skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In a way we are "device", so therefore, it is possible to make intelligence similar and/or more powerful than our is.

I mean, yes, I can have a child and raise her to be smarter than me, but I don't really think that's what you have in mind.

The strong AGI proponents always resort to hand-waving and dubious analogies. There's no reason to think that building ever-larger ML models will produce an intelligence capable of comprehension and insights like a human mind unless you believe the human brain is nothing more than a bunch of weighted vectors.
This is really great,loving the whole code catalog and podcast.

Codeflow looks interesting, but is mislisted as open source in the catalog[1] although private on github, and there’s a new sign up for beta option on their page - I believe it’s no longer open source

[1] https://futureofcoding.org/catalog/codeflow.html

[2] https://github.com/codeflowlang
Impressive that you were able to pull it off in C++17 like this (and extra kudos for the live link), but the resulting code (both template and invocation) looks very cryptic - except for the part commented out; that one is much more pleasant to the eye.
Definitely not. A turbojet is not something you can make work by just brute force.

This isn't a usable turbojet engine, but it did work, for a short while, and that is a real achievement.
https://www.luca-dellanna.com/ergodicity/

I found this to be an excellent overview of ergodicity and its implications.
Author here. I agree that the Rust embedded books are a nice read, and the idea of type state programming --- taking advantage of Rust's ownership and generics system to enforce at compile time transitions between logical states via "zero-sized types" --- is interesting and could be useful in some contexts.

However, that is not what is happening here.
P0 and P1 are distinct types because they are distinct hardware registers.
I think it's great that they're modeled as distinct types; the problem is simply that Rust makes it difficult to conceptually iterate over distinct types (regardless if such iteration occurs at runtime via a loop or at compile-time via an unrolled loop, as per Zig's `inline for`).

An aside about "type state programming": Microcontrollers have a lot of functionality packed into the pins (see the STM32 "Alternate Function" datasheet tables).
Trying to model all of that using ownership of zero-sized generic types would strike me as a "when all you have is a hammer"-type situation.

If a single pin switches between, for example, high-impedance, gpio low, and PWM output depending on what mode your firmware is in, I suspect it'd be a nightmare to pass owned types around Rust functions --- one would have a much easier time (and more likely to be correct) if they checked their design using something like TLA+ / Alloy or implemented the firmware using an explicit statecharts runtime like Quantum Leap's QP framework https://www.state-machine.com/.
That does clarify things. To be honest I thought "Editions" was a product alongside "Cloud".

So Fusionauth looks pretty good - it does a lot more than I need. Though the lack of a "public path" setting is the first roadblock: https://github.com/FusionAuth/fusionauth-issues/issues/88
That system more strongly depends on the (3 + 0.5) 4th dimensional interaction and people generally being honest enough; as well as the hopefully implicit secret of who's orders are in the system.

Though with all the food delivery stuff these days, it wouldn't surprise me for some rando to walk in, grab a reasonable looking number of bags from the output rack, and just walk right out the door. Particularly if they've got the confidence to not look guilty while doing it.
Yep. This article is kinda pretentious to be honest. Most people writing software know these, they just ignore (or work around) some of them due to the complexity of implementing them (cost/benefit doesn't make sense here).
Economists have since refuted the points above:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-01106-x

Read both sides!
I mean, the author could have removed most of the complexity by using Rust HALs.

They just decided to reimplement from scratch their own different solution. That’s completely fair, but doesn’t allow you to make the complexity argument.

It would be like deciding to start a C++ project without using the C++ std library and arguing that C++ is hard because you had to reimplement std::Tuple...
The main takeaway here is exactly this huge risk of gradual deterioration leading to invalid output that appears valid. That a thermometer fails in the hospital or runs out of battery is not a major problem - another one is close by and procedures are in place to deal with it. Meanwhile, a wrong temperature read can lead to life critical decisions by the medical staff (ex. 39 vs 33).

While I agree with your engineering tradeoffs perspective, failing safe is also a major recurring theme in engineering. When errors or loss of functionality happen they should be obvious and stop the system (machine + human operators) from spiraling out of control. A compiler won't silently write integers to a byte* pointer, because that might kill your patient where the parameter goes over 255. A failed display is preferable to a working display that outputs wrong data.

By the way, 14 and 16 segment displays are widely available in passive LCD formats and draw the same power, while the upgrade to dot matrix LCD is not that prohibitive, I had it on my MP3 player 15 years ago.
So is there a best-practice reference data schema example that handles all the problems in this list? Is there a XML/JSON/RFC specification that handles all names in the world and 100% of every edge-case?

