skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's a quarter. See:

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/8817.jpeg

https://images.macrumors.com/t/hIKaZ3dlMYeHuw-3yqiPbLiHtnc=/...

And, yes, it's still significant, but it's also lower margin revenue than other Apple products.
Here's one from Surface Pro X with Microsoft's SQ2 chip that they customized with Qualcomm: https://www.windowscentral.com/surface-pro-x-sq2-review#benc...

Switch to Geekbench 4 for x86 vs. ARM for emulation on the same device.

One of the definitions of revolution is:

> a dramatic and wide-reaching change in the way something works or is organized or in people's ideas about it.

Apple didn't change from a x86 CPU to a ARM CPU, they went from a third party Intel CPU to a complete Apple-designed/customized/built system on a chip (SoC) that includes the following: an Apple CPU (4 high-pref/4 high-effiency cores), Apple GPU that's using Apple's TBDR implementation, Neural engine (ML accelerators), ISP, media en/decoder, disk controller, Secure Enclave, Unified Memory Architecture with memory dies on the same package that allows all of the cores to talk to the same memory space without copying back and forth, and so much more. They did all of this in a familiar package that runs faster, quieter and last much longer without major impact on the customer's experience.

A complete package that was executed well on the first try and for some, this is considered to be a game-changer. Especially as it is changing many people's understanding of how a laptop should behave, specifically not having to worry about heat, battery life and having too low of memory as Apple's UMA actually makes swapping to disk a non-issue, there's no difference in the overall experience.

SPX isn't a complete package either, it uses Microsoft customizations on top of Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8cx CPU but solely Qualcomm's GPU, Adreno. I don't think there's anything else that MS has customized for SPX.

> From what you're saying the most important improvements have been the emulation and that it is better supported.

That's just one part. The overall experience matters. You can invent a technology that changes the world but if no one can use it well, it wouldn't matter much until someone take that technology and make it useful. Sadly, it's the latter that matters the most.

It's the same thing with iPhone being called one of the most important technological revolutions. iPhone was definitely not the first nor the second touch screen mobile device but it was a complete package that sold it, just like these Macs.
We pay similar gas tax in the US, but we don't pay it at the pump. There are direct subsidies around $20 B/yr [1] and indirect ones, such as $2 T for a couple of gulf wars which were clearly about oil. Then there's spills, climate FUD from the oil companies [2] which will cost us for centuries in floods, fires, and other climate exacerbated disasters.

If anything we need to tax the hell out of fossil fuel to break even with its actual costs.

1. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...

2. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-10-21/oil-com...
So I can potentially recycle my used SSDs?
I mean, this is Dan Abramov we’re talking about. Ya know, the guy who created a good chunk of React.

I’d say he built actual products for the web just fine.
> in modern multicore, multi-CPU devices, the CPU itself is now basically a network, the intercommunication between all the CPUs is another network, and calls to disk I/O are effectively another.

Interesting take, and NUMA CPUs have felt networked to me when I've used them, but typical multicore UMA CPUs sure haven't... is there a reason to believe this will change (or already has), or did the author mean to only talk about NUMA?
Your link just goes to the Google Books homepage in my browser
By respect I meant that I didn’t attempt argue with her husband about it, or say anything to her, which would have been pointless anyway.
A tired, cranky kid will pretty clearly be unhappy, but he won't know it's because he's tired and he might even argue with you about it.
This is the idea.
Check out the LSP plugins. Don't think they can replace all calf plugins but I've been starting to replace the calf plugins I use with them. I like their equalizers better than the calf ones. Been starting to check out their filters. Their room builder looks pretty awesome but I haven't played with it.

https://lsp-plug.in/
Yeah and that’s totally fair.

But success isn’t necessarily a good thing. I’d say Facebook has had an extraordinarily negative influence on the world regardless of its success.

Also 99% absolutely do not want an automatic vehicle, I’m assuming you live in the US but it’s not at all like that anywhere else.
What are stacked reviews?
I think if anything is becoming clear from apple’s new direction it’s that putting everything on the same chip is a lot faster! I guess one thing you could do is have a chip that’s potentially faster in the phone and have better cooling in the laptop but even that seems kinda pointless with the air having no fan anyway.

I can’t see apple doing this ever, it’s just too messy for them!
Even with bone conduction recordings don't come close to the reality of an artillery barrage up close and personal.

The shaft of flame out the muzzle, the intensity of the shock, it resonates through the whole body, shocking even the meat.
because many people in the HN audience want to or do make money trading from home on their computers, and the content of the article matches this audience
Yes, it suddenly brings so many facets of modern life into clear focus.
Where's the best place to suggest a new feature or improvement for PHP?

I've always wanted to see `foreach` get a built-in iterator/counter so you don't have to create and use a counter variable manually.

