skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'd replace PC/IX with 386/ix. PC/IX was based on System III, not System V, and it was for the PC XT which did not have protected mode.

386/ix was ISC's port of System VR3 to the 80836. Actually, it was the official port of System VR3 to that processor, done under a contract from AT&T (and maybe Intel...I don't remember for sure).

There was also a port of System VR3 to the 80286 as part of that same contract.

The source for both ports was System VR3 on the AT&T 3B2. The memory management on the 3B2 was close enough to that of the 386 that the people working on that part of the port had no problems.

Not so for the 286 port, which I was working on. We tried treating segments as 64 KB pages, and it worked if you didn't push it hard.

But if you ran a load test with 20 processes that where each large enough so that only a few could be resident simultaneously, and those processes were all compute bound it got into this pattern that was fair in the very long run, but very unfair in the short run.

You'd have one process get something like 90% of the CPU, and a couple others getting about 4% each, and the remaining 2% would be split evenly among the other 17 processes.

It would stay this way for something like a half hour, then you'd get a minute of heavy thrashing, and then that would clear up and you'd be back to the way it had been, except which process was getting the 90%, which two were getting 4% each, and which 17 were evenly sharing 2% would have changed.

So if you took a long enough view, it was fair.

Something in the 3B2 paging system algorithms apparently did not like very large page sizes, and the other programmer and I working on the 286 port were having no luck figuring it out.

Fortunately, AT&T came to their senses and realized there wasn't much demand for a 286 port, dropped it, and I got moved to the 386/ix project, where I added a simple in-kernel debugger and a dynamic device driver loading system.

AT&T hadn't asked for dynamic device driver loading, but the total size of the kernel including all the device drivers that needed to be included was getting bigger than the boot code we had could handle, and the people dealing with the boot code claimed it was obtuse and ugly assembly code that would be very hard to rewrite to handle large kernels, and so I somehow ended up being assigned making drivers dynamically loadable so we could ship smaller kernels.

I got it working well, but then the boot bastards went ahead and rewrote the boot code, getting rid of size limits, and my dynamic device loading was no longer needed.

I also didn't quite escape the 286. I was half the team that did the 286 Unix binary compatibility for 386/ix. That was essentially a Wine-like thing, /bin/i286emul, a 386 process that knew how to load a 286 process into its own address space, set up its memory space, and start it running, with i286emul handling the traps when the 286 code tries a system call and figuring out how to translate between the 286 system calls and the corresponding 386 Unix calls.

ISC was a fun place to work.
I don’t know dude, I think it’s pretty easy to not make generalizations.
strictly a thought exercise: is it possible to have reasonable discussion when one side considers not having an opinion on a subject or not wanting to discuss a subject with coworkers to immediately be equivalent to "you're equivalent to a white supremacist"?

Note that this is not my own thoughts on the subject, but I'm legitimately curious how you can have discourse in a situation similar to this: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-fires-employee-who-... - what would you do when someone asks? What would the expected result be?
this. and all the bleating over precisely which sort of consistency mongo has when it's a document store that cant gaurantee shit about what version of some entity was serialized into the document you just fetched. calling themselves a database has always been a scam.
Holcomb!!! It's great to meet you again! And yes the community still has perfectionists and artists!

Also do you have any of your old Line Rider videos or .sol saves (specifically "The Amazing Nose Manual", "Manuals", "Watch it Now")? If you do, it would be great to get them archived by Rabid Squirrel: https://www.dropbox.com/request/4tqU7np9RJrfu17LvBae

(LR Archive context: http://bevibeldesign.com/line-rider-archival-project)

If you want to get in contact, my Twitter is @d_e_lu and my Discord is conundrumer#1409
Ask HN: How do you work through large ideas?
I seem to constantly have 1-2 large ideas in my mind that I chew on in the background, which seem to arise (or give way to something bigger) from reading or a lengthy discussion with a coworker or friend. For example: "what is the best way to organize a liberal democracy of >100M citizens?"

I'm wondering if there is an approach people have that best helps to organize, prune, and work through large, fundamental ideas such as these that they'd be willing to share.
Getting a reimplementation feature-complete and bug-compatible enough to actually reliably and accurately run old content is hard work that realistically will never be complete. Most current reimplementation attempts cannot play any but the most simple flash games.

Sticking the whole thing into a VM and just running the original code achieves both accuracy and safety, at the cost of resources. Given that Flash died long ago, i.e. hardware has advanced since then, resources are not a major issue, and are going to be even less of an issue going forward.
With the plus that now a generation advocates it as if it was the very first of its kind.
Intel fabs are in the usa
Trust in Rust.
For just the moment, I sympathize with the person who sent the marketing email out.

