skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I can speak to this a bit. My mom is a lawyer and we've talked before about the need for better templating systems. The problem is that the market for solo practitioners and small firms is just not that large or lucrative, and AIUI the market for large law firms is already pretty mature, or at least there's a high barrier to entry.

But there's definitely a need among solo practitioners and small firms, and that need goes beyond templating to include better ways of organizing documents, automating workflows, ensuring security, and so forth. There are companies like Practice Panther which are trying to do this, but the problem I've seen with them is they encourage vendor lock-in and make it hard to do anything not officially supported by the platform.
The author doesn’t understand value of utilities and composition, regardless of the css framework. Unsurprisingly then, recommends awful css in js approach.

Granted the value of composition is most appreciated when you do the frontend of component based apps.

You can use sass, big picture architecture of the styles across app, and also benefit from a shared language with the rest of the team and write less css for mundane things that composition solves very easily (eg. a heading with less margin than default, a messagebox with different font and whatnot, dont create hundreds of classes or modifiers when a few utilities can do this).

Sadly most devs dont understand css precedence enough to figure out how to easily combine custom css and tailwind approach. (use bem style convention, keep specificity as low as possible, ideally 1 )
I think what bothers me the most is that its not just a monthly subscription. When you sign up, you are entering a one year contract with them. Sure, you can cancel at any time...just pay the remaining amount due and you can walk away.
You have to use locking only with inferior frameworks, who never heard of lockless threading or non-blocking IO. Locking also makes concurrency not only slow but also unsafe.
I think this point is worth pushing on a bit harder, which is to say that the "additional details" in the picture are guesses by the software, not actual additional details. The data present in the picture is fixed, the software uses that data to build educated guesses on what was actually there. If the photo doesn't contain enough data to actually determine what a given piece of text in the image says, the software can provide a guess, but it's just that, a guess. Similarly, if the photo doesn't provide enough detail to positively identify a person, the "super resolution" one cannot be used to positively identify them either, as it's a guess made from incomplete data, not genuinely new data.

The point is worth belaboring because people have a tendency to take the output from these systems as Truth, and while they can be interesting and useful, they should not be used for things for which the truth has consequences without understanding their limitations.

You're right to compare this to how our brains reconstruct our own memories, and the implications that has for eyewitness testimony should inform how we consider the outputs from these systems.
My partner has had the opposite experience. They can typically knock out their work in 4-5 hours. Also, they have gained back a total commute time of ~2.5 hrs per day. That's like 24 extra days they've gotten back this past year in commute alone (24 DAYS!).

Granted they are privileged enough to have their own home office, with a door and are able to play music without headphones, and have no kids. As opposed to the office, which is in a cube farm.
Self-responding - adding my position.

I find most of these arguments against Google to be reasonable, inc complaints of monopoly. Personally I strongly mistrust Google and have mostly divested myself from their offerings.

What I see Google did here was to vet the law's claims of fairness (Google gets money from our content so we should too) by stopping that arrangement. Once done, that particular unfairness was ended and the purported aim of the law was satisfied.

The grumpyness following Google's action confirms the law's intention is to create a new stream of tax revenue that AU Gov would grant (for now, anyway) exclusively to AU media entities.

I could potentially be behind a tax->news. Maybe. If it were constructed with more wisdom than this law is. I can not support this law because of it's shoddy construction (firehosing user data? srsly?) and because it's supplied purpose (ending unpaid usage of content) isn't truthful.

A larger issue may be that snippet laws seem to serve to further entrench Google's position by making news orgs dependent on Google for their operating revenue. This seems highly problematic.

It also grants new control over news funding to the AU Gov. If that control can be misused - to forward (AU Gov or 'partner' Gov) agendas - modern history tells us it will be.

Lastly, once this is normalized, who should pay next?
No - 000000 is not based on a statistical model of what’s most likely to be right if the decimal place. In natural images - the statistical structure allows for this image upscaling but without revealing any previously hidden detail - just using know statistics of the world to show what might be there.
> Maximum speeds are already explored.

Also sub-maximum speeds — start at the bottom of the measurements and work up from the 5.37s g++ program to the 0.72s g++ program :-)

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
A classic: mojave experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsStHxtVr_w
If you're using this to try and enhance super grainy CCTV footage to get a face or license plate I'd agree. Purely in the context of this article, the author is just upscaling an already high-definition image 2x. There's very little artifice that can be really added at this level that a human could perceive IMO.
Was King Arthur a Real Person?
> Copying story summaries from AU media sites

I could be wrong, but aren't these summaries published voluntarily as semantic metadata or a feed from the media sites?
Ok. "Afford parallelism => afford high level" with the implication of HL=slow does sound pretty off base. So, fair enough.