Current way:

$i=0;
foreach ($array as $key => $value) {
echo "Loop $i of " . count($array);
$i++;
}

Possible new way:

foreach ($array as $key => $value, $i) {
echo "Loop $i of " . count($array);
}
> when I used to teach LaTeX classes to math department secretaries back in the late 80s, they would be impressed with my typing speed.

I can't help but read that in the voice of Oval Office squatter-in-chief. “People are really surprised I understand this stuff,” he said. “Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.”
Terrible.

If you gave a made up number could they tell?
For anyone wondering specifically why Guix, the author is playing a Chapman Stick[1] so clearly enjoys a challenge.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GS0nKIebCc
Yep, with inferior pen support and slow devices.
Is this a cultural thing? I have noticed that people from Latin cultures are very generous, particularly with the hungry.

I was at a small Mexican restaurant, waiting to order some takeout. Outside, on the pavement, there were a few diners enjoying their meals, including a Hispanic person who looked like he worked construction or some similar trade. A vagrant was passing by, and he slowed down, ever so slightly, at the sight and smell of the delicious foods inside. The diner quickly called out to the vagrant and said he should order something for himself; it would be paid for.

It was a spontaneous act of charity from someone who was not too well off himself. It made quite an impression on me.
https://github.com/fthomas/refined
For pipelines, studio pipelines extend to far more than just the file format as I/O. It's things like integration of asset management tooling, referencing setups and the ability to send data easily between applications and departments.

Blender has alembic support which is great for geometry, but its USD support is still nascent and limited to export. Additionally because it doesn't use Qt, it's hard to integrate tooling that can otherwise be shared between apps. (note there are third party projects to integrate Qt in Blender).
It's also only recently that Blender has started following the VFX reference platform, which previously meant that all your dependencies and Python code needed to be redone to support Blenders versions.

The support for things like OCIO etc is also relatively new.

With regards to the Blender foundation and support contracts, it's quite different than what a traditional support contract offers.

Usually a support contract means you have a dev that responds to your companies needs, where they'll support you with custom builds of the software if needed, including back porting patches to your production locked version.

The Blender foundation instead takes donations towards development of future versions of Blender and it's still very hard to convince them to support specific studio needs. You're most likely NOT going to get backports of fixes to a production locked version of Blender.

It's only recently (2.83) that they've started having LTS releases..

----

To caveat all of this, I'm not saying Blender shouldn't be used for productions. It's very capable. I'm just providing perspective on why it's not finding a strong foothold against incumbents even when it has some very strong on the surface features that Maya doesn't for example at an infinitely better price.

I have confidence that the Blender foundation are moving in the right direction after what seems to be a cultural and priorities change with 2.80 onwards.

Part of the 2.80 changes also brought a lot of outside funding from Epic, Ubisoft, Facebook and more that I believe will help steer Blender well in the future to unseating Maya etc.

I don't see Blender unseating Houdini anytime soon though.
This is a key common thread in all these discussions. At so many development shops, developers have no agency to push back against poor quality. They don't have a license on the line that they can stand behind and firmly say "NO we will not do it that way or I could be personally liable for its failure!" When they point out that they're shipping buggy crap, the response simply is: Ship the crap on time.

It's strange too, you hear in other threads about how high the demand is for software engineers, how high their salaries are, how much negotiating power they have with their companies, but when it comes to the actual product content, suddenly they have no power at all and it's just Yes boss, whatever you say, boss. How is this true?
Voodoo black magic :)
Windows Mixed Reality, HoloLens, Azure Spatial Anchors, Azure Kinect, all fairly large projects (well, except Azure Kinect, but they have kept it around a lot longer than I would have expected, so they seem pretty dedicated).
(Googler here)

> Because it benefits Google.

Developing internal tools does not always benefit Google. Sometimes there is just no alternative at the time it's needed, so Google has to develop something that might become a liability later, accumulating technical debt and stagnating compared to a newer open-source shiny thing. Sometimes it's NIH syndrome, or, in other words, wariness to adopt external solutions there's no control over and that do not fit Google very well. However Google does have a healthy internal ecosystem with clear product life cycle and balanced planned/organic change.

> Because that would benefit the competition.

Usually Google benefits from its protocols/tools/projects being used out in the open (TensorFlow, gRPC, Kubernetes, Angular, Android, Chrome), and that includes competitors.

There are plenty more mundane reasons this does not happen:

- Some of the tools are so dependent on the internal ecosystem that it would make little sense to open source them in a standalone way. There are many things at Google that only exist in one single deployment in the world and turning them into a deployable product for another setting would be a huge task without clear purpose. Also, it's hard to opensource operational knowledge and expertise.

