skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Another possibility: it's only moderately hard to do, but government space agencies are massively inefficient. Some reasons to prefer this theory include:

- NASA got to the moon in a decade with slide rules and wire-wrapped guidance computers. It'd be surprising if we couldn't much do better now.

- While large amounts of bloat is tolerable in many public works projects (you can build a dam with twice as much concrete and it only costs double) a rocket can barely afford any bloat. The Space Shuttle pushed the limits of feature creep and bloat so much they could only launch about 4 per year.

- When public projects go down a wrong road, they're structurally unable to backtrack. The Shuttle, the F-135, the Denver airport baggage system, the War on Drugs. If these were projects run by a private company with a CEO, they would've been shut down and re-thunk long ago.

- If SpaceX is right about welded stainless steel being the right tank material (a very surprising claim) it's an example of backtracking that a public project could never manage.

About steel construction: Visually, the Starship looks like a pile of junk. Like someone's Burning Man installation. I think that's inherent in the steel panel construction. You can imagine that, if NASA has started building something like that in the 1970s, the public would complain that it doesn't look spaceworthy. Private companies have the luxury of doing something that looks silly until it works, while public projects don't.
I’ve been wanting to play/build this exact game for years!

Congrats on launching. After four years that’sa huge accomplishment.
> "Stallman.org was defaced by an FSF employee,” I have just been told, “the deface has been reverted, and the domain appears to now be operating on non-FSF infrastructure…”

Huh
380s for ISP for the Raptor vacuum engine seems durn good, considering the tradeoffs between hydrogen and methane.

The most efficient engines we've flown, the RL-10 [0] (used on the Delta IV and Atlas rockets as part of the Centaur Upper Stage) and the RS-25 [1], (the Space Shuttle Main Engine) get around 450-460s for their specific impulse. These engines use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The issue with liquid hydrogen is twofold: it is not very dense, and to keep it from boiling away in liquid form, it needs to be really cold. So you need huge, insulated tanks to store it. Hydrogen is everywhere, but it's kind of a pain to use as rocket fuel.

Merlin Vacuum [2], which is currently used on the Falcon vehicles gets 311s. The RD-0110 [3], used on the Soyuz gets 326s. These use RP-1, which is highly refined kerosene. It's super easy to work with. On earth. Where we have 200 years of infrastructure in place to support using hydrocarbons. It takes that infrastructure to refine it into a form that rocket engines can use without gunking up the works with unburnt carbon and other particulate crap.

Raptor uses methane, which is kind of like a jack of all trades between density, efficiency, ease of processing, storage, and ease of use in engines. This is basically how SpaceX seems to operate: rather than optimizing a single part of the system (like trying to get the most efficient engine), they try to optimize from a systems level. I don't really know much more than that, because there hasn't really been a lot of stuff for civilians to read on methane engines. This is kind of the cutting edge of the second golden age of space exploration. This freaking rules, what a time to be alive.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0110
I don't agree. I think the lift from the nacelles results in decreasing stick backpressure while the nose is being raised in some circumstances, which is both a handling issue and an airworthiness violation. It's an airworthiness violation because it exacerbates rather than discourages stalls. If the pilot continues pulling back on the stick with reduced backpressure the plane would stall, therefore MCAS is (indirectly) an anti-stall device.

It's hard to know what the real issue is, because Boeing isn't forthcoming about it. But your claim that the airframe is fundamentally aerodynamically unstable ("needed for hands-off stability") is a very extreme claim that I don't think is supported.
constexpr functions are not inlined in debug builds. They can't be: the whole point of debug builds is that you can attach a debugger and step through the code.

Illustration, compare the assembly for "foo1" and "foo2": https://godbolt.org/z/t9Zkx-
I don't think it's US-specific, as I have seen it work the "US" way abundantly when traveling.

But having it not work this way is very unusual in the states, while common to not exactly rare in some other places.
That should move the average cost in the US's favour - they use so much more electric in a typical home than we do. US solar installs are bigger than our average install of 3-4kW. Probably double if I had to guess.

Don't all UK installs over 6kW get counted as commercial still?
In other fields, writing survey articles is (or was, recently) an appreciated activity.

Survey articles are explicitly supposed to bring people up on the important results and current state of a subject.
You also have to do a PhD, and make sure you get a good adviser/good department, and get lucky enough for nothing bad to happen to your adviser and department, and be very careful with how you spend your time (if you spend a lot of time on something that doesn't end up being fruitful, that's opportunity cost that other top researchers might have turned into a breakout publication and now you are behind). And you make like $30k/year while in grad school and might experience some pretty bad mental health due to stress.

Of course, the average/above-average case isn't terrible. I think non-famous AI researchers are still getting hired into $400-500k/year at FAANG at "senior" level, it's just that you would be making roughly the same amount of money if you just went directly into software engineering at a FAANG out of undergrad and did above-average at promotions.

