skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If a large amount of white collar workers are jobless, your SPY calls would also become worthless.

It's a good idea to invest in index funds, but investing in index funds expecting a economic apocalypse is not good reasoning.
Agreed. And I'd like to expand on the term "reverse 100% of cases."

Other than gestational diabetes, there is no cure for type II diabetes: once your insulin response is broken, it stays broken.

In the medical literature, when they use terms such as "improved", they often mean that "the subject no longer needs to take medication to control their type II diabetes." But it's understood that the subject must maintain a very strict diet regimen.
Hey Ben! This is so neat! I worked with Dr. Hansen on the audio digitization over on http://exploreapollo.org. Thanks for the link in the footer! I’ve been out of the loop on that project since graduating. Regardless, if you want to collaborate shoot me an email austin@austinpray.com
I assume OP is in grad school. I took a few grad classes during my undergrad and the difference was night and day (teaching and cohort). So maybe your school was fine and you were just in the wrong classes. :)
I'm curious if lowering memory clock speed, timings and/or raising voltage would effectively render these kinds of attack invalid.
Does it need to be active? Have there been significant advancements in the realm of RAM testing?
Most of the extensions are for what are currently pre-production or fringe features, and the WG showed they're not afraid of pulling important (and even not so important) extensions into minor version releases much faster than OpenGL has put things in core with Vulkan 1.1 (I was glad but honestly surprised that the cross-process resource sharing made the cut).

You're definitely right about significant parts of the toolchain being weaker. In particular sorting out how glslang -> Vulkan works in practice is pretty trial-and-error, and if you want to use HLSL it's even more poorly documented. You have to expect to be going through the Vulkan spec (which I will say is much easier than directly using the OpenGL spec). However the Vulkan validation layers are incredible, and leave the equivalents for Metal, DirectX, and especially OpenGL in the dust.
>seemed sincerely convinced that Vulkan was a mess compared to Metal

Oh god I hope not. I come from the API mess that was OpenGL over 3 major versions, and I was hoping all the lessons learned from that were applied to Vulkan.
> POV-Ray

Is not realtime. You could find an article on raytracing and code something in a weekend. Granted, POV-Ray is vastly more complex than a toy raytracer, but it is not realtime. It takes minutes to hours to render a single frame.

"Computers have been around for years, punch-card mainframes have been great at universities for decades even."

NVidia are, currently, the only vendor who have dedicated silicon for it (AMD have demonstrated DXRT working with existing silicon).

They do a actually have a secret sauce.
A glimpse into the future of AI enterprise applications
Pretty much all of the major game studios already have Vulkan implementations for their engines because of Stadia, Google's game streaming platform. Obviously we've yet to see how much staying power that will have.
IIRC you also end up relying on a graal-provided version of python that may or may not be kept up-to-date by a project for which it's just a secondary target. Been there with IronPython and Jython, it's no fun.
Mapmakers had a similar problem in the past, but the theft could be proven by creating data (“trap streets”) that didn’t exist. Sounds like Genius has been employing similar mechanisms and needs to proceed with legal remedies

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street
Learn about My Journey of Social Media Specialist and Influencer Marketing
I have a few Clojure books, but not knowing Java and the JVM very well and then having to learn Emacs/Cider and all the other tools really kind of killed it for me. In short, some of the Clojure REPL advantages are better than Python, but not by enough to justify learning the ecosystem.

I might try again later. I have "Clojure for the Brave and True", Carin Meiyer's book, and one of Fogus' books.

I really want to learn Clojure, but just need to sit down and put the time in. It's also discouraging to see people comment about some of these languages (Clojure and F#) as being on life support.
Do Not Touch (2013)
At a previous company, we had a project so large that you could only run portions of it locally. For everything else, we had ansible scripts to create and deploy to an AWS instance. Then, you could use SSH port forwarding to have those pieces available to your machine, as well as JMX ports for debugging those other parts, if need be.
The hardware vulnerabilities of recent years make me believe that we live in most cyber vulnerable era when any information that is in digital format should be considered as not secured.
Sincerely: Thanks for your detailed reply, I'm more knowledgeable now :)
Why do you want to get better?

At some point, exercise has diminishing short and long term benefits and becomes actively harmful.

This isn’t true for everyone, but I stopped running years ago because I could see it would have long term detrimental effects on me. I still exercise, but I think I have a good understanding of where I want to be and just to maintain at that level.
In spite of all its amazing aspects, one obvious drawback of the open source movement is that it devalues a lot of stuff that you could once build a business around and support a lot of people making a living. Category after category of software businesses have declined in the face of great free alternatives - OS's, languages and compilers, server software, databases.