Google Cloud is an example (positive or negative, depending on your point of view) of efforts to repackage many internal services in a way that is well-documented, supported and accessible to anybody.

- Open-sourcing is a spectrum: just throwing code over the wall (the worst one), controlling a project and allowing external contributors, cooperating with other big companies on a standard solution, supporting a more hobbyist-oriented project in line with its own needs. Every option has its own set of challenges and coordination problems. It's not always easy to reconcile the internal development model and open source workflow. It's not always easy to keep delicate power balance of working with a project instead of taking it over by engineering weight and influence.
Something that has happened in the past is an employee stole a valuable book(s) and then died and their children inherited it without knowing what it was. The public appeal reached the kids who then returned the books.
I was about to complain that this would only cause fragmentation, but the fact that it uses other package repos (vcpkg and conan being the big two for C++) sounds like a really good move. AUR integration is really nice as well.

Does anyone have experience with xmake and can offer some perspective on how well it works? CMake not really working on windows without MSVC and MSBuild is still a pain point; I've been bugged by it for a long time but without a viable, cross-platform alternative.

How well does it scale? It looks easy enough to start with, but I've been bitten before by tools that are easy for trivial examples and don't work well for larger projects. Ugly as CMake might be, it works pretty well for big stuff.
Why Is All Covid-19 News Bad News?
Yeah, in particular the Mac mini has a lot of curb appeal as a 10+ year micro server. Considering it's plugged in and the fan should only spin up occasionally, it should last a long long time.

I'm pretty sure we'll have Linux running on it by then. Perhaps just CLI only.
Raspberry Pi Zero Webcam with ShowMeWebCam SD Card Image
I think I had issues even with mbstring, for some characters like "œ". But maybe I'm wrong.
So does blue fade more or less in the outdoors?
What You Need to Know About NPM Workspaces
I think alcohol fits into the puritanical framework pretty well actually. hangovers are built-in retribution for people who consume to excess. I suspect puritan types find it particularly upsetting when drugs do not punish their users the next morning.
> A fear of breaking things means WP shies away from large-scale changes that would help it become a modern-looking PHP app.

They are strongly advocating Javascript as the future of WordPress right now, so I'm not sure if they would like it to become a modern looking PHP application.
There's plenty of room for communities out there. Being willing to share your secret sauce doesn't necessarily ensure you have direct competitors, it means you are establishing a foundation that others can build on. And it means others may contribute to your efforts.

It's a little like open source software. It's pretty unlikely that every SaaS provider needs to write their own DB and gain a competitive advantage that way. Why not work together to maintain one?

Communities like these then succeed a little more based on their own merits and what they add beyond the table stakes instead of just happening to get the right combination together at the right time.

I help run a community myself, but I'm tired of doing so for getting back very little of what I give. This post has given me some ideas on how to continue my journey a little more sustainably.
Hi, we are guilty but let us tell you we are not. We are borg.
Yes that's what the JVM calls it - and then the node the ties together the state is the virtual object.
I've seen the same when visiting Brazil. It's more common to give the homeless food than money. Pai would go out to give someone food and a "fica com Deus" pretty regularly.
> I'm curious about why the author's using Jack1 rather than Jack2. Is Jack2 not available for guix? Jack1 has a bunch of limitations compared to jack2 and hasn't been in active development for a while apart from bugfixes.

I write in a rambling little post I made last year about my Linux audio mastering workflow [0],

>> We will be using jack2 because using jack1 in 2019 is stupid! The multi-threading, MIDI, and other various features of jack2 are deal-breakers, not nice-to-haves.

In my experience, the need for jack2 is amplified even further when you want to work with modern plugins like the ones you mention at KVR.

> Being able to arbitrarily patch the inputs and outputs to any other input and output between jack aware software is honestly one of the coolest things i've seen.

Indeed! When I was a studying audio engineering at university this was a huge revelation and few of the professors & professionals I was surrounded by had any idea this functionality was out there. The fact that it was FOSS blew their minds.

If you want to go even further down the modularity rabbit hole, check out non-daw [1].

[0] https://grathwohl.me/2019/05/05/linuxmasteringflow-1.html

[1] https://non.tuxfamily.org/
There's some value in raw numbers, especially at scale. It's reasonable for a company to care about how many views a product page, how to, or topic page gets. And it's a proxy for a lot of other things that are really hard to suss out. (Though you can measure things like how far people read/watch, time they spend, etc.)

But for me personally, I mostly go by what I want to read and I don't really care if an SEO plug-in is telling me I should be writing at a sixth grade level--which is the level a lot of these tools work at. (And I'm often working with experienced editors who have a pretty good sense of what their audience/desired audience is looking for.) They're also not mostly ad-supported so there isn't a lot of incentive to go for pageviews for the sake of pageviews.
What do you mean by "if you translate to C/C++ row major order?"