Clearly, a database table with only the fields first_name, middle_name, last_name is not enough. So what does a perfect reference data schema look like? Add to that the reference examples of GUI frontends for those data schemas.

Imo, the above would be much more useful because one could copy&paste the best design as into MySql/SQLite/etc as concrete engineering instead wondering what to do about a long list of abstract bullets saying "you're doing it wrong".

EDIT to reply: >A generic "Name" field that takes some sequence of Unicode characters.

There is no major company that handles millions/billions of customer names that uses a single name string field. E.g. Not Netflix/Amazon/Google/Facebook and various government websites.

You may also need the component parts of name (firstname, lastname) in APIs to verify credit cards. You can't reliably parse a single name field for its component parts because an American would put John Smith but an Chinese person could put Zedong Mao or Mao Zedong.

But wait! You're still doing it wrong because "Zedong" in ASCII is an imperfect transliteration of the original Chinese characters which should use full Unicode. Ok I get you... but I still have a credit-card to process: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2004532/credit-card-vali...
This equal part fascinating and terrifying. It reminds me of the concept of “stacks” in Altered Carbon, but keeping the original hardware instead of transferring the essence of you to storage device in another body. Given that there are enough dictators and ultra rich people who don’t want to die, I imagine that some of this research is being done in secret.
Deep Work on the Rise
That being said, I’d at least expect airlines from countries with latin alphabet to support extended latin charsets. Not doing so just complicates things. My name is Müller. This can be translated to basic latin as Mueller (which e.g. is my passport). No English speaker gets that, thus most systems just replace ü -> u, and create confusion in the process as then the name does not match the passport anymore. And that’s just German, probably the closest language to English. I can’t even imagine the troubles of Vietnamese people, whose language got romanized by a Frenchman, to spell their names so that American programmed systems don’t trip up. A little more flexibility in thinking about languages would do American tech companies good IMO.
> There are surprisingly sophisticated (and precise) machine learning algorithms for mono-camera depth estimation

There are, and I wouldn't trust them with life critical stuff. The more accurate ones are not realtime. The hardpart is that they are very noisy. unknown objects wobble about in depth considerably. You need to do lots of filtering to get useful results, which eats into time.

It is very much an unsolved problem. Its one that I'm partly working on now. However for the device that I"m partly working with, monocular estimation is far too power hungry, noisy and generally shite.

> Furthermore, most companies use various focal length lenses.

no, tesla _rely_ on having a wide, medium and zoom camera. However they blended into the same effective sensor to give a better chance at tracking objects. I bet you a $10 that if you block one, the whole system turns to shit.

> The real problem lies in sensor fusion.

Sensor fusion is trivial. Its understanding what they sensors are telling you, thats the hard part.

for example, when trying to turn across oncoming traffic, all the sensors will tell you that stuff is coming towards you, what they won't tell you is if its safe to cross. Thats the hard part. Given that tesla can't accurately place a car on the road yet, they can't safely cross traffic.

Sensor understanding is the problem that is really unsolved. Depth estimation with stereo cameras is 85% of the way there, monocular estimation is no where near that level, simply because robust object recognition isn't going to be a thing for at least another 6 years.
I believe my name is a GUID; at least, I’ve never found reference to someone else with it. My partner’s name is certainly unique.
See also:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26370913
RactivePlayer: Create Interactive Videos in React
Guess I should keep spending time on HN then.
I got a variant of 39 just today, but it's very frequent in Japan: the field for the name required at most 16 full-width characters. Standard Latin characters are rejected because they're half-width. If you really want Latin characters, you have to go with characters in the range U+FF21 to U+FF5A, although in many cases, they are rejected, and you have to go with katakana. Which is also asked for separately.
It would be more correct to say economists misinterpreted what von Neumann said.
FWIW, you can write the conditional compilation example like so:

fn read_keys(#[cfg(feature = "splitapple")]
port: nrf52840_hal::pac::P1,
#[cfg(feature = "keytron")]
port: nrf52833_hal::pac::P0) -> Packet {}

I suppose the compiler could try to suggest that as a fix.
While this might not be a popular observation around here, about all the design choices that have led us from C to C++20 (and soon enough C++23) have been specifically to address problems of this nature. (Rust may someday be as versatile, but that is not on the immediate agenda.)

There is really no reason ever to even consider restricting yourself to C when coding for a microcontroller. The ability to do computation at compile time is essential in this area, and C is just fundamentally lacking. While in principle you could do your compile-time work in the makefile, instead, complicating your build process rarely turns out well.

