skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've seen my dad cry once, and it involved the death of my mom. From his lack of crying I learned an important lesson that I've been sharing with my kids (1 and 2): it's okay to cry.

I cry in front of them when I'm sad. And then I talk about why I feel the way I do, and that it will be okay. My oldest is developing wonderful empathy. "Why are you sad, daddy?" And then we talk about it. He probably doesn't understand it a lot, but I know he's learning that it's okay to feel these feelings.

Sadness is not a nice feeling, but it's a valid feeling. I think too often people see sadness as a bug that needs fixing. It's okay to be sad, and then you eventually stop being sad.

Closely related to this is another lesson I learned from my dad on not what to do. He's Willy Loman levels of optimistic. Thousands of times I've heard him go on and on about how great the day was, how much progress is happening at work, how the next big breakthrough is over the next hill. But as his child growing up, I badly needed him to occasionally say, "today didn't go well. X rejected our offer and Y isn't working so we have to start over on that one. But it's okay because these days happen and tomorrow might be better." To this date I'm still struggling with the reality that life, by design, has bad days, and that's fine.
This is out-of-date. SpaceX is working with astronomers to solve this problem. Just yesterday they launched 60 satellites, one of which is covered in a new coating designed to mitigate the issue.

https://interestingengineering.com/spacex-to-coat-satellite-...

Everyone I know that works there cares about this problem, and the last thing they need is need even more pressure from people to solve it. Gwynne Shotwell herself has spoken extensively on the topic:

https://spacenews.com/spacex-working-on-fix-for-starlink-sat...

I'd also like to add that what they are doing here is iterating very rapidly, and these things are going to just keep getting better and better at everything. It's a mistake to think of these as static, permanent fixtures!
>> if you suppress legitimate criticism

Climate-change alarmists refuse to acknowledge that any criticism could possibly be legitimate. Every questioning of the narrative, even just a bit, is dismissed -- funded by Big Oil/Koch/right-wingers, not a "real" scientist, too stupid to understand why "adjustments" were necessary, "the science is settled!" -- etc. In many cases, editors insist critical articles be completely deleted/removed, rather than available to even be seen or discussed.

Example -- recent (2 days ago) post offers an alternative interpretation of respected climate scientists' own published data. Flagged almost immediately: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21961462

Disagree? Please point to criticism of climate science widely deemed to be "legitimate."
I really hope this was Sky Mall. When I was younger I had a fantasy of flying first class while perusing through the Sky Mall magazine. See something I needed immediately and order it over the airplane phone that used to be in the headrest and could cost $5.00 / minute. Now you can watch free movies on your phone, but free WiFi or calling is still not the norm. Soon...
Here's an example from another code base, the Linux (GLX+X11+GL) extract of an 3D API wrapper around OpenGL:

https://github.com/not-fl3/miniquad/blob/c2rust/sokol-app-sy...

The generated code looks fairly straightforward, however I wouldn't call it "idiomatic".

What's exciting though is that (at least) both Rust and Zig get this ability to translate C code into the "native" language (and sometimes even finding bugs in the process). This basically turns C into a "meta-language" to create "bedrock" cross-platform API modules for a variety of modern languages, essentially the next step from "C as a cross-platform assembler".

And to be honest, this sort of "boring" low-level system API glue code which mainly talks to native C system APIs anyway isn't a joy to write in any language, and also doesn't benefit much from more modern language features, can just as well do it in C once, and then "transpile everywhere".
Indeed you can, if you realize that the place occupied by the "point particle" is described by its wavefunction.
Scientists Spot Addiction-Associated Circuit in Rats
This is a false dichotomy. I want a society that's efficient and utilizes minimal resources for maximum gain.
Yeah, not trying to downplay the concern— kids have always been excited by wrapped up presents at Christmas and birthday times. But it does become a concern when the only thing that can hold their attention is the new thing, especially if you find yourself in that death spiral of doing Marie Kondo style purges of all your "clutter" only to find yourself re-buying the same stuff over again for the acquisition hit.