I've been there - sent out the wrong email to the wrong group or double fired an email. Worst feeling when it's realized.
And it briefly goes dark and calm "moments" before the Suspension.
It's very possible, likely even, that enormous areas of physics still have plenty of room for major discoveries and subsequent applications to new discoveries. Furthermore, tying even increments of these major possible discoveries to the existing field of knowledge and application would by itself lead to a great deal of new exploration. But what if we haven't advanced much in several decades because we now suffer from or soon will suffer from the Dog Problem?

Basically: no matter how hard you try, you couldn't teach a dog how to perform engine mechanics (or any number of other higher cognition things), simply because its cranial biology isn't up to the task of fundamentally understanding such things. I have a sneaking (layman's) fear that we might be close to our own version of the same thing in certain fields.

It would be nice to argue that AI augmentation of human-led scientific advancement will help us along considerably, but it still seems deeply hand wavy to say that. Sure, computers help enormously with vast amounts of technical number crunching, and enable the practical application of physics (among other fields) in ways that we could never achieve without them, but fundamental, self-directed discovery is still way beyond the scope of any AI I know of or foresee for the near future.
> If you are being accused [...], surely something went wrong

This is "guilty until proven innocent", when exactly did this mentality catch on? Well, in any case I hope the trend reverses because it's directly opposite to how the law works.
wtf is substack?
This heavily depends on field, I believe.
C# even better! Discover your signals with Python and implement your order execution in C#.
You know, hedge funds can afford to hire, and in fact in many cases do hire, good programmers. So not every financial institution that uses java does so because its programmers suck.
I'd love to see what modifications will be made to the nyt story in response to this pre-response
Two jobs ago, I had written something for this; but it was written at work, so I wasn't able to keep it. Also, it was on premises Exhange, not Microsoft's cloud. But I recall, the exchange IMAP server isn't too horrible, although a bit slow. Perl with one of the CPAN IMAP modules, plus a little bit of caching, and I could do all sorts of filters that couldn't be done in Exchange (like sorting read mail into archive folders).
Huh, aren't \xi and \zeta just "squiggle" and "squiggle with a loop"? :P
Yes, althought Symbian already had a Web Runtime by them, and besides having to deal with somewhat cumbersome C++ dialect (Symbian C++), everything that was more than relevant for application development, and the Pocket PC/Windows CE phones as well.
But that's the concern here, isn't it? If the NYT chose to write this article because they heard that Coinbase was actively mistreating its employees of color, that's an important story and I'm glad to see it covered. If they chose to write it because Coinbase wouldn't endorse their preferred political slogans, that's a pretty serious problem.
Avoiding allocations is the key part: "...we avoid all the garbage". I found the same is true when trying to write high performance Java UI code for Android. If you have to do something complex each frame, make sure to pre allocate or pool your objects. If the hot parts of the code are written in a C-like style, then the JIT and other optimizations can give you C-like performance. You'll still need to write C code if you want vector operations or other processor-specific functionality, but writing in C-like Java can give you C performance while still letting you interact with Java libraries & APIs.
You're right. I don't disagree with all those things, but ultimately there is no "we" when it comes to those things. People are lazy and just want the immediate gratification and then wonder why the power gap between the elites them is forever increasing.
It definitely improved. The GC is the area where we see more work between the Java versions
"Chronicle's system is built in what Lawrey describes as "C-like Java" and it's this that he encourages people to code low latency systems in. "

Does anyone have any guidelines for this type of code?
I have read somewhere that there is no benefit of making multiple layers of transistors per chip because you get to thermal limits pretty quick.

We barely can keep 1 layer whithin operating temperature.
the last 3 are less likely. consider, but seek and take advice. If you go in the mental health door, a good one will ask the questions which head these choices off quickly from basic bloods and some diagnostics.
> If Biden had NOT won the election the general official consensus might be that Muller investigation was a hoax

I mean... in some sense isn't that kind of the general consensus right now
Luckily we have journalism and can see what these people claim. Perhaps the article has substance, perhaps it doesn't.

One thing I do know - I would not have read this article had it not been for this post by Coinbase.
While I might not agree with the conclusion of the OP, the performance of a programming language should be always paired with its "average" programmers. A lot of people tend to straw-man a language they dislike and iron-man (?) a language they like. For an average programmer, I think it might be possible that Java produces a more performant/maintainable code than C++.
The issue has nothing to do with a lack of manpower to flip the switch, whether it's 1000s or 5 people, is the point.

People responsible for the product should not have say over the switch being flipped, for obvious reasons (illustrated in other comments in this thread).
I’m triggered.
Sorry about the acronyms, they seem to seep through. That's right, it's chromodynamics, a conventional term after the whimsical naming of the symmetry of the strong interaction.
With uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger, I encountered nothing. No unexpected white space, no cookie banner at all, no close button or animation. This was on desktop though.
It's changed quite a bit, with some of the biggest developments just in the last couple of years. It should still give you pause (depending on how time-critical) but now you have more choices in pause and more pause-knobs.
> But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly.