To me, that makes it not really make sense to go into AI research (especially now, when it's a hot topic and you have a 3-5 year wait to get your PhD) unless it's something you are genuinely interested in. For purely career reasons, it doesn't seem much better than just going right into software engineering.
Shouldn't there be a warning label in the Grapefruit section of supermarkets?
It's not a certification program. It's just reporting system.

And yes, it is what I meant. For software like wine, if something works in version X, you can expect it will work in X+1. Sure, there will always be some regression from time to time, but wine's whole existence is based on the idea that they support Window's APIs. These are not random features they'll decide to remove from time to time.
Elon Musk upbeat on Starship test flights
There's no way Jobs could have done Bill Atkinson's job well to do QuickDraw, so I don't know what you mean by "well enough to do it themselves."

"A completely passive entity" sounds exactly like the example of the Queen's Governor General ratifying everything.
At first glance it seems to be similar to boost::safe_numerics. Are there significant differences?

https://github.com/boostorg/safe_numerics
I think worries about reflection are overthinking the problem for the most part.

This has carried me for 99% of all use cases along with a try/catch that barfs and an array specialization that makes a vector:

template<typename T> T get(const char* key) { return boost::lexical_cast<T>( json.GetObject(key) ); }

The reality is that if I see some value of a type I wasn't expecting, something probably went wrong or changed in the protocol anyways.
> make a 10x10 variant playable online

I'm not saying I'm definitely going to do this, but is there a rulebook somewhere for 10x10 chess? (What are the initial piece positions, and how would castling work?)
A Couple of (Probabilistic) Worst-Case Bounds for Robin Hood Linear Probing
I think TOML is better, maybe with some modifications. I dislike that it has a person's name in it though; maybe we retcon it to Text Object Markup Language.

TOML has inline and multiline forms for most objects.
The following are suspect:

5. There’s a limit to time in space without long term injury.

8-10. You conclude we can continue indefinitely, but make no effort to show that this is the case — or that the amount needed wouldn’t end civilization prior to success.

11. It’s not clear to me you can have a pregnancy in space, given the health impacts to astronauts.
How much time did you have for this exam? Building a complete processor starting from gates is not exactly a thirty minute exercise, even with a minimal instruction set & narrow datapath.
"So that seems to be a 1.3kW and 2.6kW solution"

Germany is 230v so that would be more like 3kw and 6kw.

I'm in the UK (also 230v) and a standard outlet can do 3kw, I think fuseboard fuses are 32amp so I don't know if 6kw is a practical upper bound though (edit: On 2nd thoughts I'm not even sure this is relevant to 3 phase).
Where can I read more about the decision to develop Lean 4 in private, and what is the status of https://github.com/leanprover/lean4, in your view?
Wtf was that plot twist at the end though?
Mini Museum Age of Dinosaurs
Cisco upgrades CVE-2018-0296 from High to Critical after reappearing in the wild
Inhibiting CYP3A4 should definitely increase LSD AUC, but it can't magically conjure more of a substance out of thin air after it's all already entered your bloodstream - only slow down breakdown.
Albeit the apparent effect would be the former, if ingested beforehand and/or dealing with something with very slow uptake and high first-pass metabolism.

In any case it's not something that plays out so quickly.

Waving in and out of tripping balls a couple hours in sounds pretty par for the course, I'd say :)
The oyster farmer eats more oysters than everyone else. The money farmer eats more money than anyone else.
Of course Trump abused his position but if the public opinion sees his abuse of power as being “legitimate” then I suspect that US jurisprudence will get to be rewritten in his favor. In today’s day and age public opinion has a much more bigger influence compared to the early ‘70s, for example, when a guy like Nixon could be toppled by the technocracy of that time even though at some point during that scandal he had a 70% approval rate. I suspect that in today’s day and age Nixon would have remained in power with so much public support behind him.
Is it worth putting the time into learning AI/ML at this point? Sure, crazy high salaries- but it seems inevitable that these are the very jobs that will be automated away first.
We're working on salary transparency across different levels with our website http://levels.fyi (mainly software engineering to start).

We were thinking of launching an executive version of our site. Still in our plans down the road, but it'd require people willing to submit their compensation to our site in a verified way. We're still brainstorming, but there's a lot more nuance at upper levels where people negotiate across way more things than just strictly compensation.
Libre-RISC-V 3D CPU/GPU Seeks NLNet Grants for Ambitious Expansion
Because breaking through one small panel on a door and then reaching through and turning the lock is a lot easier than having to break away the entire door so you can get your body through.
I think the problem is not that it can be opened from the inside but more that the ones that just have a lever to flick on the inside are usually yale style locks that are easy to bump or pick, or break a window and reach, or put something through the letter box to reach.

