skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Because it has worked fine in avoiding bad products so far, and while it would suck for fair players to lose my business, as long as I avoid bad products that is what matters most to me as a buyer.
SMART/Health Information (NVMe Log 0x02)
Critical Warning: 0x00
Temperature: 32 Celsius
Available Spare: 100%
Available Spare Threshold: 99%
Percentage Used: 1%
Data Units Read: 42,513,003 [21.7 TB]
Data Units Written: 35,670,814 [18.2 TB]
Host Read Commands: 444,309,142
Host Write Commands: 237,126,099
Controller Busy Time: 0
Power Cycles: 213
Power On Hours: 199
Unsafe Shutdowns: 13
Media and Data Integrity Errors: 0
Error Information Log Entries: 0
The Undercover Anti-Fascists
"If you learn for Rails, start with 5.2.3, webpacker and the other black magic in Rails 6 will frustrate you and currently eliminates a lot of the ease of getting started and building relatively sophisticated web apps quickly."

Anyone else agree with this?
I don't think you can draw that conclusion from that code. I've been using Python for a few years and moved some projects to static type checking. It's not always worth the cost in every situation, of course. For such a simple script I wouldn't add type checking. But for larger projects where there are multiple classes and a lot of types, I've found that the effort is very much worth it: a lot of type errors are found faster (some of them hadn't been caught by unit testing), the code becomes more consistent and easier to read, and developing is easier if you have an IDE that understands the types and gives you appropriate suggestions.

It's also worth it in plumbing code, as it tends to be more difficult to test properly and having types will catch a whole class of errors.

The fact that the program at the bottom of the article can be simplified is not an issue of typing, in fact static typing could also be used in your approach without any issue.
Perhaps because the person that they used as their main source said they completely misquoted him and that he believes it was complete BS?
Nope. I played Ultima Online, for too long, and co-ran a shard for a couple of years.
Interesting and confirmed in the write() syscall man pages. Thanks!

Do you have any other resources regarding these types of low level "gotchas"?

I remember PostgreSQL having such an issue two years ago for example.
In Italy it's basically expected to use foreign heroes in pop culture, ever since fascism (and its farcical fall) effectively corrupted any sense of national pride. We went from a situation where "Superman" was considered too anglo-sounding under Mussolini (so he was renamed "Nembo Kid") to a postwar expectation that Italian-sounding heroes are just not credible. This was compounded by the Hollywood influence, which in Italy was stronger than average (Cinecittà studios in Rome produced quite a bit of US movies in the '50s/'60s, think "Roman Holiday" etc).

All the most popular comic book characters written and designed by Italians are not Italian: Tex Willer (US), Zagor (US), Dylan Dog (UK), Martin Mystère (US), Nathan Never (US), Diabolik (acting largely in UK)... Italian characters are typically relegated to parody strips, or stories strictly linked to local issues. Occasionally you have stuff like Ranxerox, which takes place in Italy but with people carrying anglo names.

One of the most Italian characters in comicdom, Dago (a Renaissance renegade adventurer, banished from its native Venice), was actually created by Argentinian authors Robin Wood and Alberto Salinas. The Argentinian school really knew no thematic boundaries whatsoever, and produced a number of great series in the '70s/'80s.

Somewhat ironically, the comic-books of the most traditionally-American characters ever, Disney's Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, have been largely created in Italy in modern times. Local demand for "Topolino" and "Paperino" (their Italian names) grew so large over the '70s, that the company started training their own authors in Italy. In the late '80s Disney even set up an academy in Milan to mass-produce artists and stories; it lasted 25 years, creating stories that were then published all over the world, including the US. This also means that the Disney character roster is significantly larger in Italy than pretty much anywhere else - only some of the new characters have been introduced into US canon.
No matter what, if you are tying yourself to a mobile tower, you are leaking a fair amount of information to your cell provider (and whomever is running the tower you connect to).

And like a sibling comment said, the ADSP firmware is not being reverse engineered, and that doe a lot of the heavy lifting for cell tower connections.

In the original goal of the Librem 5, that is why they advertised an IP only phone tied to matrix. The idea is you don't need to connect to a mobile tower.

However, one avenue that may be interesting to explore is the use of WiFi calling as a means to bypass a lot of cell tower insecurity. In WiFi calling, somehow you connect all of your telephony/SMS/MMS through your WiFi (I assume it's through a VPN). However, when you sign up for it, you have to provide an address for e911 (presumably since they cannot figure out your location via cell towers). I would be curious to see if you can make a WiFi calling only phone, and in the process, you can completely turn off your modem.
Go through the twitter thread. there are other users with much more reasonable numbers.

The parent tweet is a clear outlier.
>It’s only “by that logic” if you equate bad reception to explosions.