FWIW, as per your subtle claim, it all seems pretty hot spot optimizable to me, at least if you include the memchr/utf8-regex engine in "hot spot". I do think the entire framing has much measurement vagueness ("hot", "vast majority", "levelness", and others) & is unlikely to be helpful, as explained. In terms of "evidence", I do not know of a competitor who has put the care into such a tool to even try to measure, though. { And I love rg. Many thanks and no offense at all was intended! }
Even if you shouldn't be convinced of a terminal value thing based on evidence, doesn't mean you shouldn't be convinced of an empirical thing that happens to be associated with or championed by those who are promoting different values.

So, for example, in the climate change example he gives, while it is of course appropriate to take into account possible biases of people promoting one position or another, and ways that those may result from the different values that the people with those biases,
one should nonetheless endeavor to have a tendency to believe what is actually true about the factual matter, even if it were that the people with the wrong values were biased as an (indirect) result of those values, in a way that led them to be more likely to reach the correct conclusion about the empirical facts, than those with the good values.

(Not to say that I think this is the case in this example. Just, hypothetically. Or, what do you call something that is like a hypothetical but without expressing any position about whether the thing is actually true?)

In addition, while they may get tangled up and which is which may change for a given person over time (due to human thought being fuzzy and wobbly), I think it still makes sense to make a distinction between terminal values and instrumental values.
Further, if one values something instrumentally, because one believes that it is instrumentally beneficial for one's terminal values, and it is demonstrably true that it actually does not benefit one's terminal values, then one should come to believe this truth, and so no longer instrumentally value the thing.

I also don't think cognitive error can be entirely reduced in all cases to revealed preferences, because, uh, --
well, ok, one can, of course, model all behavior as arising from a preference to take exactly the sequence of actions that one takes. But I think you will agree that this is not a reasonable model.

People will sometimes understand their past behavior as arising from a cognitive error, and endeavor to address this. I suppose you could regard this as simply conflicting preferences, or preferences about preferences, but I don't think this is the best way to understand things.
> I much rather be distracted by my family than some random dude asking about my weekend.

I never understood this actually. What is so bad/annoying about a colleague asking how was your weekend? When I hear similar things like "Football talk at the water cooler" etc I wonder what makes an individual hate their colleague this much that simple interactions like this become an annoyance.
I'd say there's something wrong with your Windows installation then, in my opinion if you tune your Linux distro for gaming, then maybe (depending on your hardware) you can get on par results with Windows. But more benchmarks are always nice, so let's leave it at that, everyone can decide for themselves

https://www.youtube.com/c/FlightlessMango/videos

https://www.youtube.com/user/beronori/videos
A lot of the time, this might not be a property of the update process so much as the prior itself.

A conspiracy theory is often something that can explain any lack of observational evidence for itself (because it's covered up!). If the prior on the conspiracy being true is too high, the update on contrary evidence will be very weak just because the conspiracy theory makes weak predictions about upcoming observations, so it loses probability mass very slowly as a whole, with probability mass mostly just being shifted within the context of the theory.

("They're covering up aliens!" --> no evidence of this after fifty years? --> "It's worse than I thought; they must be using mind control!")

The only cure for this might be preventative -- just maintaining a strong doubt on deep conspiracy theories. But that also means resigning yourself to never believing in one before it's revealed. If it turns out you live in a reality where the government is using mind control to conceal aliens, you'll not be the one who realizes it before everyone else.
Me too.

I have had to buy a half-dozen kettles in recent years (for more than one place), and they have all failed after about a year. These are $60-$90 kettles, old brands (e.g. Kitchenaid, warning!) with reputations they should want to maintain. Taking one apart, it is clear it was designed to fail after a short time in normal use. (Aside, KA mixers are now crap, too.)

There is a mainstream term: Planned Obsolescence. This is a real phenomenon, a fixed-point of runaway capitalism. We cannot tell by looking how long a thing will last. We have to depend on reviews, but the review systems get corrupted.

This has been well-known for many decades. Gaslighting the OP is nothing but abuse. It is often possible to buy a reliable product in a category, but its maker operates at a sharp commercial disadvantage vs. the shoddy work, by a process analogous to Gresham's Law. The bad products generate more profit, enabling more effective promotion, getting more sales and displacing the good ones. Makers of good products fall into line, or are driven out of business.

So, identifying a good product and spreading the word is the only defense we have.

Some people adopt a policy of never buying anything they have seen an ad for, on the principle that they would be paying for the ad instead of the product. This works, except that many products we need are not advertised. Also, some of us have been successful at largely eliminating our exposure to normal advertising, and even to "placements", advertising disguised as content, and we lose access to that signal.

But I don't think kettles are advertised much.