I wonder about myself with this when comes time for things like humble bundle, or when you look at people trading massive backlogs back and forth on r/steamgameswap. Like, I definitely do get totally sucked into particular games (recently on a turn-based kick with Into the Breach and Invisible Inc), and I'm not going to force myself to play something that hasn't grabbed my interest, but like everyone else, I have lots of games in backlog, many of which will never be played or even downloaded. Is this healthy? Is it a good example to be setting for my kids?
I really like Firefox, but I had to switch back to Chrome because of resource usage. After using it for some time it got up to 3GB RAM consumption for a single tab with no plugins.
This allows you to take two messages and append some data to both of them which causes the modified versions to have the same SHA-1 hash - but you need to modify both messages, and in order to use this in an attack you need to set up a scenario where the SHA-1 hash of one of your modified messages is trusted for some purpose. Creating a message with the same hash as another, existing message requires a second-preimage attack which is much harder and not feasible for any cryptographic hash that's currently in use.
Fossil's opinion on this is that history is an immutable record of project history. It may be messy and unfortunate at times, but it is what happened, and it shouldn't be altered in place any more than you'd do that with an accounts ledger.

In extremis, Fossil offers the "shun" command to remove improperly-committed artifacts, but even then it's subject to a lot of restrictions. (https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/shunning.wiki)
> All instances where the adversary is capable of launching this attack financially mean they also have the capability to write the exploit themselves.

Iran will eventually create a nuclear bomb, why don't we gave them one now, it's the same thing isn't it ?
Maybe. Though there might be lowish hanging fruit that could potentially recognize arrays that could be translated to slices, and heap based allocations using pointer traversal that could be converted to Vec instead.

The real issue with doing that isn’t imo, going to Rust, it’s understanding what still needs to be addressable in C. For example, a self-contained application has no external ABI dependencies, and so could assume everything that references that slice must only need to be Rust. A library on the other-hand might still need to present a C ABI.
Also "Truth" by Hector MacDonald.

https://books.google.ca/books/about/Truth.html?id=wegtDwAAQB...
I don't think vegetarians are usually the ones commenting, there's a reason vegans get a lot of flak on the internet. I've also never heard vegetarians commenting on anyone's dietary choices.
ML Ops Challenges, Solutions and Future Trends
While i agree with the overall sentiment of your comment, the whole thing about “Jeff Bezos worth $50bil instead of $100bil” ticked me off a bit. Mostly because it reeks of lack of knowledge and substance.

How do you propose making it happen? Note that by saying this, i dont mean “how do you convince him to do it”. I mean, what would be the process for doing that, assuming everyone is already on board with it.

99% (or close to it) of those billions of Jeff Bezos’ worth are in Amazon stock. How do you propose making his net worth only $50bil and making use of the rest? Making him give up half of the ownership in the company by giving his shares to the government, thus making the government a major shareholder in the company?

This is a genuine question, because i do not see how else shares can be feasibly taxed until the moment they are sold. And there is no way Jeff would be able to sell half of them, i bet there are rules that don’t even allow major shareholders cash out like that, since it would crash the value of Amazon overnight. And by the time he is done selling, he would have made way less than that, as the value of shares will be continuously dropping as he sells. Not even the mentioning the whole aspect of forcing someone to sell their shares and, thus, giving up their ownership in the company.
Startpage Acquired by System1, Privacy One Group – Still Safe?
Very true and. I understand your point. I was trying to suggest that you cou take an AMD motherboard and 3D print some sort of adapter that would adapt its form factor to fit the particular form factor of the existing chassis.

At least as a PoC.
Hashing is a separate problem from encryption. There is no proof that one way functions (the idea behind hashing) even exist (by proving this, you would actually prove P!=NP, IIRC).
Encryption has a slightly better track record of being broken. AES still holds its promise and is also secure against quantum computing (you might want longer keys, but that's it).

