skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This may not come across well, because it is related to very large CAD models. Think rockets, cars, ships, airplanes, type large.

In the assembly paradigm, each component has 6 degrees of freedom. On average, a good human can mentally process a handful of components. Beyond that, it gets very hard to balance all the degrees of freedom.

Solvers also do not scale well once things reach the hundreds, sometimes low thousand component level. Linear compute performance bound. Parallelization is hard and a focus of current development.

Very large assemblies present problems similar to the ones seen in large software.

The dominant way of building big models, assemblies is to compartmentalize sub systems, build to common interface points, and only constrain important component groups.

Resolving all the degrees of freedom requires making big investments in time and compute power that only pay off when things change.

Almost never makes sense.

The balance is making those investments where change is known or predicted with high confidence.

Otherwise, it is easier to defer this task and work with common assumptions, until such time as a more complete model is warranted and indicated.

It is always a hard balance to find because the allure of "handling the future changes" now is seen as a savings when the truth is almost always a loss.

Those efforts become debt in a few ways:

Big investment in change ready model sees changes that lie outside the scope of already implemented model dynamics. (Big refactoring needed) 2x if not more work required.

Model actually defined incorrectly. Creates problems that would not otherwise exist. Hard to find these due to massive compute and human time spent simulating and debugging.

Model overly compartmentalized, due to compute limits and too many assembly model constraints. Makes reasonable changes difficult. Refactoring is needed.

Inability to operate with full or large fractions of model, due to inability to compute it reasonably.

Finally, where the large model is made across various CAD systems, designing in place, just putting things relative to common assembly mating points actually is the most efficient way!

When a dynamic assembly model is needed for analysis or other simulation related task, or changes, making it right then, even sometimes throwing it away when the work is done can make the best sense, with only the final result kept for the future.

None of this is intuitive at first. Everyone will tend to over model, until they hit one of the pain points, have to over correct, and work through it all.
Count me amongst those who do not think they're a mistake. You need to indicate no-data-here in some fashion. If you try to use that no-data in some fashion having your program blow up from a null reference is a feature to me--in the vast majority of cases it's better go boom than silently continue doing something wrong. In the few where that's not the case you can trap the exception and go on.

The real solution is what has been done with C# in recent years--have the compiler track whether a field can contain a null or not and squawk if you try to dereference something you haven't checked. That causes it to blow up in the best place--compile time rather than runtime.
I read Thinking Strategically – The Competetive Edge in Business Politics & Everyday Reissue many years back. I thought it was a good introduction as it focused on different fields like sports, business, etc, through the lens of economics
They aren’t a thing of the past. Debt related criminal offenses are just charged differently as contempt of court or fraud: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/debtors-prison-aclu-rep...
It's pretty weird to me to try to picture Microsoft's monopoly as a better situation than the current one?
Why would there be any risk of the fuel ending up in the ocean? If it doesn't go boom in the test wouldn't the range safety officer push his button?
What? 100ms is "human speed". When doing anything interactive the difference between 25ms and 5s is monumental. Even just for pressing confirmation buttons 5s is slow enough that you need some substantially faster reacting visual confirmation (loading animation or whatever) to satisfy humans.
This is more of an anti-poverty move and trying to help anyone. In a lot of places in America the dollar general is the only place you can buy groceries, and even if you’re lucky enough to have a grocery store nearby, it’s not gonna be some fancy Trader Joe’s. City should be encouraging more food and grocery outlet’s to open, not restricting them.
Cross-Compiling Rust to Linux on Mac
Why use pseudorandom or encrypted data? Why not just write the sector number to each sector? For example, in sector 0, write an int64(0). Then read back and check.
This!

A core and a computer aren't the same, and while Intel processors have multiple cores, sometimes many, they don't have multiple computers within.

http://www.greenarraychips.com/home/documents/greg/PB002-100...

COMPLETE SYSTEMS: We refer to our chips as Multi-Computer Systems because they are, in fact, complete systems. Supply one of our chips with power and a reset signal, and it is up and running. All of our chips can load their software at high speed using a single wire that can be daisy chained for multiple chips; if desired, most can be bootstrapped by a simple SPI flash memory. Application software can be manufactured into a custom chip for a modest cost to further simplify overall system design. External memory is not required to run application software, but our larger chips have sufficient I/O to directly control external memory devices if desired.