Tears for Larry Ellison aside, I do feel social systems / economies work best when there's a mutual exchange of value, a win-win rather than a win-lose, and the classic simple payment in exchange for software has a certain fairness and sanity to it. E.g. the iOS app store was a lot nicer and high quality before ad-supported / in-app purchases became the norm. Anyway something like ESR proposes here seems promising.

I'm not an open source maintainer myself (except for my magnum opus https://github.com/QuadrupleA/private-secure-sharing-buttons) but seems like a lot of important-project maintainers find themselves in a demanding position with little reward besides ego-stroking or future promise of job opportunities to make money elsewhere.
We might want to agree on what we mean with "OOP", since it's such an abstract term we might be talking about different things.

> Note that a function is different from a method contextually speaking.

I disagree. A method is just a function with an implicit self/this parameter. I see methods as just namespaced functions with syntactic sugar to call them with dot notation from instances.

In Rust this is particularly prominent, since they support UFCS:

whatever_instance.method(arg1, arg2)

...and...

Whatever::method(whatever_instance, arg1, arg2)

...do the exact same thing. Other languages are more limited in their syntax, but I don't think it's inherent to OOP.

I think I see what you mean with "contextually speaking" but I can't really see the difference neither in theory nor in practice.

> Can you please clarify?

I'll try :P Maybe with an example.

In TypeScript we can define types as "interfaces" (do not confuse with what Java calls "interface").

interface Named {
name: String
}

Then you can make a function that takes Named things:

function sayHello(named: Named) {
alert(`Hello! My name is ${named.name}.`)
}

My point is all functions are tied to the data they work with, whether explicitly or implicitly (via runtime errors).

This is what I mean with "has" or "can do". I couldn't care less whether that Named was instantiated as a Dog or a Person class, as long as it has a name. (Just to clarify, I don't think TS's interfaces are particularly good either, since they're tied to the actual object shape, what if my object has a field "fullName" instead?)

I agree with you if we only consider traditional OOP class-based abstraction. Modern forms of OOP on the other hand are a blessing for me.

- Classes should be limited to creating particular object instances that group together a bunch of interfaces.

- Class methods should only be used to manipulate that particular instance, with its particular idiosyncrasies, never as a means of abstraction. Only the class itself should know about its methods.

- Classes expose functionality via interfaces (that internally use the class methods).

- Therefore no function should declare an argument by class ("is"), only by interface(s)/trait(s)/whatever(s) ("has"/"can do").

Why use classes then? Mostly for the namespacing and the syntax sugar. The name "class" is probably not very fitting but it's probably hard to get rid of.

So, in essence: I think we agree on the problem but disagree on the culprit. It's not OOP. It's C++/Java/C#/etc.

> Either way, any function that takes void input and with any return type is an example of a function that does not depend on data, but that wasn't my point.

I was sure you were going to say this :P We can agree it's hard to write an useful program with constant pure functions.

Just for fun: I'd argue it still depends on the data it operates on... in this case, the empty set!
If you use lens as just a way to access records like you do in other languages, then there is absolutely nothing hard about it. Literally all you need to know is:

Name your records like "data Prefix = Prefix { prefixFieldName :: ... }" call "makeFields ''Prefix" once at the bottom of your file and use "obj ^. fieldName" to access and "obj & fieldName .~ value" to set.

That's it. You now have 100% of the capabilities of record update in any other language. This doesn't get any simpler in any other language. It even pretty much looks like what you would do in other languages.

I'll grant you, Haskell and lens do a terrible job of explaining subsets of functionality that are simple and let you get the job done before jumping in the deep end.
Yes, this will be very interesting. Also, since GraalVM is pretty modular. Will someone provide a free/open source version with loop vectorisation and other goodies.
> It's entirely possible that the very smart people who think about aviation engineering all day are supremely convinced that some of the digital tests can absolutely replace physical tests that were in place for decades. I'm not even remotely qualified enough to offer an opinion on that, so I won't.

This is really the foundation of the problem. Members of Congress are not aeronautical engineers, so they're in the same boat as you. Aeronautical engineers work for aircraft makers, so they have a conflict of interest.

Then, because they don't really know what they're doing, they tend to require things that reduce safety, either by requiring measures that aren't cost effective and thereby blow your entire budget including the money that could have been spent on other safety measures with better cost/benefit, or are overly rigid in requiring the specific solution to a problem which was the state of the art three decades ago when the rule was enacted even though safer alternatives are known today.

So why doesn't the government higher some regulators with some relevant industry experience? Well, they tried that, and then we got all of this revolving door nonsense where, to use an example closer to home here, former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai is now running the FCC as a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications.