Yes - I believe you did read it incorrectly. I am personally inclined to trust the NYT more than the words of a CEO of a tech company; I personally put more trust in the former rather than the latter.

As you’ve eloquently laid out - that’s a personal choice I make, and I own that. But I am not declaiming in my comment that the NYT should be inherently trusted by all.

Now - if you want to ask me that question directly: I do think that the NYT is more trustworthy than Coinbase. And if you want my opinion on the matter, yeah - I think you should trust the NYT too!

But: that simply wasn’t what I said in my original comment. I don’t think that’s a fair reading of it at all.

> You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question.

I would answer it by saying you’ve missed the forest for the trees. I was not alleging that the article will be “fundamental truth” - in the sense that every word it says will be true. Rather, my comments in context imply that I trust there will be at least some truth in the article - and that the words Coinbase published serve to highlight the presumed core of truth in the article.

What you’ve said here is nitpicking at a word and ignoring how it’s used in the context of my words as a whole, and doesn’t move the conversation forward.

> This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish".

You’re right; this is devolving into name-calling. And I stand by my usage of “amateurish”. That is a perfectly acceptable word to use in a discussion here, and it’s not even as imprecise as you claim. If you have questions about what it means, of course, do ask.

I’m not going to engage further on this thread. You’re nit-picking at words here in a really unkind way.
I largely agree. Cloudflare requires hcaptcha if you mistype your password a single time when accessing their dashboard. The UX of hcaptcha is not good, especially in a flow where I'm already fixed on goal (doing something in my dashboard). If I need to stop thinking about dns settings or caching to pick out photos with bicycles, that's a really expensive context switch for my brain. And in my experience, you need to do two "pages" to complete the captcha.

By comparison, I've been asked to complete recaptcha exactly zero times day to day (perhaps I'm lucky?). The last time must have been many months ago.

It's hard to speak to the specific UX qualities of the captcha itself, but I find recaptcha generally less difficult. But a captcha that I don't need to complete always wins out over one that I do.
There is photographic evidence of him partying naked with minors, corroborated by witnesses.
An iron man is a triathlon, you are looking for steelman!

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steelman
Yeah I don't know much about MongoDBs past transgressions as a company or have any experience using it so it wasn't intended as a criticism of the company. I just spent a lot of time learning exactly what all these DB terms mean and wanted to point out an inaccuracy so its clearer to people reading.

As you say, eventual consistency only comes in with multiple nodes. And unless you are willing to sacrifice availability, eventual consistency is the only game in town in a multi-node scenario.
> but it takes an extremely uncharitable reading of Harris to get support for the Iraq war out of that text.

I hate to get Goodwins-law on you, but that argument is nonsense for 2 reasons. The first one is that it is assuming the enemy would behave worse than you in your position (with no proof whatsoever) so it is extremely cynical in that regard. Using that template you could use Nazi Germany instead of the U.S and the argument would be exactly the same.The second reason is that even if assuming the enemy(let's say Hussein) would be a monster against Americans if only he had the power, THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY AT ALL to invade Iraq (A country that did nothing to the US and presented 0 actual threat) and kill hundreds of thousands of people, most of them civilians. To me Harris is a genocide apologist and no acrobatic sophistry will convince me of the contrary.
Making nice little statements like this:

> The point is, if you want to face reality rather than live in a comfortable fantasy, you have to confront the possibility that the racists are right about one thing: It's possible that some races really do have less intelligence than others.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889113
#Correction#

After thinking a bit more about the 400, it would be possible to connect a wireless usb keyboard and mouse to it so it would be fine as a media center.
Function names starting with "str" followed by a lowercase letter are reserved. So technically "str" itself and "str_" are not.
> As Brian shared with the ColorBlock ERG this morning, we don’t care what The New York Times thinks. The most important thing we care about is you, our employees, and what you think.

Should probably share the whole quote and not just cherry pick.
> Your brain is not for thinking. Everything that it conjures, from thoughts to emotions to dreams, is in the service of body budgeting. This perspective, adopted judiciously, can be a source of resilience in challenging times.

No. This is such a dreadful, and terrible and empty perspective that disembowels life of deeper meaning and of true purpose. It’s another one of those sad perspectives that tells people that they are nothing but automatons, that their lives are fundamentally meaningless, and that they are a product of “accident or chance”. It’s a highly depressing, and a dark and empty way of looking at life. (For full disclosure, I’m a Christian and believe in God and in a higher purpose for all that exists in this universe.)
I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Unhosted Wallets
I empathize with the poster. Imagine being paid less than someone who works half as hard at another company, but more than your coworkers, to say cringe stuff like that.
As a non-white person, I generally regard people that wear those hats the same way I treat people who wear confederate paraphernalia - from a safe distance far away.
Well done....