Contrast this with a Multi-Core CPU, which is not a computing system until other devices such as crystals, memory controllers, memories, and bus controllers have been added. All of these things consume energy, occupy space, cost money, add complexity, and create bottlenecks. Most multi-core CPUs are designed to speed up conventional operating systems, which typically have hundreds or thousands of concurrent processes, by letting a handful of process execute in parallel as opposed to only one. They are not, typically, designed for significantly parallel processing, and they are even less well suited for simple applications than are their less expensive single-core progenitors.

It's meant for hyper-parallel applications, unlike Pentium cores.
From what I understand there are a metric fuckton of people imprisoned for inability to pay child support, so I'd say debtor prisons aren't limited to Mississippi.
13th Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I think a key problem is that the police should not be able to lie to you. In a formal interrogation, with an attorney present, maybe. But even then it should be absolutely restrictive to the point of ineffective.
There's a wee bit of me feels I need to ask the question, is this years later, the Andrew Wakefield effect rearing its head again[0]?

Very small samples of and affected medicated population being used to push an agenda? Sure I realise the brain and body are deeply interconnected, but until we invest time and money in valid studies, how can we possibly know the outcomes of prescribing statins, paracetamol etc in terms of human behaviour.

For the vast majority of the population taking these drugs are generally safe (yes I know about drug allergies, which is a different thing), but I imagine there will be in a minuscule percentage of a population, long term, there may be side effects. I think this should be researched, but this sounds like a scare story.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
Thanks @kojeovo!

Contentful, from my understanding, is a good headless CMS, but does not allow a product team or a marketing team to manage the design/layout of new pages. Basically I would still need an engineer to implement the structure of the page, create the style, etc...
The more I read about "justice" in the US the more I realise how fucked up and perverted the concept of justice is in that country.

We're always quick to criticise other countries for the failings or bad design of their justice system and lack of respect for human rights, but are we much better? We might be better on paper, but is that actually reflected in reality? I'm not so sure.
It is only 5 paragraphs more, mostly enumerating cases of scifi->reality adoption. Imo, not worth 5 cents requested, thinks the door so or not.
I do think a lot of test frameworks would do well to support data-driven testing a la Spock: http://spockframework.org/spock/docs/1.0/data_driven_testing...
Most things we do now aren't inherently more computationally demanding than what we did 20 years ago.
While that's a reasonable position in some ways I certainly don't get the impression that I should assume Pijul is not up to the most fundamental guarantee of an SCM: not losing my code. A page telling me why I should use Pijul probably should explain that I shouldn't use it for anything that matters in the most trivial of ways and yours doesn't.

https://pijul.org/manual/why_pijul.html
As a European I'm still shocked at how loud Americans are. I cannot stay more than a couple minutes in an American bar or pub
How Russia’s Icebreakers Came to Dominate the Frozen Seas
> As far as I can tell, deep learning folks don't give two shits about uncertainty intervals, much less marginalization. All that matters is minimizing that test error as fast as possible. So what if you get a posterior for each parameter... Who cares about the parameters in a neural network as long as the predictions seem well calibrated?

Well, the one thing that they ought to actually give a shit about is generalization. All else (Bayesian or not) is only in service of that.

Deep learning systems require too much data (and often not raw data), crazy amounts of compute, and still fail under comically irrelevant tweaks of the problem (eg: adversarial noise).

Yes, the PAC learning model starts off by assuming that the test set had the same “data distribution” as the train set. It’s obviously not exactly the same (otherwise learning is kinda irrelevant), but deep learning seems incredibly fragile in its ability to generalize. It seems to require crazy amounts of domain randomization during training to avoid overfitting.

Eg: The recent OpenAI Rubik’s cube demonstration (while an impressive achievement) was an indication of the fundamental silliness of deep RL (at least as of now). To solve the problem, they had to use classical Rubik’s cube solving algorithms, and completely model the physics of the situation (including friction on the surfaces!) and use that model to generate training data while varying every parameter for domain randomization. All that structured prior knowledge is absolutely unfeasible for even a slightly more complicated situation. And after all that, the robot had something like a 20% success rate IIRC. Impressive work on the team’s part, no doubt... but the conceptual framework does not inspire confidence.
No, you also need to ask not just whether they're similar, but whether they are the way they are for the same reason, and are thus likely to change together. It doesn't matter if there are 10, if they all might change independently in arbitrary ways.

"DRY" as coined in The Pragmatic Programmer spoke in terms of pieces of knowledge.

If you are combining code just because it looks similar, you're "Huffman coding."
I just want TOTP.
WebKit is commonly used on many platforms, so I’d guess that plays a big role in it.
Calico Labs Publications
You can order beverages and food in some libraries (self service). No idea about alcohol.

Actually, is there something for reading together on your computer or phone? KindleSync?

