skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
By your reasoning, everything is manually allocated. When we call (cons 1 2) in Lisp, that's a manually allocated cons. Most objects come into life due to some "manual" construction in the program!

> The thread must die by explicit programmatic action, which in turn will free its allocated block of stack memory.

Simply, no. A thread can recurse through some function activations and then hit an exit statement which terminates it without destroying those activations. Other threads can have pointers into that thread's stack, so the stack must not be reclaimed until they let go.

For instance, a tread allocates a reply box on the stack and calls some message passing API to send a message, whereby it registers the reply box. That API now has a pointer into the thread's stack. Suppose the thread dies before unregistering the reply box. If that can happen, the stack has to stick around. When the API tries to reply to the thread, and finds that the thread is dead, it can dequeue the reply box at that time; then the stack becomes unreachable. If the stack is reclaimed before then, then this messaging API will be traversing bad pointers through this registered message box.

> because other resources almost certainly have no necessary correlation with memory pressure

This is true and there is a way to regard finalization as decoupled from GC.

I have experience implementing an object system in which finalization is treated similarly to C++ destructors.

Objects can expect to have their finalizers explicitly invoked even when they are still live, long before they have become garbage.

One situation in which that happens is if an exception is thrown during the construction of an object.

I also have scoped reclamation construct with-objects which implements RAII. For instance:

(with-objects ((foo (new foo ...))
(bar (new bar ...))
...)

The finalizers of foo and bar are invoked when with-objects terminates. Additionally, if foo throws during its construction, its finalizer is called, and if bar throws during its construction, both are called.

Now if those finalizers are not invoked by the time those objects become garbage, then GC will invoke them. Basically a finalizer is invoked and then removed, so if called early, then GC doesn't call it any more.

Situations in which it's undesirable or infeasible to use with-objects are covered by the call-finalizers API: a one-argument function which takes an object, and calls and removes its finalizer, allowing for completely manual finalization.

Of course, this is basically a logical extension of how with-open-file works in Common Lisp, formalized into the object system, integrated with finalizers.

There is a tradeoff: timely reclamation versus the risk created by the possibility of premature reclamation. It's easy to make objects which can be safely used after their finalizer has been called; the risk isn't that of a dangling pointer that will blow up the show. Still, things can malfunction when objects "hollowed out" by finalization are relied upon to still be functional.
Justifications to real life are not really relevant because that isn't what regular people know. What "autopilot" means is what you see in the movies.

When a computerised voice in a sci fi movie says "Autopilot engaged" what does that usually mean?
I said nothing about narcissistic men. All I'm saying is that men and women work well together. I don't know why you made this comment in such a hateful spirit.
Allotting a specific energy cost per mile and then paying the courier the surplus would solve that.
That'd be an interesting take on Carrier-grade NAT. The approach I'm familiar gives phones a non-routable IPv4 address to get to the carrier's NAT gateway, but I can imagine shenanigans with some combination of 6to4, phone settings and/or DNS.

Anyone seen such a setup in the wild? I'm interested in the errors OP saw.. was it just niche non-HTTP(S) access which broke, or all websites without an AAAA record?
Take it from the man himself then: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104413015393571

I personally think there is a huge difference between the old economy and how the new players play the game...it’s really what gives the later a competitive edge in the first place, being more people focused instead of money. It just happens to be that when you do that as an outcome you end up building the most valuable companies in the world!
I'm not sure I totally understand your question. Just to be clear Tom Preston-Werner(mojombo) is not affiliated with GitLab. Our CTO Dmitriy 'DZ' Zaporozhets started GitLab and is spearheading critical parts, including the integration of the Gemnasium team. But more than any one individual it is more a collaboration between 1900 contributors http://contributors.gitlab.com/
Privatization of the space industry is going to lead to all sorts of efficiencies. I believe its also going to lead to some new areas of innovation that would never have been considered. For instance, this flight is putting 2 satellites in very LEO for internet service testing. Currently satellite internet service is at a much higher orbit which results in greater latencies.
Doesn’t Gemini have an advantage to gdax in the way funds transfers work? A friend was telling me about this but I have yet to try it, I’m still in a queue to be verified for Gemini.
Google Cloud IoT Core is now available
GM bought Cruise. How is that not taking a risk with technology?!
NY is a big state with a significant portion being rural. Likewise Cali is a huge state, and it’s not all SF and LA.
How Cells Pack Tangled DNA into Neat Chromosomes
You're absolutely right. Thanks for flagging it.

This is something that founders should pro-actively surface and address ahead of a financing whenever and wherever relevant.

This is something we're working on advising founders to do. We want to do what we can to make sure that employees - no matter how experienced or sophisticated - get treated fairly throughout the life of the company.

My bad for the wording which seems to suggest otherwise.