If you keep moving the 'logic' goalposts to justify 'Apple is the best', then let me point out to you that bad reception IS just as bad, if not worse than batteries that could potentially explode.

If you've got an accident or an emergency in a more remote area and can't get a reception to communicate all the details to the emergency services in time, then you or others could very well die.

And, as opposed to batteries which due to chemistry reactions are more unpredictable and complex to lab-test for real world use, antenna design and reception quality can be easily tested in the lab before launching the product (RF engineer here), instead of blaming the users for "holding it wrong", so Apple gets no pardons from me on this life endangering fuckup.

Plus, the phones with battery issues that have actually exploded were not more than a handful, so the risk of you actually being affected was low but all were recalled and refunded vs iPhone 4's poor antenna design which would plague all the phones, all the time and instead of a recall you got a rubber bumper lol.
Yes, good point. Still, when working on a shared codebase, it's good to take more potential beholders into account. I suppose if there is a common, consistent style that you can expect everyone to be familiar with, you can get used to reading a sensible amount of chained ternaries.
It's crazy to me that every other language doesn't have a Rails, literally just a clone. It has been so obviously valuable, and is now so well understood.
Rails has support for database transactions, but depending on what you want to do, things won't be magically transactional all by themselves (that said, it's really just a matter of wrapping transactional code in a block).

There are a couple of footguns in Rails involving transactions - by default, validating uniqueness of a column in Rails will be done at the app layer which is prone to race conditions, and with a typical CRUD model for an application, there's nothing in particular preventing overwrites of model data if say, a field was present on a form and two people were editing it, even if the "later" editor made no changes to that particular field.

When multiple systems and things other than databases (or multiple databases) are involved, you're generally on your own as well.
I think people feel like they're the cause of something when they make a choice and then cause something by that choice. That whole choice process is carried out by physical reactions in our mind. Neurons fire and produce the thoughts representing alternative choices, the neurons fire to process the choices, to come up with different ways of judging the choices, the neurons fire in a way that picks the choice with the highest expected value, and then they fire in a way that produces a good feeling for thinking it through and making a choice, in order to weight the other neurons into doing this process more often. To our mind, from the inside, judging and making a choice feels like a basic feature of the universe, because it really is a basic feature of our brain itself, but that feature isn't a basic element of the universe, it's implemented in physics and neurons.

People are evolved to consider the decision process as a basic element in the world partly to recognize the decision-making ability in others, so we can instinctively predict other people's decisions, and know that we may be blamed by others for our decisions, and do that we can blame others for their decisions. So the ability to make decisions feels like a basic element of the world in ourselves and others, but that feeling is evolved into us to make us effective socially, it's not an element of the universe.

If you made an AI and an entirely self-contained virtual world for it to survive in, and you peeked into its memory, would you expect to find it actually caring (beyond mere curiosity) about whether the physics/software it existed in was deterministic (with pseudo-randomness, though still completely unpredictable to the virtual inhabitants), even though it wouldn't result in any possibly noticeable changes for it? If you traced the AI's beliefs and found that it believed that the correctness or free-ness of its decisions were linked to this question, you would assume the AI was very confused about something.
Wood burning at home now biggest cause of UK particle pollution
Greek bailout talks: Are stereotypes of lazy Greeks true? (2015)
"It's charming you think that we people to try and achieve a fair outcome.

Tribalism rules the day, even in the face of more or less objective facts."

It's charming that you think unions try to achieve a fair outcome. Aren't they a tribe fighting for a they can get? I've seen businesses go under due to never ending demands.

"Collectively bargaining to ensure you are being treated fairly is not holding anyone hostage. Your melodramatic language doesn't do your argument any favors."

And your condescending language doesn't do your argument any favors. The ability of the workers to hold the services hostage from the people until thier demands are met, is very much true. This can be extremely inconvenient, in cases such as teacher strikes, even forcing some people to miss work to stay home with the kids.

"Yet legislators time and time again do what they can to cut funding and decrease worker compensation."

This isn't always bad. Do you really think the government should be giving everyone a pension? It would make sense to move people from defined benefits plans to defined contribution plans. This brings them in line with the vast majority of industry.
Check https://blitzjs.com/
> Does it really matter? If it's used to judge peers all mostly from the same year it doesn't matter too much one year was an outlier.

Right before COVID France went though a complete reorganization of the final high school exam. It was a mess when it was announced, and then an uber-mess when everything was changed.

It was supposed to be a year of "testing" but it ended up being a year of free diploma. Teachers are ready to be much more stringent next near and the ones who will pass are already starting to protest.

Universities also said that they would take that exam (the one last year) with less interest - despite having people who worked hard. Another thing is that the marks were supposed to be weighted by the final exam, so pupils were planning accordingly. Finally no more weight and the plans fell short.