See what virtual groups are reading, join, socialize and discuss online with integration to existing online food delivery services.
Stands off to the side waving R4RS flag.
International data plans 10x cheaper than roaming
"people dying" might be exaggerated but nonetheless because of the password he is inconvenienced.

So you have to come up with different method.

For the security personal, Dr is the customer, customer is king.
GNOME Web is based on WebKit, while Falkon has migrated away from QtWebKit to QtWebEngine, which is Chromium based.
Well to be clear, most modern languages with reasonable type systems will force you to explicitly verify the type of your input. C#, for example, forces you to cast your JSON before using it. If the cast fails because you got the class definition wrong, you get an error (like a constructor error).
The scandal is the mainstream press hasn't raised this and related problems in the justice system. They really only have one job, and no amount of "concern" for political issues is sufficient to compensate for the shameful oversight of issues like this.

I'd argue any writer with a Pulitzer should hand it back until they have personally effected change in justice and prison reform. I'm angry that the system works this way, but I'm even angrier that people who do nothing but write for a living get to do so without making this a national priority.
plugging envwarden[0] - a tiny open source wrapper around Bitwarden[1] (also open-source). Allows you to export secrets, write them to a .env file etc. And you manage your secrets in the same place as your passwords.

[0] https://github.com/envwarden/envwarden

[1] https://bitwarden.com/
Plenty of people make Electron apps only aiming to target a single platform it just happens to be so easy to add the others that most do it. The real problem is native platforms suck to code for or have too high a barrier of entry.
“ I checked in my refactoring to master”

Yikes
Yes, which is where types like `Optional` come in. If you make a language where null doesn't exist by default, but still provide a standard way of indicating non-presence, you get the advantage of compile-time correctness checking.

Also, the compiler can still optimize the `(hasValue, value)` tuple into a possibly-0 pointer when the type of the value is a pointer. (which by the way, is exactly what Rust does, among others)
By this logic, should Jim Carrey be put to death as well? It is claimed he drove his ex-fiance to her death.
To this day, the official US story is that they were acting in self defense in international waters.
> For large Git repositories (such as NixOS/nixpkgs on GitHub), I wish it was using Pijul about 100% of the time I contribute or even use my local clone.

That's a reasonable reaction for someone who is very familiar with Pijul, but as a newcomer my reaction is precisely the opposite.

When trying to figure out some issue I have with some software, I quickly run into two questions:

1. How did the source code look for the release X that I have installed?

2. Did patch Y make it into release X?

Git makes it trivial to answer both of those questions. Both GitHub and GitLab show all versions as tags (by convention) that are reachable in 1-2 clicks from the project home page, and a given commit page shows all tags that include it.

With Pijul/Nest I have no idea where to even start. I see no tag list anywhere[0], and patch pages look like gibberish[1].

[0]: https://nest.pijul.com/pmeunier/carnix:master/patches

[1]: https://nest.pijul.com/pmeunier/carnix:master/patches/6gv8hs...
I agree. The title itself is offensive and doesn't require further analysis. To hate yourself and your species enough to think the only world we know would be better without us is a personal point of malaise for the author and thankfully not widespread.
It's slightly ironic for KDE, as Blink is a fork of WebKit, which itself is a fork of KHTML, which was originally the KDE HTML renderer.

Full circle!
I think it's perfectly fine to have option types, and that's exactly what languages without null references end up doing. What null references end up doing is accidentally turning all types into option types and making it impossible to have non-option types.
> Its the IT job to provide security without having to inconvenience the user. you can't just add extra layer of inconvenience for the sake of security. Your ultimate goal should be to provide security without adding additional inconvenience to the user or without having the user to notice it at all.

We trade convenience for security every single day. Ever get locked out of your house because you forgot your keys? Why is that level of inconvenience (requiring keys on doors) okay but it's up to a security team to only implement security solutions which are frictionless and require zero change to workflows?

Further, if we require keys on our doors, why wouldn't we require similar measures on software systems? If they are inconvenient, they are inconvenient compared to what? No security?
Tumors aren't healthy tissue. My guess is that an immune system on high alert in an area is more likely to notice bad stuff that otherwise gets ignored.

One effective way to get your immune system to kill warts is to induce a low grade infection in the wart. The immune system will "notice" the virus and kill it. If you just freeze them off they are likely to reappear elsewhere because the virus is still present.
Negative Interest Rates Are Going to Ruin Everything
Rete: JavaScript framework for visual programming and creating node editor
Google isn't really known for their respect of the GDPR.
I suppose Lem wrote in Polish.
A 224 bit output is going to be collision resistant too, though, for the foreseeable future. And when it comes to preimage resistance, even md5 is safe for the time being. (With the usual qualifier that there's absolutely no justification for using it with better hashes available.)
Middle English Jan -> Jankin (diminutive) -> Jackin -> Jack.