Then we get proposals to prevent regulators from going back to industry when they finish, to try to prevent that. But the government already has trouble attracting talent when they're paying substantially less than private industry does, and the jobs tend to only last for one administration until the next one comes in and replaces them with their own people, so how are they ever going to get anyone good to do a job that will a) pay less than they're making already and b) by law end their private career even though their tenure in government is likely to be less than a decade?

It's possible that we're better off not specifying how to make airplanes safe but instead imposing significant liability on companies and individual engineers who make ones that aren't. (This works in industries where the smallest company has a multi-billion dollar market cap. It's obviously less of a deterrent when the manufacturer has no exposure to the jurisdiction of your courts or is small enough to file bankruptcy every time there is a problem, but then we're no longer talking about Boeing and Airbus.)
Or ideally just don't buy a cat at all, since they carry toxoplasmosis and their scratches are linked to depression(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700762/). Every time a cat owner commits suicide I can't help but wonder if that could have been easily prevented.
Related to their previous battles with Google ("We're sorry for being such morons")

https://genius.com/Genius-founders-rap-genius-is-back-on-goo...
>The company doesn’t disclose revenues but says its ad business runs to tens of millions of dollars per year.

I am extremely skeptical of this claim.
> For example, the anniversary of the Tiananmen square incident made it to the front page of HN, but I have never seen anything on HN when it's the anniversary of the Nanjing massacre. These two are comparable because the Japanese leaders are still visiting the Yasukuni Shrine.

On the other hand, Japan and its leaders have made lots of war apology statements, or at least statements of remorse [1], including on the Nanking Massacre. One could argue that some Japanese leaders are still visiting the Yasukuni Shrine because they think both the South East Asians (including Chinese) and the Japanese soldiers were victims to the Japanese wartime Militarism craze, which they are avoiding: note that they visit the Yasukuni Shrine not to promote Militarism or expansion, but for remembrance. And their actions elsewhere speak the same.

Chinese leaders have not made comparable statements (on the Tiananmen square crackdown), or acted in similar way (towards universal values of independent jurisdiction or respecting the constitution, etc).

If you wish the anniversary of the Nanking massacre on the front page of HN, make the leaders of China make comparable statements regarding the Tiananmen square crackdown--this will show that they share the same value as the HN crowd.

Note also that ethnic/national difference (we Chinese vs them Japanese or them United States) is not the same as value difference (we believe in rule by law vs they believe in rule of law). The HN focuses on the latter.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements...

> Listing several individuals arrested for their political actions doesn't justify this baseless conjecture about the future of HK.

Some Hong Kong people are abducted into China for publishing books that some members of CCP do not like [2], and lost their freedom. Political actions or not, such freedom of speech is protected by Hong Kong's Basic Law, while the abduction is lawless (unless you say the party is the law, and they are above the constitution in China etc).

Chinese officials repeatedly stated that they do not respect an independent jurisdiction.

This is not a baseless conjecture, and is not due to lack of trust in CCP, because they admitted it themselves and acted in the same way.

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...

> Besides, based on the actions of the US after WWII, we have every reason to believe that the US doesn't want other parts of the world to stay in peace, or at least, does not have the ability to resolve the problem it created.

Japan and US coexist peacefully.
I'm glad you have at the very least seen live is good outside of Big-N.
I asked the same question and dfrage gave a great answer:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20195743
A pet called com1 may experience burocratic issues.

/s
If you already know all that stuff, why are you saying that flyer is wrong? It's all true. I assumed you didn't know about it because you said it was lies.

I don't think it's literally as extreme as the book 1984, but yeah China has a lot of problems. A non-independent judicial system will never be as just as an independent one.

You've been shown to be wrong so many times in this thread and then your response is always to expand the scope of the discussion and put words in my mouth. I think it's really dishonest.

By the way I live in China, have a Chinese wife, and Chinese friends. My Chinese is far from fluent but I'm working on it. I never claimed to be an authority on China, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I don't have a simplistic view and I don't think China is totally evil. You're just using that to dismiss everything I say, even though you're the one who's been repeatedly factually wrong in this discussion. I am open-minded to your viewpoint, but you simply aren't very convincing when you argue like this.

No kidding, a cab driver can discuss his problems with the government in his own cab? Sometimes a gently disagreeing post on Weibo briefly trends and gets discussion before it's removed? Amazing.

Chinese media tells partial truths and takes things out of context constantly. The Western media are not some evil masterminds that CCTV can never match.

With that, I'm really finished here. Good luck to you.
link is wrong. corrected: http://archive.is/XpT7v
It's sort of out of scope so let's not dwell on his slow descent into predictably cantankerous obscurity. You can descend into his blogs, sword and torch in hand, ready to do ideological combat with the horrors from beyond the stars that lurk there on your own time.