~slow clap~
Although I understand that you mean to say Godel's Incompleteness Theorems aren't relevant, this is not because of anything related to formalization. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems don't say any particular theorem can't be formalized. All they say is that there will always be a theorem whose proof requires the assumption of an additional axiom. Very different things.

A lack of a full formalization for mathematics is more akin to a failure of Godel's Completeness Theorem (which roughly states our mathematical abstractions precisely capture the commonality between different situations we choose to abstract over). The Completeness Theorem however is proven to hold in modern mathematics (e.g. first order logic which includes ZFC).

Indeed the choice of whether to use a system fulfilling the Completeness Theorem is a conscious and true choice (unlike say Godel's incompleteness theorems whose avoidance requires giving up arithmetic), and a choice most logicians and the overwhelming majority of mathematicians decide to take. Even in higher order logics where it would appear the Completeness theorem fails, it can be recovered by appealing to a first-order understanding of its semantics. It's so much a choice that arguably you are leaving the bounds of mathematics proper and entering the wider field of philosophy if you give up the Completeness Theorem in the foundations of your mathematical system (as opposed to locally giving it up in a subsystem and analyzing it in a semantically complete metatheory).

Put another way, mathematics is precisely the study of formal objects and its standards of rigor entail that its own proofs are themselves formal objects that can be studied in their own right.

Arguing against the formalization of modern mathematics is akin to arguing that there are certain CS algorithms which cannot be turned into code. While there are certainly conceivable processes which cannot be implemented in code, algorithms in CS are essentially definitionally required to be implementable in code. Anything that is not is outside the purview of algorithms as understood by CS.

If we find a proof which essentially cannot be formalized the reaction of the mathematical community will not be to reject formalization, but rather to question the rigor of that proof. This is similar to the reaction that the computing community would have if it were to find a purported specification of an algorithm that turned out to be essentially unimplementable.
So what I take away from this is that one company, TSMC, is at the forefront of chip manufacture (with Apple M1 and now Google), whilst being a few miles away from a Chinese administration that sees a recalcitrant province not an independent country.

Our societies are like inverted pyramids- balancing on surprisingly small foundations that can tip over with more ease than we care to admit.
Unfortunately journalism is primarily used as a political tool these days, almost anything you read has an agenda.
It's OVH.
Sometimes I feel this approach is simpler than making everything into an Object. It usually results in less files to deal with.
Export and manage Azure Policy as code with GitHub
Hao Test
>"but writing in C-like Java can give you C performance while still letting you interact with Java libraries & APIs."

Assuming those libraries do not do allocations of their own negating all the efforts.
Uh oh, I thought that was the correct one.

We might need to ping the patch author "xueke pei (yuzukyo)" to make sure I have that correct... and make sure I'm pointing at the correct thing. :)

https://developer.blender.org/p/yuzukyo/

---

Blender doesn't really have any presence in the CAD/CAM space because (my understanding) is the geometry Blender uses isn't "solid geometry".

Because it's not solid geometry, Blender isn't able to export to any of the widely used file formats in CAD/CAM. eg STEP, IGES, 3DM, etc.

Nor even to other OSS packages (eg FreeCAD), as they too use solid geometry.

---

Solid models are used in industry (CNC, plasma, waterjet, etc), somewhat similar to how STL files are used in 3D printing.

With 3D printing, the model file (eg STL) is turned into a gcode action plan for printing by a slicer. eg Cura (https://ultimaker.com/software/ultimaker-cura)

In industry, the model file (eg STEP) is turned into a gcode action plan for the machine cut out the part by CAM software. eg MasterCAM (https://www.mastercam.com)

---

With that branch (D6807), my understanding was it enables proper in-depth NURBS (solid geometry) support.

The commit comments in that branch indicate it also allows importing of Rhino (3DM) and subdivision surface (subd) files.

If that's the case, it's the needed foundation piece to allow for creation of importers and exporter for widely accepted CAD/CAM formats.

The second an even basic STEP exporter is functional in Blender, it will start pulling users across from the expensive proprietary CAD/CAM systems. As almost no-one actually wants to use them, it's just a "lack of choice" problem. ;)
To let the fans have a bathroom break.
I've learned that folks end up unintentionally installing software which acts as essentially "proxy server as a service". I've heard of browser extensions doing this, but I would be unsurprised if mobile apps did it. Every holiday I do a sweep of my parents' devices to make sure they haven't installed anything silly (my mom somehow always has three or four different weather apps). I'd suggest giving it a look the next time you can.
Tim Draper absolutely called the Carreyou articles hit pieces, and I'm fairly certain still believes that.