The mortice locks are harder to pick and are usually substantially sturdier in construction. In the UK at least, the mortice lock is physically inside the door structure (1) whereas the latches that don't need keys are attached on the door (2).

We recently had a break-in in the block of apartments where I live where the latch attached on the door was broken off by people forcing a door. If there had been a mortice lock, they'd have to break the door frame or the door itself, rather than just bust the weak latch lock off the back of the door (in this case the door opened outwards, so they just pulled on the door handle whilst bracing a leg against thethe wall and the latch came right off the back of the door)

1 - https://www.buildingsheriff.com/mortice-lock-costs_files/sta...
2 - https://www.diydoctor.org.uk/images/nightlatch.jpg
How is when it first flew relevant to how unstable it is?
For config files at least, I've moved entirely to ini format. Python's configparser is handy for machine generating complicated configs and the nesting/list support in JSON adds way more complexity than I need compared to just using comma separated lists as values.

This is my entire ini parser for making a std::map<std::string, std::string>. I cast/parse the values at the use site:

std::regex section_test("\\[(.*?)\\]");
std::regex value_test("([\\w\\.]+)\\s*=\\s*([^\\+]+(?!\\+{3}))");

while(-1 != getline((char**)&buf, &len, file))
{
std::string line(buf);
trim(line);
if(!line.size() || line[0] == '#') continue;

std::smatch match;
if(std::regex_search(line, match, section_test))
current_section = match[1].str();
else if(std::regex_search(line, match, value_test))
{
std::string key(match[1].str());
std::string value(match[2].str());
info("INIReader: %s::%s = %s\n",
current_section.c_str(), key.c_str(), value.c_str());
config[current_section][key] = value;
}
}
Ah ok, my mistake, I read "debug" as "-g" not "-O0." I generally run with optimizations on but with symbols.
> That address seems to be a "virtual office" (aka paid fake address?)

A virtual office is basically coworking, except you have your own assigned space (you still share everything else like printers, meeting rooms, etc). They can accept mail at that address and probably go to work there, so it's not "fake" perse.
I think most monad tutorials skip over the math and try to teach people the applications and I think this is why people don’t get very far. But then people are probably not ready for the math if they haven’t gone beyond high school algebra. Very few high school students learn about abstract algebra topics such as group theory unless they’re studying on their own.

Aside: as with monads, group theory has many disparate applications, from solving Rubik’s cubes [1] to particle physics [2] to crystallography [3]. Trying to teach someone group theory using only a Rubik’s cube may not be the best idea, in light of the abstract nature of the structure.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik%27s_Cube_group

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

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_point_group
I’m not aware of 10x10 chess ever being attempted, let alone codified. Here’s my suggestion: add another set of bishops (or knights, or one of each) in between rooks and king/queen. Castling works the same, king goes around rook.
The building I live in in Berlin, 1910-ish construction with two more wings in the courtyard, everything accessible through the front gate - it has the same principle implemented with a timer and a button. I thought it's a bit odd, but made some sense after a while.

During the day, the front gate can be opened from the outside with just pushing a button that unlocks the door. At night (from 20 or 21 or so), the button stops working, you need the key. It can be opened at any time from the inside without keys. So it's more or less implementing the same protocol, but electro-mechanically, so there is no need for the trick with pulling the key inward.
Based on this data, the fire death rate in the US is 1.16 per 100k pop. and the rate in Switzerland is 0.28 per 100k pop. Percentage wise, that's a big difference, but that's only because both of these numbers are extremely small. I don't think it's really accurate to say you're much more likely to die in a fire in the USA; it's extremely rare in both countries.
Sometimes software development is a struggle
Its useful for getting the most bang for your buck ouy of expensive medications.
That's not exactly discoverable. Try a clean install of a Mac without having previously enabled this feature. You are prompted for your Apple ID and password, then to make a Mac account. If you use the same password for both, the OS won't let you.

I didn't know you could later enable it.
Because the book is a great introduction to theorem proving in general. All those concepts learned translate nicely to other theorem provers, and especially Lean 4.

Lean 4 has already gone public: https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/

Also, afaik it won't differ from Lean 3 to the degree where learning Lean 3 is useless.
Of course if you mess with a function's inputs in ways it's never seen it's going to "not understand" what's going on. This is an agent which only knows 8x8 space.

Train it on variable spaces, and you'll get an agent that can play on variable spaces. In fact, you can probably speed things up drastically by using transfer learning from a model which already learned 8x8 space and modifying the inputs and outputs to match the new state and action space.