Compare manikin, a little man.

Apparently unrelated to French Jacques, despite the similarity.
You could say the same about recommending someone getting a computer science degree. You may be setting yourself up for disappointment if you’re only in it for the job you can get afterwards, since the work that you’d be doing in the job would at least somewhat depend on the work that needs to be done.
Looked at this while at uni over a couple of papers, tho not entirely fresh in the mind 15 years later. But would suggest that Scifi, like the western and other escapist genres, are surely more about promoting complex reasoning than embedding any kind of explicit ideology or aesthetic. Yes popular themes may also find themselves thoughtfully resurrected / enshrined in the creative output of the faithful, but is it the wonder and drive, engendered through the source material, distilled into future/present realities, that shoulder a more convincing burden?
Google Stadia made a mistake by choosing Linux
Associativity is not about changing the order but about a different grouping:

( A B ) C = A ( B C )
But we'll believe the rest of the article? By what criteria do we pick and choose?
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of code performing large matrix multiplications these days was written in Python and executed on GPUs by libraries like Tensorflow and PyTorch. With the right abstractions, programmers can be "lazy" and still get great performance.
> Most of contemporary AI is really just a combination of probability theory and some upper division math classes in an executable form. None of it is magic and the more people that know the vocabulary the less likely people are to buy into the hype

For those of us who think probability theory captures a large fraction of what intelligence does, this reads a lot like "don't believe the hype behind nuclear weapons! It's really just physics and some upper division chemistry in an explosive form. None of it is magic..."

Maybe this argument will convince people who think that the human brain is magic? But for those of us who think that the human brain is not magic, but proof that general intelligence is actually computable and only needs 20 watts... If probability theory and upper division math in executable form is all it takes to be dangerous, that wouldn't be surprising.

It only takes physics and upper division chemistry in explosive form to level a city, after all. Not magic.
This is often repeated, and I believe it... but on the other hand, I've been using google services pretty heavily for over a decade, including some paid services, and I've never wanted customer service from google over all that time. Precisely the thing I like about google services is that their shit works and I don't need help from them to use it.

I suppose there's a risk of account suspension as mentioned above, but I still feel that risk is very low for me, my perception of these incidents that make noise on social media/HN is there is at least semi-shady shenanigans involved that trip spam/fraud/etc. alarms. I don't push those kinds of buttons, and neither do the vast majority of people, so I think this is a non-factor for most.
I found The Economics Anti-Textbook [1] to be a good primer that explains a lot of the foundations you might pick up in an introductory course, but also includes healthy perspective into the field beyond what you might get out of a 101.

[1] https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/the-economics-anti-textbo...
Remembering Elizabeth Wurtzel, a Proudly Difficult Person
This is silly. The "mainstream press" is nothing more than a mirror. If there were widespread outrage about justice and prison reform, there would be much more coverage of it. There really just isn't much interest, and it's honestly as fervent on the pro-punishment side as the reform side (e.g. Jeff Sessions' disastrous but celebrated term as Attorney General in rolling back progress made at the Federal level: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jeff-sessions-is-trying...)
That was my personal opinion, unrelated to the first paragraph.
Yes, but I think there's a stage learning where you learn "this is how I work in a manner that lets me get along with others." There are a lot of ways to gain the knowledge of this stage. One part of it is working on projects that you will maintain for a while--this lets you see the cost of tech debt. Another part of this evolution comes from working with others--you learn where your code falls short, and you learn better conventions.

The right environment helps a programmer evolve through this stage.

In a similar vein, stay at home moms or dads may choose to send their child to daycare a day or two a week to learn how to interact with others. Without these learnings, life, or work, can be more challenging.
> There's no way to codify concrete requirements for handling every possible way code can be improved.

If the change can’t be codified, then it calls into question why the change needs to happen at all.

Assuming that there is some improvement that can be justified, then explain it to the team, and have the team start reviewing for it.

By not going through the process of explaining the improvement to the team, it signals that the team can’t be trusted to learn and improve code on their own. Again, if that’s the case, a conversation needs to happen about whether there should be a team at all.
Forgive my ignorance of GPU programming. I'm genuinely curious -- how does this differ from WebGL?
Strange that she decided to have three kids when she could barely even manage her finances.