Edit: We updated the wording as well.
git blame-foreigners

When you feel like it's really not you who is the problem.
The problem may not have been your point (that we can't reason about strong AI), but the way you justified it.

Strong AI is not hard to reason about because it is science fiction. As edanm pointed out, it is entirely possible to reason about science fiction. The difference is that the examples edanm points out are extensions or modifications of things that do exist and that provides a basis from which we can reasonably extrapolate.

We can't reason about strong AI precisely because we don't have as good of an existing example from which we can extrapolate. The best we have is the human mind. The extrapolation from the human mind is precisely the basis for argument that "friendly strong AI" is the best/only response to to "malicious strong AI" since the thing that keeps malicious humans in check is "good" humans.

We don't even know if or to what degree 'super-intelligence' is possible. For all we know, there may be fundamental trade offs between the different skills necessary for general intelligence that may provide functional limits to the degree to which intelligence can be super human.
For more background an overview is available at https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketin...
OpenSSL Looking for hackers
Feel free to test it with this comment. I haven’t seen a case where I personally can. Can you downvote it?
That's not an accurate description of the case. Disney sells packages containing a physical disk and a single-user download code. Redbox is purchasing the packages, using the disks in its rental operation, and selling the download codes that it is not otherwise using.

They aren't selling anything that wasn't in the package they bought (unlike your hypothetical) and isn't selling additional copies of anything.

They are violating language on the packaging, in splitting the items, but the judge has found the limitations attempted to be imposed by that language to be illegal.

> If this verdict holds, I should be able to buy MP3s off iTunes and "rent" it to whom-so-ever I want!!

No, this decision turns entirely on the doctrine of first sale with regard to the physical product Disney is selling. While someone might argue that a first-sale principle should apply to digital products on similar terms with physical ones, that's not either the current law or the decision in this case.
I didn't document it, but the baby monitor we used just transmitted raw FM audio at ~900Mhz. You could listen to it with SDR# no problem. It wasn't one of those fancy video kinds though, just an old fashioned audio only monitor.

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-BabyCall-Receivers-Discontinued-...
>"banner adds since I switched to Android this year were interesting as I used to use my gmail account for FB. First, ..."

Where were these banner ads exactly? FB uses Google's ad network to target people who recently quit FB? Is that correct?
Full self-driving is a vaporware feature separate from the current Autopilot. It's confusing that they would advertise a feature that doesn't exist, but it's not like they're claiming Autopilot works that way. More importantly, the page where you configure your car explains the distinction very clearly (and charges extra for full self-driving, even though it doesn't exist!), so I doubt anyone has actually bought a Tesla thinking that Autopilot was full self-driving.
Anecdotally, having stayed at dozens of AirBnBs, a large percentage of listings are not people renting out their homes while briefly away. Many listings are from large-scale property owners who take several apartments off the rental market, put the least possible investment in them, and then list them on AirBnB, often using multiple host accounts to make it look like they aren't doing this, while living somewhere else.

Forget about drying racks. Many listings don't have a trash bin or toilet paper or soap or a knife suitable for chopping vegetables or a cutting board or pans that aren't half-rusted mangled garbage or blankets. Many listings are for private rooms but don't tell you that the "private" room is in a crumbling 10 bedroom house occupied entirely by other transient AirBnB guests and that there are no locks on any of the doors.
If I remember correctly the newest npm does the same though.
Where high-latency is a ping of somewhere between 364,000ms and 2,684,000ms depending on the date.
IPv6 is already here and has been for years. The vast majority of my org's Internet traffic is IPv6.

Some of you are just straggling.
Any examples of the special dishwashing brushes? I'm curious.
Yeah coal and cigarette industries said the same thing, with blinders on, when all claims of health related problems were poopoo'd. They said no one could have known or imagined or predicted, even though they were and they did but it was dismissed by the gatekeepers.

I see pretty much total shit knowledge of history, ethics, and philosophy in the tech industry. It intentionally has blinders on, zero imagination for anything other than the good intentions rails it's wants to believe it's on. Oh no one could have known, no one could have predicted, you had no evidence that these bad outcomes were possible. It'll be the same excuses we've seen before, because no one wanted to confront the possibility and how to mitigate complex interactions, they just want the ends because that alone justifies everything.

That of course will be convenient when claiming a lack of responsibility for the outcome, shifting the blame, because only good was intended. Now trust us.

And the reason why I increasingly don't trust tech, is because the language the industry uses is consistently dismissive of basic concepts in ethics, merely accepting assertions of "good intentions" as sufficient evidence of ethical behavior.
But you do not have to build the image while developing (in Python). Just map your project into the image using `-v`.
This reminds me of observations some have when looking at the I Ching.