What I meant was: In FORTRAN, you idiomatically do Struct-Of-Array=Column-Major order by default, In C/C++ you do Array-of-Struct or Array-of-Pointer-to-Struct (both of which are Row-Major) by default. The former tends to be much more efficient than the latter in computational code.

It turns out that, often and especially in computationally intensive code, only a small number of fields of an object/record are used in every part of the computation pipelines, but almost all records are.

As a result, if you do your data in column major order, then the cache usage patterns reflect that - whereas if you are in row major order, a lot more field get loaded into cache when they are not needed (thus, much lower cache utilization and lower performance).

FORTRAN did not have structures until quite late (FORTRAN-95 has them for sure, but IIRC FORTRAN-77 and earlier didn't). Thus, the idiomatic way to do stuff is have an SoA=Coiumn-Major implementation, rather than the C/C++ AoS=Row-Major order.

Furthermore, FORTRAN didn't have any pointers. As a result, most code was written with very little pointer chasing / foreign key reference chasing -- which also contributes to efficient use of cache and memory bandwidth.
If that also includes MHEV then the statistics tell nothing. I bought a new Audi A6, it's a quite massive 3.0 diesel (210kW / 282 hp), I was actually surprised it's a hybrid when I went to register it and pay the "tax" - I got 50% off because it's a hybrid. I had to actually look it up on Google. It turns out most new Audi cars are MHEV, which is basically only used when the car is "coasting", the motor is decoupled from the rest and if you don't disable Start-Stop then it will also be turned off. Now in this special circumstance there is an additional battery + small electric motor that will only help to start the engine again. That's it. The motor doesn't really pull the vehicle. It does save some fuel especially on the highway, but not in the city. Audi mentions up to 0.7 liters / 100 kilometers for Audi Q8. I see it mainly as a benefit for the driver, in most EU countries you pay a lot money for bigger (more kW) cars.
How those modern API runs on old HW?
Reading articles like this makes me want to avoid Haskell.

It seems like the language is so over-complicated that it requires developers to invent an entire religion to be able to effectively apply it to real world use cases.

From the perspective of a non-Haskell coder who worked with many different mainstream languages, I find that many articles written about Haskell, Erlang and Elixir seem to have no meaning outside of their own narrow domain; they try to present some solutions as some universal insight which is applicable to all languages. In fact, they seem to revolve around solving problems which the language itself created and only exist in that language.

I like languages which stay out of my way and don't create any new problems or require inventing unnecessary abstractions and ideology (my OOP philosophy is so simple, I could explain it to a 10 year old). I can't believe that you would need several articles to explain to developers how to do something as trivial as validation. It's not rocket science (...well it shouldn't be). In the communities I participate in, most developers seem to intuitively know how to do validation... There are multiple ways to do it. You just have to think a bit to figure out which way is the best for your project.

A lot of these trendy languages seem to be on a futile mission to try to automate away some of the complexity of building software. Building software is irreducibly complex because there are always going to be a huge number of possibilities at every step; this is because the real world (which software tries to model) is complex, always more complex than it seems. That's why I like simple expressive languages which stay out of my way. Any tool which constrains my thinking into specific narrow patterns is going to make my work harder and more error-prone, not easier.
respect is orthogonal to agreement. why would it even be necessary to say you respect someone's decision if you agree without reservation?
“Writing well” often takes different shapes in different contexts. The author’s example seems fine, maybe, for product copy, but it certainly isn’t applicable everywhere.

If you (or the author) disagree, then you have to explain what Jane Austen doesn’t understand that you do.
Yes, this is why I'm careful to limit my criticism specifically to the belief that information can be "owned." That's subtly different from the belief that we can make contracts around information.

But if you ask the average layperson or watch popular media about data, they speak and think in terms of ownership. That's the wrong model, and it leads to the wrong assumptions and conclusions.

From what I understand, this wasn't always the case. The belief rose alongside the term "intellectual property" in recent decades, which was itself popularized by media companies who have the rights to lots of information, and who stand to gain financially the more we shift toward conceiving of these rights as permanent ownership.
I'm going to say something against micro-dosing, but I'm not against it in any way. But for those trying to use this in a medicinal or therapeutic way, you'll want a full dose. Mushrooms would be 2-3 grams, LSD would be 200 mics, etc. THese are generic recommendations depending on variety or process method. Point is, you need a higher dose to be more thorough in making breakthroughs.
I think you could give it a shot with ATA Secure Erasing one of them and seeing if it performs faster. Although 4 months at 50% utilization at (say) 2GB/s is some ~10PB of I/O, so I'm not sure if I would expect what you're seeing to be a temporary slowdown...
As a matematician would say: necessary but not sufficient