Anyway, it is a mass and will be for a few more years probably.
You wouldn't be able to distinguish between:

A) A universe with God;

B) A simulated universe (where the simulation due to the nature of being simulated will have all the characteristics that lead to the conceptualisation of God, hence being indistinguishable);

C) A fake universe - for similar reasons as the simulation, and conceptually being the same as a simulation, it will exhibit all the same characteristics - the equivalent non computational example would be seeding a planet with humans and letting them go about their lives while keeping an eye on them and intervening when wanted, or the story shown in Truman’s Show - the fake here refers to it not being what it seems, not to it not existing;

D) A universe where consciousness IS the essence of it and what gives rise to it in the first place, making every manifestation in it be direct manifestations of that consciousness and being effectively intertwined to the point where conscious parts can in some way affect the global consciousness and vice-versa, this eventually leads to the idea of A God as well, but is not "God" in the way we usually define it, it just quacks like it;

E) A universe different from all the previous descriptions, as in without an overarching conscious form modelling it - the fact that you would then have both free-will and subjective experience of it (since I think no one will argue that you can NOT "experience" things objectively) would probably lead you (or someone) to formulate any of these other ideas - simply because the universe to be experienceable has to have certain minimal rules - given that the rules/laws supersede the abilities of the subjects (cannot be/have been made by the subjects describing them themselves) it can look like any of the other universes.

A totally random universe doesn't seem to make sense because for it to exist in any way experienceable it has to have at least certain laws that govern its manifestation and any possible perception by “anything” in it, at which point it stops being completely random and has to be one of the other 5 descriptions, which again, will all be indistinguishable.

If this makes sense for you then:

> It is for our own good to surrender to a greater design than our own finite understanding

may or may not be a valid proposition. If you cannot distinguish between them then you have to assume that it might not make sense to blindly "surrender" to a greater design.
> Phoenix and Elixir, if you understand the choices made, is also a wonderful choice

Until you want to integrate Stripe, BrainTree, PayPal or Paddle and then you can't find an official library for Elixir. Even common things like pagination isn't fully solved with well maintained libraries in Elixir. Then there's things like wanting to create notifications (showing unread icons, sending email / sns notifications, etc.) where Rails has this solved with well supported gems but there's nothing like this in Elixir. There's dozens of other things too, and all of this adds up to you having to be an expert in Elixir and have to write all of this functionality from scratch.

If you're in it for the long haul and are investing years into the project with a big team that's fine, but if you're a solo developer building an app and want to focus on writing your app's features, in my opinion Phoenix can't really be compared to Rails. Especially with Hotwire Turbo being recently announced, now you can get all of those awesome real time features into a Rails app quite easily (IMO even easier than Live View).

I started a SAAS app with Phoenix a while back and ultimately backed out of it because all of the above. It just felt like I was in a perpetual state of having to write libraries instead of my application. It was one of those things where I got super excited initially but after 2 years of trying, waiting for certain features to come, etc. it ended up not being for me.

I have no regrets tho because I learned a really big lesson from that, which is if you want to build something now, use whatever tech stack you know right now and if you're very much inclined to deviate from that and learn something new then pick something based on what exists today in that tech stack. Not what's "on the horizon" or "coming soon". You could set yourself up for waiting forever, or if that feature you wanted in the future does come out it could be way different than what was originally claimed and now it feels like you've delayed what you wanted to do for so long for nothing.

In other words, nothing is ever going to be perfect. Just pick something and build it. Also trust what folks do, not what they say.
The SMART info does not include the drive size, which was an omission in my request for info tweet which I regret :)

So 18TB / 256GB = 70 drive writes is 1%.

For the 2T drive, we had 150TB = ~50 drive writes being 3%.

So, it seems this isn't linear after all. But it's also not constant; 150TB would put you at 8% used on your 256GB model with this scaling (instead of the ~23% if it were linear), which is still not insignificant, and would still get you to 100% within a couple years. Though there is significant rounding error with the "1%" figure.

I saw someone else mention 3% on Twitter too and asked for their drive size, so I hope that can give me another more accurate data point.
Bitcoin surpasses $50K as major companies jump into crypto
I still play it
Couldn't agree more. You've spent a lot more time on it than me, but when I started writing my blog posts about writing a compiler this was the reason I started writing about code-generation first -- far too few resources focuses on that part, despite it being far harder than the lexing and parsing.
So if you move or rename this file, you lose all your Kanban data?
Seems like that “feature” might hamper adoption...
I did not see hvidgaards' response until now. It's fairly recent (3h) and way up the thread.

And yes, I'm well aware that the issue is settled for general optimizations.