The key idea: that he is an ILBP (or has been in 10 years) is absurd. He is not, and he claims he's not hurting for money.
That's kinda my point.

Interfaces should be the main abstraction.

I don't think multiple inheritance (or inheritance at all) is particularly useful. Composition over inheritance. Interfaces over inheritance.

I don't care what something "is" and I don't think ontologies (classes, inheritance) are particularly useful as a means of abstraction.
Well, testing for rowhammer would be one thing that comes to mind ;-)

Also the change log explicitly mentioned support for individual CPU generations (and the last release was 2013) though I don't know how relevant that is or whether it's just cosmetics. Also phrases like "better timings detection" makes you wonder whether updates for newer types of memory are required.
Their most important platform uses in-house GPUs these days.
Your eyes and your hands fall at different heights in an ergonomic position, whether sitting or standing. When using a laptop, the keyboard and display are always at (approximately) the same height. This results in poor posture in the neck and shoulders.
>I'm a mechanical engineer. My point is that stress analysis is the oldest, simplest, and most well understood application of finite element analysis.

And we still get it wrong at times; especially with interactions between disparate parts. See the fatigue problems caused as a result of interactions between the engines and fuselage of the C-133 Cargomaster, or how the F/A-18 had a habit of destroying it's vertical stabilizer due to generated turbulence unaccounted for in the original design. All the FEA in the world gives you a good estimate when you abstract away the details. It doesn't give you the 'real story'.

> I can't even begin to imagine the multiphysics that goes into simulating a nuclear weapon, but if we are willing to bet our entire nuclear deterrent on it, it seems reasonable to skip some additional rounds of physical tests that are mostly a formality at this point.

This is a false equivalence. Nuclear weapons testing has been strictly limited by international accord. You cannot physically test these weapons anymore without "waking up the neighbors" and leading to exceedingly difficult to defuse international scrutiny. That's why the copious levels of "in theory" with regard to nuclear weapons is a reasonable route to take. There is literally no other way to advance the state of the Art. Planes thankfully, don't have that issue. Also, while nuclear weapons testing wasn't restricted, test destinations were done with some degree of regularity; so again, the nuclear weapon point fails.

>Also, defective materials are caught much earlier in the manufacturing process through quality assurance methods, before they become airplanes. And then you apply a factor of safety on your calculations for added assurance.

Just like those leading edge slats for 737 NG, MAX 8 right? You know, the ones that lead to a grounding of aircraft that had already been carrying passengers recently? And who is doing that quality assurance? That bunch of "Quality" people Boeing laid off/relocated elsewhere a few months ago?

Not a credentialed engineer, but know more than enough to LARP as one in certain fields. Testing, aviation/aerodynamics, mechanics of materials, and software being some of them.

You simply cannot know what you're dealing with until you actually test it, and it's generally right after you stop doing that one test that just tells you exactly what you think it should that you get that design with a problem that would have manifested if you just did it.

The only people who should be interested in decreasing testing is the sales, accounting, and business departments. As Engineers, we've had upward of 100 years of design driven 'oopsie' to grind into us the fact we are, in fact, not as clever at accounting for the real world as we think we are.

The fact that as a credentialed mechanical engineer, you don't see it this way is concerning. Though again, I've not had my scrutinous edges rounded off by regular business constrained application either. So there is that.
Why does that mean they shouldn't make it an open standard?
That's quite a strong and completely unfounded accusation.
I think the supposition that pjmlp is knowing mischaracterizing Vulkan is both likely to be false and excessively uncharitable (and I say that as a big fan of Vulkan).

I think it's just a matter of not having had much experience with it. It is natural to look at the shape of the API and have PTSD about wrestling with OpenGL for the past few decades.
FWIW https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1140269676989231106
But none of these are within the implicit scope of "Internet Load Bearing Software" though, are they? We're aware of his prior involvement with ILBS, but he hasn't been sharp in that game for a long time now.
It is done in this way on almost any platform that is classified as mainframe. Originally one would IPL such platforms by manually toggling in either some simple code that would somehow DMA the OS bootloader from some external device. This was not exactly user friendly and replacing the front panel blinken lights with some sort of interactive monitor/debugger running on separate smaller CPU was common approach (for example many PDP-10s have PDP-11 in them used as "console processor").

For more recent systems (IBM mainframes, Sun/SGI large machines, etc.) the controller also handles things like power sequencing, hardware configuration (e.g. physical partitioning of interconnect buses, resource allocation...) and mainly also enforces the hardware licensing policies.