Some people insist C++ is about "O-O" notions of inheritance, virtual functions, and heap allocation; others, that it is about STL and std::vector. All such people are dead, dead wrong. You don't (generally!) use any of that in microcontroller coding, yet you routinely draw upon all the most powerful features of the language and library to make code that is maximally short, fast, small, and correct. These features put the type system to work for you, not just checking but actively making code correct.

Debugging on microcontrollers is hard enough with a language that makes bad code easier to write than good code. In modern C++ (as now also in Rust), when the program builds and links, it is more often than not right. The more you help yourself to correctness with powerful language features, the more often this happens.

While Zig has features to do computation at compile time, it lacks features to help make that computation correct. Such features would depend on a more powerful type system than Zig provides. Debugging bad compile-time computation at runtime, in a microcontroller, is no fun.
Orwell on tea:

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Christopher Hitchens on (Orwell on) tea:

http://www.slate.com/id/2279601/
I think the gongfu style preparation works great for whole leaf teas, but maybe not so well for Japanese or Indian teas. As far as I can tell, there's no one-size-fits-all method of brewing tea.
Most programs ask for first and last names because they need to know both (a) the subject's full, hopefully unique* name and (b) the first name for informal greetings (the "Howdy, Bob!" when you log in, or "Dear Bob" at the start of an automatic email).

Can't this be solved for 99% of cases by switching from first/last name to asking for a subject's preferred full form name (which would be a string field which can contain arbitrary characters with some huge length limit) and a nickname (where users can write whatever they want the system to use in informal contexts)?

*But any system using peoples' names as unique identifiers are in for a world of pain.
There are multiple solutions, but all requires that the our current power structure decide and commit to solving them.

So far there's no consensus on any level. (Meaning there are not enough people at any level to force, or agree/compromise, or influence the economy, or make it the dominant single issue politically/culturally.)

Sure, participating in it by buying, mining PoW coins (or basically any coin that then - due to hedging/diversification - leads to even more PoW coin mining/demand) while knowing about the external cost is morally problematic. However the actual harm is likely less than doing many-many other selfish (immoral/bad) acts.

If the early crypto billionaires exit crypto and put their newfound wealth into effective altruism the moral calculus changes very starkly.
The difference is that IRL you can escalate the situation which means the person on the other end is incentivized not to let the situation escalate (a visibly pissed off customer isn't a great sight for other potential customers), thus they're unlikely to be as pushy.
Would you have any recommendations for short classics? I like sci-fi and fantasy, but I am very open to any good literature as long as it isn't depressing or disturbing.
It's almost as if there are other countries besides US. We have -40°C winters and +40°C summers here, and if you don't have central heating (which most homes don't have), you can easily get a daily temperature difference of 20°C or so.
Oh wow, never thought of that before. Now I'm feeling a little creeped out. Kind of makes me think of the difference between disk and RAM when rebooting a computer
I recently had a minor scare with my ISP after they started to send me the invoices of another customer with the same name and surname.

My guess is some employee or system had looked the other guy up using insufficient data to uniquely identify him (something like name and surname) and my record had popped up first. This employee or system assumed they did not have to dig any deeper.

Fortunately, I quickly had it fixed, and my issues were limited to receiving someone elses invoice, which included a lot of personal data.

After I told one of my technical friends, he was surprised that there is another guy with the same name and surname. In fact, there are dozens of people with the same name and surname, and one of them is a local celebrity.
Look at it from a computer perspective.

Just because software runs from the cpu, doesn't mean you can move a cpu to another computer and expect the software to run.
Pretty much the same with a hard disk. You can't take a copy of an exe file and run it on Unix just because you have the same hardware.

I have a feeling that humans are not far off.

Just because your brain has all the info when it is working, doesn't mean that the brain stores, loads and manipulates all of it there.

For all we know the brain is just like Ram. And consciousness gets loaded ( initialized) from somewhere else... Maybe ur liver does some fancy pancy DNA unraveling and loading. Maybe it's your gut bacteria that loads your software.... We just don't know. Maybe more of it is distributed along the nerv system around ur body. Where does the brain end and nervous system begin?
Ergodic theorist (occasional) here. Ergodic theory is basically studying situations in which the time average of (almost every) trajectory equals the space average of the system.

This is a widely studied area in dynamical systems.

I am squeamish about such popular accounts. An old account which is readable even today, is by Birkhoff [1].