And if you want really, provably unbreakable encryption, there is still OTP. But then you'd need a key, that is as long as the data you want to encrypt.
That's appropriate for a diagnosis, which is the term that they'd pass on to the next doctor who wants to peek into your mouth. "Hey, I looked at TheOtherHobbes, and here's where we're at:

- We haven't yet figured out what's causing it, but
- [the official name for the body part involved],
- is notably red and puffy, which is probably caused by an infection,
- but there could be any number of other root causes, we haven't run sufficient tests to find the exact cause, and we're not worried enough to recommend a million expensive and invasive tests for what's 99% likely to be a common, simple infection."

Jargon is very information dense, and everyone in every field uses it to convey a lot of information quickly. Take a phrase that would be very clear to any reader here: "there's too much RF from my Wi-Fi router, so I switched from a Bluetooth mouse to USB". Suppose this is how I fixed my friend's mouse problems, and he got the gist of what was happening but didn't really understand the details. His girlfriend comes over and asks why he suddenly has a wired mouse. He hands her a piece of paper where I've written exactly the sentence above, she reads it, says "oh, weird. Makes sense though."

Now, my friend may not understand every word of what I wrote. Even "mouse" is jargon, albeit something that's been around forever so it's widely understood. However, his technical girlfriend would immediately understand what the actual problem was and why that was a good solution to it. The diagnosis wasn't for him specifically. The diagnosis was for the next technical person to understand where we're at with the problem.
"good enough" relies on a threat model. Cryptography researchers work in the abstract - without a threat model you must consider cases where your attacker has unlimited resources.

It's good enough for you and me, but research isn't meant to be practical, imo
I would not suggest getting Chicago made into a mug:)

https://www.zazzle.com/map_mug-168739066664861503?t_map_iid=...
That said, the Mac pro, even starting at the base price is pretty outrageous... I mean, I get $500 for the case and $1500 for the MB, but the rest just seems to be too much in aggregate, and even more ridiculous for mfg upgrades out of the box.
It really not that different from C#'s async/await except go doesn't need the async markup to fix a syntax collision and every method is awaited. Java plans to implement something similar.
One highlight of this post is their work exposing a memory safety error in the original source code:

> The Rust compiler also flagged a similar but actually buggy example in G_TryPushingEntity where the conditional is >, not >=. The out of bounds pointer was then dereferenced after the conditional, which is an actual memory safety bug.
Because a lot of us have used tools besides git that enable the workflow we need without that complexity, and without the fragility that often necessitates going to stackoverflow or asking on a slack channel.

I have a way of picking the losing side so I've been using mercurial for everything until now, and until now Bitbucket offered hg. They're decommissioning it so I'm moving over to git and I feel like my workflow has been hampered, not just in the immediate complexity of learning the new tool, but in the ongoing complexity of using a less good tool for my needs.

I'm dealing with it, but the situation you're describing isn't really the one that I and a lot of other whiners are dealing with.
>In that sense if you're allowing whether or not a drug is recreational to depend on a person's makeup, how could you have known I was taking a recreational dose?

that is literally the point of a psychiatrist. there is only the law preventing psychiatrists from administering psychedelics like LSD in the same fashion. there are natural practitioners who do this for e.g. marijuana today.

if someone has an adverse reaction (bad trip) then the doctor usually alters the administration of the medicine in some manner (Lower dosage, increase dosage, change medication all together etc). but to say that there are only recreational doses for illicit drugs and there is no method to validate potency in human consumption is disingenuous.

a drug is a chemical. our body is nothing but a chain of chemical reactions. modern medicine and science has come up with a pretty good method of determining dosage
I'm not sure if that's a big deal with a single box.

Threadripper is only 300W+ under load. Idles for the CPU are ~100W for the whole system. (https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-t...)

GPUs are similar. GPUs take ~20W while idling, but 300W or 500W while under load. FPGAs are also similar.