Buying a cheap kettle with fewer features often works, as there is less to go wrong, and the makers may be still trying to develop a reputation that could command a higher price--but not if you want the features.

So we have to rely on referrals from other buyers who got lucky and happened upon a good product.

The irony is that many of us would be ready, even eager, to pay a premium for quality, but apparently cannot find it at any price, or only at a price that would not enable a quality producer to stay in business while paying employees a living wage.
I can imagine if they implemented something like this, you'd end up with a lot of games shipping untested Linux builds just to get reduced tax.

It'd be awesome if Valve could reward those who develop for Linux and properly support it, but it seems unlikely. At least Proton is improving regularly and is making it better in one way at least.
We’ve entered dating territory. I have to date you. I need to match you.

Yeah, I’ll just focus on Leetcode and focus on the big companies.

I’m not dating you bro, it’s just business. In other words, apprenticeship is dead (for awhile). We will not cater to you.
You basically want Go, but you haven’t learned it yet.
Citation or that's bullsh!t.

If the car you ended up getting was large, as implied, I'd be interested in looking at how sh!te the small car must have been.
That's not how floating point math works? At least not for standard floats (IEEE 754), and except for very large integers (near 2^m, where m is the mantissa of the FP type). Floats have an exact representation for integers within their mantissa range -- i.e., '18' is exactly the same as '18.0000'.
“Eerly premium” should be “Early premium” on the front page.
Depends on what you mean by OOP. If you mean the concept of handles, messages, and fault isolation, then OOP is the right way to structure many solutions.

If you're talking about classes, methods, inheritance, and so on, then it's just a syntax equivalent of training wheels. If you want to progress to biking downhill at full speed, most of this needs to come off at some point since the structure is not suitable for more complex situations. This kind of OOP strongly encourages componentization at the smallest level, much much more than is beneficial from an organization standpoint (subsystems).
Does the distinction matter though? It's getting easier every day for people to access commodity tools to make deep fakes, and it's only a matter of time until the cambrian explosion of indistinguishable visual media arrives.
2021 Waymo Open Dataset Challenges are now live
If you squint hard enough checked exceptions are sum types through other means:

try
foo()
catch ExceptionX
...handle X...
catch ExceptionY
...handle Y...
catch ExceptionZ
...handle Z...

compare that to (borrowing some Rust-ish syntax):

match foo() {
ExceptionX => ...handle X...
ExceptionY => ...handle Y...
ExceptionZ => ...handle Z...
}

with the added benefits that sum types can be used outside of error handling.
which basically means those tests are not required to be sufficient at safe driving, since most drivers drive safely(enough) without being able to pass those tests.

Additionally, i would love to compare car accidents stats for countries with strict rules/very liberal rules and no rules at all(like most third world countries with high level of corruption)
Daily crypto hotlist from aggregated data
you should try wiby.org
People I know with gas or induction stoves use it to boil water because it's faster. This must be doubly true in the US with it's comparatively weak power outlets.
Server-side measures such as network analysis. Statistical models of player performance. Trust-based online gaming models where people play only with their trusted friends instead of random people.

Alternatively, nothing. From a computing freedom point of view, cheating is a form of playful hacking. The game is running on our computers, we should be able to alter it if we want.
Looks promising will try out.

Glad to see competition in the space.
Would be kind of neat if the language supported returning tuples or anonymous types. ie x(a,b,c) is equivalent to {a,b}.x(c)
It's one of those things I picked up from when older people taught me how to drive. Presumably from when hand brakes were more likely to fail than on modern cars. Maybe if someone crashes into the car while it's parked.

Either way I still do it. And turn my wheels towards/away from the kerb on a hill as appropriate. Probably useless but if you have a fail-safe, may as well apply it.
There’s not a lot of evidence that it’s not the locals creating a bubble because of speculation and lax lending. If you don’t believe me look up how nicely private mortgage debt in Canada correlates with the growth in housing prices in Canadian cities. Canadians hold one of the highest rates of personal debt in the OECD.
Yes, they even define terms in their contracts' preambles.

But be very careful about capitalization (it's "Employee" if you refer to the aforementioned employee, not "employee"), a wrong lowercase initial letter, and you may lose a lot.
I think this is probably good for what people use photos for; it lets them show a crop without the image looking pixelated. That means if they just want a photo to draw you in to their blog post, they don't have to take a perfect photograph with the right lens and right composition at the right time. And I think that's fine. No new information is created by ML upscaling, but it will look just good enough to fade into the background.

