed from French, which also has "efficace" as a direct translation for "efficient". So there is room for an additional word. ;)
The discussion is older, so I stand by the wording. The post is dated earlier as well... a mystery. Perhaps this is some artefact of the ever-fickle HN voting process.
If you build it on ribs2 (with garbage collection) it wouldn't be too hard.
You could make a small game with SDL, perhaps?
Arjen Lenstra was my professor for a year. When he we was asked about quantum computers he replied something to the effect of:

"Back in the 90s, I asked leading quantum computing researchers when quantum computers would become available, and I was told 'in 10 years' time'. I asked them again 10 years later, in the 2000s, and was met with the same reply. And I've asked again just recently, and I was told, once again: 'in 10 years'. Now, I'm a computer scientist, so I my prediction of the future can only be that what has repeated itself will continue to do so. According to this logic, quantum computers will never be available."

(I'm quoting very loosely, because this was just an off-topic remark during a lecture I attended a year ago, so I don't remember the exact phrasing. But I do believe that this was the gist of it).

I'm genuinely afraid that quantum computing will just remain a purely theoretical field, and that we won't see any practical applications to it. To me, that does not make it worth pursuing. I'd love to be wrong, though, because it sounds super interesting.
Fusion is easy. Lots of fusion (but not quite city leveling kind) is hard.

As far as I can tell most of the difficulty arises in the plasma physics part instead of the actual fusion bit (the latter being fairly well understood now for quite a long time now).
That's where 90% of the work has to go get fusion power and also the reason the early estimates for when fusion power would be available were so optimistic.
It wasn't clear back then how difficult and unforgiving plasmas can be (and making the plasma extremely hot, applying strong magnetic fields and running high currents through it doesn't make it easier to work with - quite the opposite).
To regain some trust from readers:

- Stop the clickbait (you won't believe, will shock you, etc..)

- Stop ads camouflaged as articles (no, a tiny 10% gray label is not enough..)

- Stop the fear mongering.

Thank you in advance.
You are too kind :) My day job is DevOps/infrastructure, but I'd love to move into the renewables space. Its our generation's moon shot.

If you're at SolarCity, Tesla, or any other company that is working on engineering dispatchable supply or demand from distributed resources, get in touch please!
1. Protocol level filesystems featured by a company (single point of failure)
2. Uses existing services in ways those other companies may not like. (Serf in someone else's walled garden)
3. Closed-source, with maybe promises of open sourcing later
4. Hard to search, given the name is -e from a real word
5. Relies on extensive network bandwidth, especially in cases upload is scarce

To think of a few.... As converse, I'm looking at IPFS. It works great, now.
>Successful auth is the issuing bank telling the merchant - 'yes, the customer has the funds and the money is yours for the taking via the capture request against this auth.' Which is a GUARANTEE. Yes, as a means of customer protection it expires if the merchant did not request the capture within a certain timeframe which is at least 2 weeks, 4 weeks in most cases.

That's a pretty shitty guarantee when the bank can deny settlement anyways, and FWIW mine seem to expire in 5 days.

>6 conf is a rule of thumb bitpay (and other bitcoin payment processors that I'm aware of) are following before GUARANTEEING the funds to the merchant. sure, if this is a P2P transaction and I was personally selling you $10 worth of merchandise I'd be ok with 1 conf, when talking 'industrial' scale payment acceptance things work just a little bit different.

Unless you're talking about transactions worth tens of thousands of dollars it's simply not worth it for an attacker to even attempt such an attack (not that it'd be very likely work anyway).

And last I checked bitpay is just fine with 1 conf transactions and will happily tank the risk for you. I'd assume the risk is quite small since I haven't ever heard of such an attack actually happening.

>And finally since you're claiming high tx fees are 'a far stronger guarantee of settlement than a cc authorization as it's way harder for the customer to reliably cheat you' - how would you cheat the merchant after the auth (let alone auth/capture) went through?

I could just claim that the transaction was fraudulent. I could contact my bank and forward them a fake email from you claiming that the auth was an accident (done this before, although not with a fake email).

Oh, and most shockingly... I could just use a stolen card!
See also: https://bazil.org/, https://git-annex.branchable.com/
I don't doubt that OCaml is faster — but how do you know this to be true? Are there benchmarks comparing equivalent programs in Go and OCaml?

In this particular case, the discussion is about a program that imports around 500 package dependencies and is compiling everything (as I understand it) from scratch, resulting in a binary that is around 90MB.
It's actually a substantial re-write. They got rid of multiple hierarchies, in other words a process can now belong to only one cgroup. Threads cannot belong to cgroups different from their parent anymore.

v1 was okay given that slicing the system into partitions was rarely needed outside of VPS service provider use cases. Then container goldrush happened and user applications started using cgroups in earnest exposing some design shortcomings, or rather excessive flexibility.
Along the same lines: an emulator for an old computer or games console.
IPFS serves a totally different purpose and can't be used in any reasonable way to achive what Infinit seems to be doing.
Since we're throwing out books, "The Absolute Beginner's Guide to C" (by Perry) has helped a number of people who felt completely overwhelmed by programming in general...
No, it's not only for mixed-signal IPs (unfortunately). It's also for soft IPs, in Verilog. When you start from Verilog you still have to do the back-end work, to meet timing constraints. Only "hard macros" IPs requires no back-end work, as the work has already been done by the IP provider for a very specific process. If you have a soft IP (Verilog) on the other hand, which are portable across nodes, the back-end work is for the SoC vendor to do. And yes, the IP design can make this more or less easy, but there's still work to do, and this back-end work gets heavier and heavier with more advanced nodes.
Interesting, but I don't see that option in the Humble Store.
I would like to say that 1) I think TL;DR summaries are a good thing (especially the detailed and accurate ones this user has posted). And 2) it would be an excellent way to promote an apply HN that does exactly that.

I think you just banned someone who is a positive contributor to HN.
It's not that unusual for democracies to allow resident non-citizens to vote. The UK's franchise is broad:

-- For European Parliament elections, you need to be UK resident on the day of the election and a citizen of any European country. I think that's pretty similar to the rules in the rest of the EU.

-- For local elections, you need to be resident on the day of the election and either an EU or Commonwealth citizen.

-- For national elections, you need to be either resident on the day and a Commonwealth or Irish citizen, or you need to be a British citizen who's been resident at some point in the previous fifteen years.

-- If you actually want to stand as an MP, you need to be a Commonwealth citizen and resident for the entire term.

-- And for ministers, including the Prime Minister, there's no citizenship or residency requirement at all: whoever wins the relevant election or appointment process gets the position. Which made the whole Obama Birther thing seem a bit weird.

Admittedly, the UK's history makes it a bit of a special case, but it at least demonstrates that it's possible.
Those academics at Bell labs, you mean the ones that published fundamental papers? I'm not sure that's an example of academics not writing papers.
I think if you reread my comment you'll find that what you're saying does not actually disagree and is a restating of what I said.
Works well from the limited experimentations I've made. Very well documented, nice, professional job overall.