What part of this do you think "exceedingly intelligent tech people" aren't grasping? Something qualitative? Do you think people in machine learning think of "learning" as literally meaning the same thing as the colloquial usage? What, precisely, are you attacking here? All the harsh anti-machine-learning viewpoints with no clarity are becoming exhausting.
Yeah, we joked about it on their launch day, "welp, there goes our SEO!" :) Probably not a big deal as we're in a quite narrow niche.
Aaron Hsu's work has truly inspired me, and expanded my horizon when it comes to code and programming in general.
The evidence is that 10s of 1000s of plasma physicists and nuclear scientists have fruitlessly consumed careers without any result since the 1970s. And, nuclear weapons and tech have not proliferated substantially.
Of course but you can still - at least for now, install applications from disk images (.dmg) and toss .app containers into /Applications - that doesn't require Apple ID.
Actually, it's mostly a cost thing. US code allows very inexpensive building materials and practices relative to Europe.

I suspect that is a result of different cultural expectations related to who should be able to afford to own their own home - even if the homes don't last very long.
It has issues sometimes evaluating inlined expressions, unfortunately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

Back in the day the network layer was not standardised nor interoperable. The "International Network Working Group" provided a communication protocol (TCP/IP) capable of hiding the differences of the different networks.

> the job of the TCP is merely to take a stream of messages produced by one HOST and reproduce the stream at a foreign receiving HOST without change. [Cerf]

That network of networks demonstrated the feasibility of the concept of interconnection. The resulting net eventually became the global inter-network... INTERNET
I've never ever seen it in the UK, but I did live in a house with a flat on a separate meter, that as it turned out was on a separate phase. I only discovered this because there was a fault on the line for only one phase, and only after checking and changing every fuse (wire), and unplugging every electrical item. Grr.
For about the last 20 years of my life as an American, 99.9% of all buildings I enter have a no-smoking rule. The only exceptions have been bars in kind of backwards places that I've had to go on business, like Jacksonville, FL.
That was a very dense an informative presentation last night, but I think the main take away is that rapid reusability is a game changer. In fact, game-changer is probably an understatement, basically every intuition and rule-of-thumb we have about space launches and travel will have to be rethought. And this will be true even of SpaceX falls well short of meeting their stated targets (2020 orbit, 150t capability, multiple refights per day, etc.

Musk stated (I think he just did some mental napkin math at one point) that if they meet their goals, the world's launch capacity will be expanded by two orders of magnitude. How often does any new development in any field bring about two orders of extra capacity? How does this incredible capacity change how you use this thing?

First consider prices. A launch would cost fuel + support operations + amortized cost of rocket. The last two will tend towards zero as they can be increasingly automated and will be a small fixed cost. IIRC, fuel costs roughly $60-100 per kilo to LEO, a 100kg person with 100kg of supplies and life-support equipment can reasonably expect to get to LEO for $20000 in fuel costs. Ok, so you need to "rent" the rocket (you want to stay there at least a few days), pay operations, SpaceX margin, R&D etc. Even then, imagine weekend LEO launches for $50,000 in the late 2020s. That's astounding. Given millenials' propensity for "experiences", they're going to have hoards of people buying this.

But what about risk? They've been trying to launch Crew Dragon for many years and still haven't. Well, with expandable rockets, you have to establish a safety record, it takes multiple flights, it's extremely expensive, you need a new rocket for each one. With fully reusable rockets, you can literally establish a safety record for an individual rocket within a matter of weeks, not years. Even launching once every three days (ie, far from their daily targets), it would take only a year to do more launches than Falcon or Arienne 5 have made in decades. Also, people are far more willing to take risks than organizations like NASA. Consider a thought experiment: SpaceX does 100 launches of Starship and establishes a safety record of 99% (1 blew up). They then start selling tickets, will people still buy, fully signing away any liability? Yes, you'll still have hoards of people lining up for a chance.

Finally, this is going to change science as well. Today, sending a 1 ton rover to the surface of Mars is a Really Big Deal. Hence, probes are made very carefully, very expensively and very very slowly. Not just design and build (it takes a decade), but operations as well (Curiosity traveled only 20km in the last 8 years). Everything is essentially super-low bandwidth. But once you know you can get a cheap ride to Mars (of anywhere else) any time, you don't have to go to such extremes. You can easily send more rovers, more radio relays, they can travel further, experiment more, take more risks and if you lose one, it's just not a big deal anymore!
The parallels between buildings are built to evolve, and software, are wonderful to think about
The choice of wood for residential housing is based on cost. Trees are plentiful in the U.S., so wood construction is the cheapest option. In countries without lots of trees, they’ll use concrete, stone, or something else.
Networks are expensive and not resilient.
Humanity would be saved if political parties had your understanding.
In other words, humanity would be saved if politics became a science.
Well... that might be true. In the words of George Orwell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP3T5tEs7yI
Lenat's Cyc? I'm quite familiar. I hadn't looked at it in about 25 years until I just happened to come across the ATT-CYC docs a few days ago (I seem to be missing Part 2) and a printout of a PPT that he gave group of us at Microsoft in 1994/5 or so.