I personally take a lot of high resolution art photos. One that is deeply in my memory is a picture I took of the Manhattan bridge from the Brooklyn side with a 4x5 camera. I can get out the negative and view it under magnification and read the street signs across the river. (I would link you, but Google downrez'd all my photos, so the negatives are all I have.) ML upscaling probably won't let you do that, but on the other hand, it's probably pointless. It's not something that has a commercial use, it's just neat. If you want to know what the street signs on the FDR say, you can just look at Google Street View.

(OK, maybe it does have some value. I used to work in an office that had pictures blown up to room-size used as wallpaper in conference rooms. It looked great, and satisfied my desire to get close and see every detail. But, you know you're taking that kind of picture in advance, and you use the right tools. You can rent a digital medium format camera. You can use film and get it drum scanned. But, for people that just need a picture for an article, fake upscaling is probably good enough. The picture isn't an art exhibit, or an attempt to collect visual data. It's just something to draw you into the article in the 3 milliseconds before you see a wall of text and bounce.)
In the US, it's extremely common for driving lessons to be provided by secondary schools.

As somebody who missed out on that, I ended up paying around $400 as an adult for 6 hours of private lessons (yes, that was it), plus a $60 fee for the driver's license and a $9 fee for the driving test.
Self hosted
Always free

I like that pricing model
I guess my question is whether the author believes that it’s possible to have knowledge about these sorts of things or not. Everything he says in this article sounds like he’s saying that obtaining such knowledge is impossible, or at least that neither side has obtained knowledge. He seems to only judge the validity of the opposing views by how strongly their proponents believe the views, and since the two views seem to be held equally strongly, he seems to conclude that there is no discernible difference in the validity of the views. But if it were possible to obtain such knowledge, then it would be possible to correctly say “both sides believe their views equally strongly, but side A is more correct and side B is less correct.”
Many programmers are in general very opinionated about their tools. I have no idea why. I do not get all that excited about ways of doing things. To me they are just tools.
PTSD is a continuum and is not something that is clearly defined. The trouble that people get in is when they try to compare or apply hierarchy to trauma; eg: x > y where x, y are traumatic experiences. The whole activity seems rather pointless unless you're somehow trying to figure out what to treat first. That line of thought is fair when dealing with one individual with multiple traumas but when applied to a broader group it incentivizes downplaying and dehumanization. We used to do this a lot in the veteran community but I think folks have gravitated away from it.
The Joyful Bear: Seams in Software Architecture
Sometimes consumer electronics stuff is too bright-- it seems the market has a preference for bright blue LEDs still.

But all you need to do to fix this is color over the light with a black sharpie. It reduces the brightness by 75%+.
oh man, wait til you see the rest of the internet.
one minor nitpick i've got-and i only came on to comment on this- is the title. It looks like a classic example of playing the numbers game. It would be more informative to say out of top 50 etc. 35 work on linux. Since the sample number is quite small, presenting the data in percentages seems a bit disingenous. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it. Even if you say it was written in the context of the article; i will say that maybe the article over presented itself.
Yes, I wouldn't want an army of self supervised learning military mini drones
@steveklabnik, RCU is different from RwLock in that the single writer and all readers never block each other.

Given that RCU is a complex wait-free data structure (though I don't fully understand it), I suspect it may not necessarily be possible to implement it without unsafe blocks, purely in terms of the standard library concurrency types (atomics and Arc can be used without unsafe, but themselves contain unsafe blocks). The general goal is to create an abstraction which encapsulates unsafe blocks such that it's impossible for outside users calling safe functions to violate memory safety. Of course, libraries sometimes have bugs that need to be fixed.
C# had to invent attributes to work around structs vs classes and around TryX methods where out variables are null or not based on the return value. And the issue of arrays of objects or objects inside structs hasn't been resolved yet.
Yet, it doesn't have a proper highlighter pen. It draws a straight line and adds up. If you go over the same spot twice or more text might become unreadable and it will just look wrong. I have been unable to find a Linux screenshot tool that does it right. I use Flameshot on Linux too, but it's the least bad one in my book.
Pipe an FFMPEG output into FFPLAY for testing purposes
> Your original point was that Doom was some huge watershed moment for gaming where PCs and the Internet gained prominence.

No, someone mentioned that mortal kombat and doom were examples of counter culture, and as someone living in rural Australia in the early 90s, I agreed.
You can put only ones and zeros to two stacks and branch against one stack to manipulate another stack. This is enough for simulating a two-symbol tape and thus any TM operating on that tape.
Topaz Gigapixel is quite good though despite the negative comments in the article. I'd rather give my money to Topaz for this one feature than keep paying Adobe subscription fees indefinitely
I agree about the time delay that may happen. This is a valid argument but maybe that wouldn't be so bad if you stayed logged in with cookie/session (you rarely need to log in). It is at least faster than resetting passwords :)

You don't really need the email setup on the device as long as you have a smartphone (which basically everyone has).