The I Ching is elegant from a modern binary/math perspective because it appears to be an ancient hierarchy of 1-bit symbols (yin/yang), stacked into 3-bit symbols (triagram=element), and finally stacked into 6-bit symbols (hexagram). These are, apparently, descriptions of situations at hand or situations to come. The arrangements of these 64 hexagrams make a modern math mind speculate about binary counting and the reason for a particular ordering [1] and it all seems very orderly and balanced and evenly distributed. Or so you would think.

Then one learns that the traditional methods of division using those 64 hexagrams (e.g. the yarrow stalk method) is quite unevenly distributed. The dice are weighted, so to speak, to give some outcomes more often than others.[2]

Did the Chinese ancients know this and design it this way? Did they care? Was it a mistake? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[1] https://www.biroco.com/yijing/sequence.htm

[2] https://aleadeum.com/2013/07/12/the-i-ching-random-numbers-a...
Another logical fallacy! Piracy is doing so damn well because the cost and convenience of pirating digital goods is effectively zero. Not because "offering value" is going out of style!
https://github.com/AntonyGarand/git-self-blame

There you go, forked the project and replaced the "$name" with empty spaces.

You would need to rename the from "git-self-blame" to "git-no-blame" though, I can't do it with github at the moment
>They destroy them for brand protection. See this comment:

Comment has some sound reasoning why they feel that way.

Curious though, why do you post/take that commen on a forum that was copied from an unnamed forum as fact?
They've landed cores out of Vandenberg before (ie. polar orbits). These landings were all on ships, as I guess their landing pad is not complete or not approved.
How many companies just have promised equity sitting around without the paperwork being done?

This is just pure dishonesty. I know folks who have said things like this and I A.L.W.A.Y.S. say "Sure for now send me a text message or email until we can get to documents." Sure enough I have never gotten a text or email or anything in writing.

People/companies who are serious will take an action and tell you exactly when (in the next few days) this will be handled and how.
I try to tell companies this all of the time - keep your books/contracts in order and diligence is a breeze. If you're expecting a Series A, and you aren't a household name, the diligence process will slow your business down, so plan ahead at a pace that doesn't disrupt your business.
> The easier path is to just checkpoint in the client, so that the trust comes from the github repository that pushes the client

Are you not trusting the client you're running anyway? It seems like this is not a very big increase in trust.
If the errors were "from some, but not all, apps", my first guess would be that these particular apps either don't understand IPv6 addresses, or ask the DNS only for IPv4 addresses. Both causes would stop NAT64/DNS64 or similar from working. The other apps which kept working probably can use IPv6 just fine, even if their servers are IPv4-only. The "workaround for him" was probably adding him back to the CGNAT, so that the outdated apps could see and use an IPv4 address.

That kind of workaround won't be there forever; if they're starting to move phones to IPv6-only (with NAT64/DNS64 or similar), they are probably planning to turn off the CGNAT sooner or later.
It seems to me that some of the ancients had a better appreciation for chance than we do, especially in public affairs. Many of the speeches in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War caution that though a warring party may be strong, luck is a huge part of war. We hardly have George Bush saying "we are pretty strong, but Iraq could go either way depending on luck." Our politicians speak with such certainty about the future.
Perhaps, but this isn't a case of a technology that supersedes another in a meaningful way. Sure, plugging the phone in or placing it on a Qi charger is a hassle, but it is a working solution.

This isn't quite like the alleged cancer risk of cell phones: there's really no other technology that competes with cell phones at this point, so it is a bit easier to take on the risk.
I suggest making a git blame-nemesis for this purpose
What It’s Like at the Headquarters of the Teens Working to Stop Mass Shootings
One huge difference is that information to a large degree would stay within these communities. Gossip was inherently limited by the bandwidth of the jungle telegraph.
What's scary now, however, is anyone can publish any information about you, tag it to your face, and now everyone walking past you could theoretically face-search you to see any gossip about you.
Before you could travel someplace else, should you do something that required it. Now you can't go anywhere.
Very true. Verizon has been 6 only for ages, but they use NAT64 so most non-nerds never noticed.

I believe that at the time of the rollout they were the largest IP6 network on the planet. They may still be.

It works because smartphone users don't have the same needs as home and business users. There aren't a ton of smartphone users demanding reachable IPv4 addresses in the first place, and the ones who might want them are probably smart enough to figure out how to use IPv6 instead.
I'm not disputing whether there is an ill-conditioning present here; I am saying that it is not the system that is ill-conditioned or otherwise somehow particularly pathological, and that this is obviously not due to a modeling error. Please consider re-reading my comments since my point is something other than what you are disputing -- you seem to be disputing a point that I was never making.
Speaking of custom built electric delivery vehicles...