-------

The total system idle of a Threadripper + 2x GPU + FPGA rig probably is under 200W.

If you happen to utilize the entire machine, sure, you'll be over 1000W. But you'll probably only utilize parts of the machine as you experiment and try to figure out the optimal solution.

A "mixed rig" that can handle a variety of programming techniques is probably what's needed in the research / development phase of algorithms. Once you've done enough research, you build dedicated boxes that optimize the ultimate solution.
Just want to point out that this is a misuse of the word schizophrenic; if you are going to link extreme swings to a psychological disorder, the one you're likely looking for is bipolar. Simplifying it, schizophrenia is when you see and hear things that aren't there.
> their thing: Sprawling, incoherent, and inefficient

> our thing: Self-contained and efficient

This is not biased in any way and makes me want to continue reading. /s

Also, you can’t claim something to be “efficient” when it’s doing many different things like scm, issues/tickets, a web forum/ui ....

Then you have non-issues like git being installed via a package manager instead of dragging and dropping a binary. Yeah, this is such a huge problem that concerns people, better switch to Better Project (tm).

And then you take Gitlab and conflate Gitlab’s issues with problems with Git. I guess gogs/gitea don’t exist?

This page needs to be rewritten to simply list the differences in neutral language. There are good points but they’re lost in unnecessary epithets like “caused untold grief for git users”. I get it: git bad, our product good. Switch!

—

Personally, I don’t want something that tries to do many different things all at once.
Which means that 64-bit time_t is a somewhat-ultimate "lossless and future-proof archival format": you could use it to successfully round-trip-encode a reference to any historical or future second between the creation of our universe, and the last time life will be sustainable for carbon-based lifeforms in our universe.

Mind you, presumably, some civilizations in our universe will go on beyond that. Referencing this† chart, silicon-based life (e.g. maybe even us humans, if uploaded into computers) might be able to survive about half-way into "the Degenerate Era", before the material substrate we run on just radiates away through proton decay. Representing the last second life could exist would require a continuum of 4e32 seconds, or 108 bits.

† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_from_Big_Ba...

And also keep in mind, computers (including any silicon-based life-forms) think much faster, and so are in want of much more fine-grained measurements than our unit of "seconds" to place events on their own timelines. We already use nanosecond timestamps for our computer-system-internal log events (which would add a 30-bit fractional part to our 108-bit timestamp, to create a combined 138-bit fixed-point representation.)

But let's be "safe." We don't know how fine-grained we'll need to get! We might want to record data about the first events of our universe, for example. I would think that a "really ultimate", future-proof, archival format for time record-keeping, would probably be denominated in Planck time units.

Interestingly, counting in Planck time units instead of nanoseconds, "only" requires 144 bits for the fractional part!

108 + 144 = 252. Or, rounding up, 256. We could represent any instant of time we could ever care about, in fixed-point encoding††, in a 256-bit word.

†† (It wouldn't really be fixed-point encoding. It'd just be an integer number of Planck time units since the Big Bang. But you can right-shift by 144 to get something close to a count of seconds, which is useful.)

Finally: you still want more? Any time between the creation and heat death of the universe, even though nothing will be around to experience it? Well, that'd be 333 bits worth of seconds. 333 + 144 = 477, which would fit a 512-bit machine word.

One could assume, then, that any Matrix-like universe simulation substrate will have a 512-bit Time Stamp Counter register.