About Kelly-Bernoulli criterion, the readable account is the book [2].

[1] https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1942.11991212

[2] "Fortune's Formula" by William Poundstone.
https://archive.org/details/fortunesformulau00poun
> I mean, some of these depend on where you live.

Where you live doesn't matter though, the constraint is where your users (or your data) lives.

If you're writing software which works exclusively for a single culture / country e.g. that country's tax return software, then it might be fine to take a much more prescriptive approach to the issue under the assumption that the user's information will match the requirements & limitations of the wider system. But even then it's risky:

> but generally it's not something that's allowed. At least not in the EU.

what happens if the kid decides to move to the EU, do their have to change their name? Or use a transcription?

Also Musk couldn't actually name his kid "X Æ A-12" because that's not legal under CA law (neither 12 nor Æ are part of the english alphabet). Kid ended up named X AE A-XII Musk ("AE A-XII" being their middle name).
The approach to arbitrary compile-time execution seems like a particularly novel feature.
I have, the economists completely failed to refute Ole Peters' points. As a Comp Sci PhD I'm telling you Ole Peters is correct.
> I mean, the author could have removed most of the complexity by using Rust HALs.

What are the "nrfXXXXX-hal" crates they use that provide the Port/Pin types then? What do the HALs provide in addition that would have helped?
Ask HN: How do you vet open source libraries?
I try to minimise the impact of security vulnerabilities, but it just seems painstaking to look through a ton of code. Is there processes that people/companies follow that decrease the time taken to do this?
I deal with so many baffling assumptions developers make on a regular basis, I can only deduce that maybe they know about it, but they didn't even bother thinking about it for a second.
>So what does a perfect reference data schema look like?

A generic "Name" field that takes some sequence of Unicode characters. A separate, optional, "short name" field if you really want the system to address the user in a colloquial manner. But why bother?
Personally I’m not sure I care all that much. It’s just an interesting topic.

That said, pretty much our entire legal system is built on specific concepts of identity. And most contemporary political issues seem based around it too.
"Ergodicity economics" is not a new idea, as others have said.

Peters' claims the contrary, and then claims to "destroy" a whole academic field with one fell swoop.
That's academic shitposting.

That EUT is based on assumptions that have nothing to do with time is quite crucial, and one major misunderstanding.
However, if you read on, you see that Peters makes other claims that don't hold up.

Look at it from this side: Here comes someone trying to carve out a heterodox niche (he ain't the first), but he does it without actually discovering something new and without the proper care for or understanding of economic theory.

This ruffles people's feathers.
Ask HN: Time to Merge
Only asking about work environment, not personal projects or OSS. On average, how much time passes between creating a pull/merge request and merging it in your organization? Do you make any conscious effort to keep this timeframe small? Is the merged code always shipped in the next release/deployment or not? Do you employ any specific techniques on increasing PR/MR throughput (amount of code changes merged) without compromising quality of the final product? Do you think automated test coverage is absolutely critical in this context or it might be possible to improve/optimize while not having a lot of automated tests and relying more on manual QA?
Best Hospitals 2021
The Specialty Coffee Association has standards for cupping coffee, which would seem to be equivalent to these for tea.
How does that quote relate to being white??

Are you implying that non-white or female people can't save money and prototype an idea? I'm lost.
Seems kind of. Could the OP elaborate where his product differs and improves pastebin?
Contrary to the many other "falsehoods programmers believe" articles, this has a strong caveat about domain restrictions.

(What I'm saying is probably an instance of #29, "Confound your cultural relativism! People in my society, at least, agree on one commonly accepted standard for names.")

E.g. if I'm writing tax software for a particular country, it is plausible to rely on an assumption that people have exactly one canonical full name (#1) in a specific format of names (#5) written in a specific character set (#10), because the names have to match a particular single source of truth (gov't registry), and the criteria for names in that registry is mandated by law. Yes, people coming from other countries (#24,25,26,27) may have different naming schemes, however, the same law prescribes how the names of the different languages shall be mangled to fit in the single commonly accepted standard, and that (mangled) version is legally mandated as de facto canonical name in all the related systems. That does come with the caveat of #38 "Two different systems containing data about the same person will use the same name for that person" and #2 "People have exactly one full name which they go by" as that person may use some other name in common life and other documents.

So my point is that names are essentially an arbitrary social/legal construct that can be (and often are!) made to fit arbitrary restrictions.
Aren't the costs associated with creating NFTs included in their price? Who pays to create them?
Can you provide some examples from the article where sexism and racism occurs? I'm not seeing it