I've been thinking of something purpose built to carry only small cargo and no passengers, i.e. 8 cu ft and 100lb total cargo capacity, with a limited range designed to make delivery runs and then return and charge (or maybe just swap power packs).

Nuro [1] is working on something in this vein. I think their vehicle is much too big personally, I would start with something that could carry maybe 30 lbs and 2 cu ft of cargo and scale up from there. While the walking-speed Starship [2] seems like it went too far in the other direction. But it seems like there is space for a cargo-only vehicle that could be extremely useful in the city, particularly if it's an on-demand model where businesses can hail them with an API call.

The question is whether a robot like this--which doesn't carry people but still has to operate on the roadways--does it make the AI problem materially easier to solve?

And in the spirit of fake-it-till-you-make-it, why not launch the service today by paying "operators" to remote control the vehicle over 4G links with just enough software to do collision avoidance and safely pull over if the operator disconnects?

[1] - https://nuro.ai/
[2] - https://www.starship.xyz/
I know, it was tongue in cheek

Let's tax these parasites, get them out of residential areas.

What is Airbnb providing? Their premium "service" is their previously claimed bare-minimum if you exclude the slumlord part.

Tech innovation? Pah.
I did this kind of in my spare time, but I'd be happy to write up something quick later tonight or this weekend.

Most important bit is a SOIC8 Pomona 5250 clip and some wires to connect it up properly. I ended up soldering some right-angle headers onto my CHIP so I can do other things besides SPI programming with it.
> You'd better have an even smarter friendly AI on your side, or you're almost certainly boned.

Are you sure? Was the world better off with both the US and Russia having nukes? Perhaps, or perhaps we got incredibly lucky that we didn't destroy ourselves. It is quite possible that a world where we have a single malicious AI is better than a world where a malicious AI and a friendly AI are locked in a battle to the death.
You complain about the problem but then add to it yourself. Post honest reviews. Host can't see it until they already wrote your review. There's also star ratings. I write honest reviews and also have "profile that shows me as an exceptional guest".
> This response annoys me, because it's essentially victim-blaming.

I really really dislike this comparison, and it frankly feels intellectually dishonest to see it come up.

Victim-blaming, as it's used in usual discourse, implies that there was a malicious actor that intentionally did something bad to someone else, and that you're telling the victim that they could have avoided malicious actors by modifying their behavior in unreasonable ways that reduce their freedom of movement/expression/etc.

This issue is a result of human error, something you cannot hope to globally eliminate. It's always easy to point fingers as someone who's screwed up, but we all make mistakes. All of us, without exception. That doesn't absolve the npm developers of their responsibility in this, but it is prudent, as a user of the software, to put process in place to ensure that the damage to your systems is limited (or if possible, eliminated) in the face of these kinds of human error.

Running npm on a production server is foolish. Running npm as root on a production server is... worse.

> Do we also ban system package managers, and say the only way to deploy anything is via some sort of imaging tool?

Why not? If your risk tolerance is that low, and you've identified the package manager as a large enough risk to your business, then yes, you do this.

> What if there's an equivalent screw-up in that orchestration tool and it bricks all 100 servers at once?

Again, if your risk profile thinks this is a problem, then you don't do in-place upgrades. You boot new servers with the new software version and swap them in, with the ability to back them out if there's a problem.

It's all a cost/benefit trade off. If the cost of what you believe is a likely failure in any of these elements is higher than the cost of building tooling and process to mitigate the risk of it affecting you, then you do it.

Certainly people have varying levels of maturity in their development and deployment pipeline. That doesn't mean that there isn't always room for improvement. At the end of the day, it's about outcomes: someone in that GH thread lost 3 production boxes due to this issue. They didn't have to if they practiced better hygiene, and I bet because of this, they're going to change their process. And that's great! Sure, blowing away a build box, staging server, or a developer's laptop sucks as well, and requires time and effort to fix, but at least in those cases no customers would be affected.

If you as the "victim" are just going to be a cowboy, then you should expect things like this to happen from time to time. If you want to reduce the risk and incidence of it happening, you change your process so you don't do risky things on production servers. Suggesting that people improve their deployment process isn't "victim blaming"; it's pushing people toward better engineering practices.
You have to be strategic if your country doesn't care, but the first step is to create the intellectual edifice activists in the future will lean against. Also even as someone not in your country, I would still enjoy reading any writing on this.
SpaceX Launches Trio of Satellites from Vandenberg Air Force Base
That's half a teaspoon a day. I cook every single day, so I'm very well aware of how little that is. Id rather die a bit earlier then limit my added salt to half a teaspoon.

Just don't eat processed food. Also restaurant food uses a ton of salt so tread carefully.
Looks a lot like something I worked on at Michigan, years back - https://lojeda.engin.umich.edu/pps/

Cool stuff!