...presuming, that is, that it was built to simulate a universe like our own, and not one that has finer-grained Planck units or which goes on for longer. :)

----

Does all of this have any use? Maybe! If we could figure out precisely what time it is in some objective sense—how many Planck time units have passed here in our reference frame since the creation of the universe—that might be a useful "handshake format" to describe "when" something happened to aliens, when building things like Voyager's Golden Record. (After all, we can teach them about our calendar, but how do we describe+transmit when our calendar began in a way they can measure against in their reference frame, in order to know how to do the math to translate dates back and forth?)
FWIW, a lot of very smart people seem to think that we actually do have symmetric encryption in a state where it "works" and is "understood" and that AES is unlikely to be "broken". What we don't really feel so great about is asymmetric encryption, but at least that feels like something P != NP might imply can be done... hashing algorithms just have this problem where if you glance at the information theory you would have guessed they couldn't be possible until someone shows you one that seems to work.
Relevant
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20074160
I'd say Pro-sumer HEDT/Workstation, yes... if you need that much compute and can use it, you're probably making money from it.
Writing Documentation for Your Team
it's automation

Edit: artificial automation

Edit: computer science

Edit: pseudo science?
The issue is the Internet has provided bad actors (including rent-seeking entrenched interests) with the ability to anonymously, cheaply and pervasively spread lies and propaganda. They can precisely manipulate emotionally vulnerable segments, bury informed discussion, manipulate Overton windows, and subvert law and policy making for their own purposes.

Individual choice is of almost no help in managing the problem.
Not OP, but probably referencing Chrome's v3 manifest: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338

HN discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173 (281 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044430 (893 comments)
I've been on ykyz.com since October, and it really became my go-to site almost immediately. I know that sounds like a Hallmark card, but it's real people really talking... and the chance to have my own micro podcast has helped me use my actual voice to continue my work of helping people.
> And the way box shadows are implemented on the web is similar to gradients: they use a linear transition.

This is wrong. Yes, linear gradients are everywhere, even in nearly every professional graphic design tool, which is unfortunate since they are almost always the wrong choice. Box shadows, on the other hand, tend to be based on Gaussian blurs, which certainly doesn’t create a linear transition. This is also the way the CSS box-shadows spec say they should work: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds-3/#shadow-blur
Animation of the Carbon Budget for 1.5°C: Global Carbon Project
I think it's a fair assumption that the US healthcare system would have been overhauled long before the complete elimination of the competitive market for commercial air travel, which is what this thread is about.
First, you can't do that for the macros like MIN/MAX mentioned in the comment you just replied to, and sqr mentioned earlier.

Second, you still risk shadowing existing variables, even if you make an effort to use "unlikely" names for the locals such as "___my_macro_secret_variable_1", if the macro might be used in one of its own arguments. For example MACRO(MACRO(x)).

If that sounds unlikely, consider MAX(a,MAX(b,c)), which is likely to happen eventually, if your codebase uses such macros or if they are part of a library.
I would highly value something which turned code into idiomatic code; I don't care which language.
Realistically, it is a lot more likely that the kids are lactose intolerant (over half of humanity) than that they have celiac disease (under 1% of humanity).

Also, there's a fairly foolproof test for lactose intolerance.
I gotta say the bonus section of the README is my favorite part. Could of had a referral link of where to buy cool map mugs from :)
To each their own interpretation, but I definitely did not read that to imply people should be overly kind. To the contrary, I think someone failing to "be a dick when he needed to" is probably a moral failure. As to your last sentence, it probably falls under the quality of the relationships formed that he listed as a 'eulogy virtue'.

I would also argue that if legacy is your goal, a legacy of specific ideals can last longer than most tangible artifacts.
The Digital Attention Crisis
It's actually pretty easy: do you have consent from the other person for your actions affecting them? That's really all there is to it.
Doing your homework for you: Jobs had an unusually international background; was born to highly-educated parents who made sure he went to a suitable family when they put him up for adoption; grew up in a relatively wealthy, highly-educated community that was the hotbed of a nascent industry; and was able to do drugs, an experience here considered life-altering, without being arrested or sent to jail.

I know the word "privilege" is anathema here, but it applies, even if neither his biological nor adoptive parents were necessarily rolling in dough.
Because the average adult doesn't need such a high concentration of fat and calories in a single drink / bowl of cereal / piece of cheese etc. If it was healthy and natural you'd be drinking your mother's milk as an adult, but I'm sure you aren't.