At risk of repeating myself for a third time: I was curious whether, when only using optimizations that involve re-ordering instructions/finding instructions that can be executed in parallel, there is proof that there exists no optimal solution.

If that's still not clear, I'll quote myself from my original comment:

> Was the assumption that you'd also be (infinitely) unrolling loops or maybe 'rewriting' the program into something equivalent but faster? What does "finding the fastest way a program can be executed" mean? Just re-ordering instructions and distributing them across threads, or something more?

Quite disappointingly that wasn't what they were speaking of, because I would've been quite surprised by such a proof for reasons outlined in my original comment.
There are multiple ways to do things in many languages. And Ruby is a rather sane one.

The worst language in that regard is Scala by far.

There are the "Scala is Haskell" people where everything is a pure function and written in point free style.

There are the ones who think Scala is just Java with type inference.

And the everything needs to be a DSL people.

Or everything needs to be implicit and generic in a static singleton.

There are a bazillion ways to write the most trivial stuff. Use for comprehensions, recursion, higher order functions, or your usual for each loop. If you hate your coworker use some fancy type system trickery. Does not matter pick and choose.

Ruby is mostly confined compared to many similar languages like Python.

I would say that even JavaScript is way more chaotic in that regard.
I don't know about steel plate, but on ceramic, baking at 230c is just not hot enough for good Neapolitan pizza. You want closer to 450c

Sadly a typical domestic oven won't do this.
The Math behind elliptic curve cryptography
“User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”
Great post! If the author reads this, for his/her next article in the series, please google articles on the 'spurious data' approach used by TrackMeNot. In my opinion, spurious data is the best approach to counter tracking, even if it's the least popular. The basic idea is to regularly perform arbitrary actions over the internet. Done properly, it cheapens all the information others may collect about you.
> A need little trick is to explicitly state “begin transaction “ and “end transaction” in my app.

That is exactly what the parent comment already said:

> if you do them in one transaction

The commands you stated are exactly how to do (multiple) things in a transaction.
There is so much stuff to do with your time if you don't have to care about money.

For me, personally, it'd be to invest time in making music, getting good enough in that as my taste is, I just need a lot more free time to practice it. Just like I had when I was a kid learning to program, I've only achieved it due to spending endless hours in experimentation and little projects without usefulness. It's something that is very hard to do, mentally speaking, when you are occupied 8 hours/day with work, I don't have capacity to spend another 4-5 hours/day with music. If I worked 1-2 hours/day I'd definitely have 8-10 hours daily to plunge into it, not only time-wise but my mental capacity would be much more free to put effort in it.

And that can be any hobbies or passions you have that work hours don't allow you to pursue, if money isn't an issue I'm sure you will find ways to fill your time with what you enjoy doing.

If you really enjoy work, well, then you have much more time to work on things you deem worth of.
At this point, this seems to fall into one of two categories:

- A childish fixation on spy novels with no journalistic work put behind, or evidence for that matter.

- A concerted effort to actively and timely harm Supermicro.

How does one write an article, TWICE, unsubstantiated, both times, and tanks the compaby's stock TWICE, and still get away with it.

Hell, half of the facts or occurrences in the article are not even related to Supermicro.

What the hell is even this article
Your premises are sort of correct but your conclusion is not, because it is a hyperbole.

A physicist may not have personally built up mathematics from the base axioms, but he/she can trust that he/she can apply the learnt formulas when appropriate without it, because there are others who done so, and there are overlaps between all these.
Similarly, while there are some problem with reproducibility in sciences (often it is due to lack of knowledge of statistics), there are large agreements in the science community on basic facts.

Understanding science is a mentally challenging thing, and we are by nature lazy. That doesn’t make the easier to understand alternative true.
Christ this explains so much. I just thought my ceiling fan was loud! Does the problem resolve on the iPad? I've been meaning to move all my zoom Calls to the iPad anyways, this might be the final nail!
Exactly!. Is there any evidence that forcing content increases long-term life success to students?, Or is there at least some study on-going?

Schools have many impact vectors, forcing content learning is just one of them, and not necessarily a good one, I'm biased into thinking it's actually bad but it's overcompensated by its side-effects: place of gathering, exposure to higher-than-average smart people (teachers), introductions to some branch of knowledge, etc, and of course, forced-content consuming from interested students that probably would get better results from a self-paced learning system like Khan-Academy
> and my editor won't know to syntax highlight metachars or interpolation

IntelliJ editors do this and it’s insanely useful. Works with SQL, regex and any other language.
Renaissance-Era Venetian Beads Found in Alaska Were There Before Columbus
And when hand-writing parsers, it's fairly common to just use simple recursive descent and all it a day.

Anyone can "invent" recursive descent with fairly little prodding about how to divide and conquer.